Swedish copyright law is undergoing significant transformation, driven by EU jurisprudence and national court decisions. Within the coming year, a series of legislative changes proposed by the Swedish government is expected to remove the long-standing principle of reciprocity in international copyright. At the same time, the Swedish Supreme Court has recently ruled that standard principles of interpretation of contract should apply in copyright contracts, marking a departure from the traditional principle of specificity.
This article will cover these changes and their potential impact on stakeholders creating and using copyright-protected works.
News in Swedish copyright law in the wake of CJEU rulings on material reciprocity
In October 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rendered its judgment in case C-227/23, Kwantum Nederland BV et al v Vitra Collections AG, finding that a member state is not permitted to apply the criterion of material reciprocity unless it is incorporated into EU legislation. Material reciprocity, as provided for in the second sentence of Article 2(7) of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, limits the rights granted to works created outside the EU or by non-EU authors, allowing such rights only if the third country grants equivalent protection to EU works or authors. The conclusions drew heavily on the CJEU’s judgment in case C-265/19, Recorded Artists Actors Performers Ltd v Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Ltd et al, colloquially known as the RAAP judgment. While the judgments concerned different aspects of copyright, it is now clear that Sweden may not impose limitations on non-EU authors’ rights.
In direct response, the Swedish government has proposed amendments to sections 26–28 of the International Copyright Regulation, to become effective in June 2025 and January 2026. Through the amendments, the requirement of reciprocity would be removed for the right to private copying remuneration (sections 26k–26m of the Act on Copyright in Literary and Artistic Works) and the right to remuneration for mandatory licensing of the use of audio recordings in radio or TV transmissions (Section 26 of the Act on Copyright in Literary and Artistic Works).
These changes are expected to impact Swedish rights holders and Swedish consumers negatively, while benefiting non-EU authors and performers, who will henceforth receive remuneration whenever their works are used in a manner protected under EU copyright.
No more principle of specificity in copyright contracts
The Swedish Supreme Court’s judgment in T 5449-23, on February 28 2025, has also raised concerns about how existing copyright agreements should be interpreted. The dispute concerned the scope and interpretation of an agreement granting rights to exploit a literary work. Central to the conflict was whether the principle of specificity should apply.
The court clarified that no specific set of principles should govern the interpretation of copyright agreements. Instead, the general rules applicable to contracts – rooted in established Swedish contract law doctrines of interpretation and good faith – apply equally to licensing agreements and other copyright contracts. By rejecting the principle of specificity, the court signalled that copyright agreements should no longer, by default, be construed narrowly in favour of authors.
Implications and outlook
Taken together, these developments indicate that Swedish copyright law is undergoing significant changes. On the one hand, the judgment in T 5449-23 steers courts and contracting parties towards applying a uniform set of interpretive tools for all contracts, rejecting assumptions that copyright agreements inherently demand divergent principles. On the other, the reforms driven by the CJEU’s judgments mentioned above underscore the supremacy of EU law in shaping national copyright legislation.
Moving forward, observers of Swedish copyright can expect continued debate around both developments. Authors, performers, rights holders, and licensees may revisit existing contracts and remuneration schemes, and an increase in claims brought by non-EU authors, rights holders, and performers is to be expected. Whether these ‘winds of change’ blow harmoniously or stir new controversies remains to be seen, but there is no doubt that the principles underpinning Swedish copyright are being recalibrated, with a significant impact on the creation, licensing, and enjoyment of artistic works.
