Newsletter

Copyright Contracts to Follow General Principles – Swedish Supreme Court Rules

by Sofia Studencki

Published: 10 March 2025

On 28 February 2025, the Swedish Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling in a copyright dispute between two authors (Case T 5449-23, "Deckarserien"). The case arose after the Defendant published a second book in a series originally created by both parties, following the end of their collaboration. The Plaintiff alleged that portions of his draft text had been used in the final version without his permission, therefore constituting copyright infringement.

A key element of the case was a supplementary agreement between the parties, which stated that the Defendant would be the sole author of the second book and hold both economic and moral rights to the same. However, the agreement did not explicitly address the transfer of copyright to the Plaintiff’s existing text drafts.

In earlier proceedings, the Court of Appeal relied on a special legal principle for interpreting copyright contracts (Swe. Specifikationsprincipen). It ruled that since the supplementary agreement lacked an explicit wording on the transfer of the Plaintiff’s existing texts, no such transfer had taken place.

For years, Swedish legal practitioners have debated whether copyright agreements should be subject to special interpretative principles, based on the argument that authors deserve heightened protection to encourage literary and artistic creation. The precedential question before the Supreme Court was whether such special principles should apply or if copyright contracts should instead be interpreted under general contract law.

The Supreme Court ruled that while copyright-specific considerations can serve as supplementary or clarifying factors, copyright contracts should primarily be interpreted according to general contract law principles. The Court acknowledged the importance of protecting authors and fostering creativity but clarified that such concerns should be weighed within an overall assessment, rather than forming distinct interpretative rules.

In this case, the Court found that the parties’ intentions could not be definitively determined. However, given the specific circumstances at the time of the supplementary agreement, it must have been clear to the Plaintiff that his draft texts were to be transferred to the Defendant to complete the book. Additionally, since both parties were authors, neither held a particularly protected position under copyright law. As a result, the Supreme Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claims.