Upphovsrätt i anställningsförhållanden

Sammanfattning: Abstract The purpose of this essay is to examine the legal position, as well as to clarify how intellectual property in employment relationships are regulated. The result of the absence of legislation means that the contract between employer and employee are crucial. The purpose of this essay is therefore, to declare the contract and how it is interpreted in order of the intellectual property and to delineate for whom the rights belongs. To answer the question formulation of this essay, it follows the legal dogmatic method, in order to determine how the tribunal adjudge, jurisdiction has been examined. The jurisdiction has therefore been one of the primary source of law along with the judicial doctrine which for a long time have discussed the concerns of this question because of the limited amount of legislation. The fact that employee’s produce intellectual property within his och hers employment is common. In general the rights which follows are accruing to the creator, pursuant to URL. Even the exclusive right, consisting of the moral rights and the economic rights belong to the originator. Although the circumstances are different when an employee’s creation is an result of a task, within the employer’s normal scope of practice. To be an employee includes some obligations, for instance, fulfill the tasks given by the employer. The legislation is weak and it is alone designate the intellectual property in terms of computer programs, thereby the rights accrue to the employer. Because of the inadequate legislation, employers and employees do not have any guidance to rely on. Since the judicial area is dispositive, the rest of industry have the opportunity to constitute their own terms of agreements. The contracts can be a collective bargaining agreement, framework agreement or similar, within the rights of the intellectual property should be stipulated. In accordance with an detailed description of which parts of the intellectual property to be proceeded to the employer. The principle mean that exclusively the terms and conditions in the contract can be held as the ground for the proceed of the intellectual property. The moral rights, as acknowledgement of the intellectual property, stays by the employee. By contrast the economic rights are left with the employer. The result of freedom of contract have entailed uncertainty between parties in terms of whom it is that own the rights. Under circumstances when there is no contract, the judicial doctrine have produced an interpretation principle, named tumregeln, meaning that the intellectual property is assigned to the employer. The principle has been an legislate proposal, but it got denied because of its considerable restrictive area of application, which would to its purpose not being fulfilled. The main reason that intellectual properties within employee relationship is not legislated is most likely because of the difficulty to produce law that covers all branch of industry and still implement its purpose. Even though there is no particular legislation in terms of the intellectual property within employee relationship, the proceed of the intellectual property is. Compatible to URL, proceed can be made through detailed description of which parts of the intellectual property the originator wishes to dispose. According to employee relationships further questions can arise, regarding to the preconditions of the intellectual rights when the employment ends. The answer is, according as the creation was made within the employers normal area of business, the economic rights will stay with the employer. The central question is the contract between the employer and the employee, which is also the elementary prerequisite of how the intellectual property is divided. Accordingly, it is important to describe an employees anticipated working task on the basis of the proceed of the intellectual property. However these contractual terms often leaves out. Some branches of the industry, primary those who operate in the media sector have collective agreements to arrange the intellectual property. The agreements are very different because of the various  types of creations there are. Other types of contracts where the intellectual property are regulated, are in framework agreement, standard company contracts and licensing. In summary, the intellectual property within employee relationship needs a change. Today’s system does not support both employer and employee, if the answer is a legislation or more evolved industry practice is hard to say. However we opine that measures need to be taken in order to accommodate a clearer way to arrange the meaning of intellectual property within employee relationship.