Parodiundantagets vara eller icke vara - Om synen på parodier i den svenska rättsstaten

Sammanfattning: Copyright is a particularly polarized area of ​​law in the Swedish legal system. The landscape is strongly influenced by how society looks in general at a given time and which societal interests are particularly important. For a long time, it was the rights holder who was seen as the most worthy of protection in copyright disputes, as opposed to the general interest in freedom of expression. Sweden does not have an explicit parody exception in the URL, but it is interpreted by the court in 4 § 2 st. The work then goes through the independency assessment that is stipulated there. This assessment was upset as parodies began to be considered a direct restriction on copyright, which led to a particularly large degree of independence no longer being a prerequisite for works to be seen as a parody. This is stated in the European Court of Justice's ruling in the Deckmyn case. Several issues are addressed in the Deckmyn case and the Infosoc directive. Many of these are to be seen as overruling the reasoning used by Swedish law earlier, which led to previous judgments having been judged differently if they had been taken up in court today, including the Alfons Åberg case. The essay addresses the complications with URL and its unclear regulation regarding parody and how this relates to corresponding regulations in the EU. The thesis states that the Swedish legal system is not compatible with the EU legal system regarding the issue at hand and the conclusion is that an explicit entry of a parody exception in the Copyright Act's restriction catalog in the second chapter of the URL is, if not a solution, part of a solution to the problem of predictability, legal certainty and a healthy balance of interests.