Talk:Tomas Gunnarsson
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Copyright dispute[edit]
From the article:
In Sweden, copyrighted works may be used in reviews and critical reviews without consent from the copyright holder under the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression. The exception only applies to publications with an officially registered "responsible editor" (ansvarig utgivare)
This is an incorrect statement about Swedish law, and not supported by the cited source, nor does it appear in the Swedish-language edition of the article. It is however a typical misunderstanding of the law, and may have been posted among the many comments on Gunnarsson's blog. Publications with registered responsible editors enjoy no particular exception with respect to copyright. Part of the legal controversy instead stems from a poorly crafted implementation of the EU copyright directive into Swedish law, where digital publications, unlike conventional media, may not make use of artistic works for the purpose of critique or review. It's most likely an unintended effect of spaghetti legislation. I consider myself unable to post this explanation however, as it may constitute original research (it's my own analysis). --SM5POR (talk) 11:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)