Hæstiréttur, Hrd. No. 178/2013, Kjartan Pétur Sigurðsson v. Plúsarkitektar ehf. et al.

Expediente y fuentes

Nombre

Hæstiréttur, Hrd. No. 178/2013, Kjartan Pétur Sigurðsson v. Plúsarkitektar ehf. et al.

Cita

Hrd. No. 178/2013

Tribunal

Supreme Court of Iceland (Hæstiréttur)

Instancia

última instancia

Fechas

Decisión

2013-10-03

Presentación

2011-11-10

Estado

resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada

Resultado

Plúsarkitektar and Saga Film were jointly ordered to pay ISK 550,000; the State ISK 500,000; 365 miðlar was acquitted. Costs of ISK 1,200,000 were awarded against the liable defendants, while the photographer owed 365 miðlar ISK 400,000 costs.

Resumen

The court required intellectual creation, originality, independence and distinctive character. It evaluated choices of subject, composition, viewpoint, sharpness and light, reversed the lower proof assessment after an expert report and found infringement.

Antecedentes

A photographer alleged unauthorized use of his Jökulsárlón photograph in audiovisual/advertising material. The dispute included originality, proof, standing, expert evidence and damages.

Historia procesal

The photographer filed on 10 November 2011; Reykjavík District Court ruled on 18 December 2012. During appeal he obtained a court-appointed expert report dated 27 April 2013, which changed the proof record before the Supreme Court.

Cuestión jurídica

Whether the Jökulsárlón photograph embodied sufficient personal intellectual creation to qualify as a protected work and which defendants were liable for its unauthorized altered reproduction and publication.

Criterio

The court required intellectual creation, originality, independence and distinctive character. It evaluated choices of subject, composition, viewpoint, sharpness and light, reversed the lower proof assessment after an expert report and found infringement.

Fundamento decisivo

Originality turned on concrete expressive choices. The subject, composition, dawn lighting, exposure controls and technically demanding panoramic capture showed personal creation; copying, alteration and omission of attribution by the architects/film company infringed, while the State incurred narrower post-notice liability and the newspaper fell within its statutory reporting latitude.

Límites

Human-photography infringement case. Technical complexity alone was not the rule; the holding rested on identified human choices reflected in the photograph and does not decide prompts or model causation.

Relevancia

autoria-output

Referencias relacionadas

Peso del precedente

Published Supreme Court judgment and the leading national originality authority located; analogical, not GenAI-specific. Integración/votación: The official publication identifies the panel and operative disposition; no individual vote count or dissent is reported, so unanimity is not independently asserted.

Fuente

Referencia

Hæstiréttur, Hrd. No. 178/2013, Kjartan Pétur Sigurðsson v. Plúsarkitektar ehf. et al.

Enlace

Consultar fuente

Autoridad

Supreme Court of Iceland (Hæstiréttur)

Tipo

published national Supreme Court photographic originality and infringement judgment; non-AI

Tipo de evidencia

primary_full_text

Localizador

Dómur Hæstaréttar, sections II and IV-VI and Dómsorð

Verificación documentada

Sí