## Facts

- Claes Eriksson, a Swedish film director, created a satirical feature-length film titled *The Shark Who Knew Too Much* (*Hajen som visste för mycket*).
- TV4 AB, a Swedish commercial television broadcaster, obtained the right to televise Eriksson’s film.
- During TV4’s broadcast of Eriksson’s film, TV4 inserted two commercial breaks of about five minutes each.
- Each commercial break was placed to coincide with a scene change and was preceded by a notice stating that the upcoming segment was not part of the film.
- Eriksson objected that the breaks were inserted without his consent and harmed his artistic intentions by interrupting the film’s flow, rhythm, and atmosphere.
- Eriksson also argued that inserting commercials conflicted with the film’s message, which satirically comments on society’s pursuit of money.
- The dispute also involved another director’s film broadcast by TV4 with similar mid-film advertising interruptions; that director had died, and the claim was pursued by the director’s estate.
- The trial court and the court of appeal found that TV4’s broadcast with inserted advertising breaks violated the directors’ moral rights under Swedish copyright law.
- TV4 appealed to the Supreme Court of Sweden.

## Issues

1. Whether inserting commercial breaks into a television broadcast of a feature film, without the director’s consent, constitutes a prejudicial presentation that infringes the author’s moral right (including protection of the work’s “egenart,” i.e., its individual character) under 3 § second paragraph of the Swedish Copyright Act.
2. Whether the director’s transfer of economic broadcasting rights, or customary commercial-TV practice, implied consent to mid-film advertising interruptions or otherwise limited the director’s moral-right claim.
3. Whether the legality of advertising breaks under broadcasting regulation affects the moral-right analysis under copyright law.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ judgments in favor of the directors (and, as applicable, the estate).
- The Court held that inserting commercial breaks into a feature-film broadcast without the director’s consent infringed the directors’ moral rights by injuring the work’s individual character and the author’s artistic interests as expressed through the film’s continuous presentation.
- The Court treated the commercial interruptions as a relevant alteration of how the work is presented to the public, even though the breaks were placed at scene changes and preceded by notices separating the commercials from the film.
- The Court rejected the argument that assignment of broadcasting rights, or the fact that commercial television commonly includes advertising breaks, amounted to consent to interrupt feature films in a way that affects the work’s integrity.
- The Court held that compliance with broadcasting rules permitting advertising breaks did not bar a finding of moral-right infringement under the Copyright Act.
- TV4 was ordered to compensate the opposing party for litigation costs in the Supreme Court.

## Legal Principles

- An author’s moral rights under 3 § second paragraph of the Swedish Copyright Act protect against prejudicial treatment of the work, including presentations that injure the author’s artistic and literary reputation or the work’s individual character (“egenart”).
- For feature films, the protected individual character can lie in the intended continuity of scenes, pacing, mood, and the overall viewing experience; interrupting that continuity with inserted advertising can be an actionable injury.
- Clear separation measures—such as placing breaks at scene changes and using on-screen notices stating the commercials are not part of the film—do not automatically prevent infringement when the interruptions still affect the work’s intended form of communication.
- Transfer or licensing of economic rights to broadcast a film does not, without more, authorize uses that conflict with the author’s moral rights; any consent affecting moral rights must be concrete and tied to the specific manner of use.
- The moral-right inquiry is separate from broadcasting-law rules on when advertising breaks are allowed; a broadcast can comply with broadcasting regulation and still infringe moral rights under copyright law.
- The assessment centers on the author’s protected interests in the work’s presentation, not on whether viewers generally accept or expect advertising breaks on commercial television.

## Conclusion

In *Eriksson v. TV4, Case No. T2117-06 (2008)*, Sweden’s Supreme Court held that TV4’s insertion of multi-minute commercial breaks into television broadcasts of feature films without the directors’ consent infringed the directors’ moral rights under the Swedish Copyright Act because the interruptions harmed the films’ individual character and intended continuous expression, and this result was not changed by scene-change timing, disclaimers, customary commercial-TV practice, or broadcasting rules that otherwise permit advertising breaks.
