Finland / District Court of Oulu / 24/101753 / R 23/940

Country

Finland

Title

Finland / District Court of Oulu / 24/101753 / R 23/940

Not publicly available

Year

2024

Decision/ruling/judgment date

Monday, January 15, 2024

Incident(s) concerned/related

Hate speech: Public incitement to violence or hatred

Related Bias motivation

Religion

Groups affected

Muslims

Court/Body type

National Court

Court/Body

District Court of Oulu / Oulun käräjäoikeus / Uleåborg tingsrätt

Key facts of the case

X had published on his Twitter account a modified version of a Somali-language news bulletin, originally aired by the Finnish Broadcasting Company (Yle) in spring 2020. The bulletin informed about the COVID-19 pandemic and actions against it. In his version, X had added subtitles in Finnish. The subtitles were degrading in content, calling Somali and Turkish people “retarded” and claiming they ignored the instructions and restrictions aimed at preventing the spread of the virus. X referred to his freedom of expression as a local politician and a journalist. He argued that the video was a parody and could thus be used without the permission of the original copyright holder, in this case Yle.

Main reasoning/argumentation

The court found that X’s edited video was strongly generalising, prejudiced and likely to arouse intolerance, contempt or even hatred against Somali and Turkish people. This amounted to agitation against a population group under the Criminal Code. The court held that parody, as a form of freedom of expression, is one of the limitations to copyright, on certain conditions. However, parody which conveys a discriminatory message does not qualify as a copyright exception. Yle had broadcast news bulletins related to COVID-19 in different languages in order to prevent the spread of disinformation. X’s modified video, which had had 11,300 viewers, was likely to cause considerable harm to Yle.

Is the case related to the application of the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia, the Racial Equality Directive?

Key issues (concepts, interpretations) clarified by the case

This is the first time a court applied section 23a on parody exception to copyright which was added to the Copyright Act (404/1961) in 2023. In addition to copyright law, the court pondered the issues of political speech as a form of freedom of expression and the characteristics of a parody work. In this discussion, the court took into account the jurisprudence of both the ECtHR (for example, the cases of Feret 16.7.2009, Erbakan 6.7.2006 and Soulas 10.7.2008) and the CJEU (C-201/13 Decmyn).

Results (sanctions, outcome) and key consequences or implications of the case

The court sentenced X to 80 day fines (€ 480) for a copyright offence and agitation against a population group. The latter offence included another count in the same case related to X’s defamatory statements against sexual minorities. The court also ordered X to pay compensation to Yle for unlawful use of copyrighted material (€ 640) and to cover Yle’s legal costs (€ 2,260). The decision is final. The court of appeal did not grant X leave to appeal.

Key quotation in original language and its unofficial translation into English with reference details

”Uutisten arvo liittyy niiden oikeellisuuteen ja luotettavuuteen ja kansalaisten pitää voida luottaa uutisiin. X:n tekemä katkelma on tehty aikana, jolloin korona-viruksesta on ollut liikkeellä paljon disinformaatiota ja tätä Ylen uutisoinnilla on pyritty estämään … X:n katkelmassa ei ole ollut kyse tekijänoikeuslain 23a §:ssä tarkoitetusta sallitusta parodiasta.” "The value of news is related to accuracy and reliability, and citizens must be able to trust the news. X’s video was created at a time when there was a lot of disinformation about the coronavirus. Yle’s news bulletin was aimed to counter disinformation … X’s video does not qualify as parody under section 23a of the Copyright Act."

DISCLAIMERThe information presented here is collected under contract by the FRA's research network FRANET. The information and views contained do not necessarily reflect the views or the official position of the FRA.