Of course it was good and good to publish the unedited iron pipe film.
Journalistic law, social good. Right first by Expressen who came across the material in an unknown way, then right by SVT and all other news editors who spread it further.
The disclosure led to a large and important political debate, and had tangible consequences. It was a double game that was sighted - the edited film that the Swedish Democrats themselves published gave a lying image - and it is always good that lies are revealed. In particular, lies from political rulers.
But being good doesn't necessarily mean it was legal .
When SVT goes to the Supreme Court with the claim that the publication of the unedited iron pipe film should be covered by the exceptions in the Copyright Act for news reporting, the company is pretty bad on its feet.
The basic rule is that the person who owns the copyright - which is a form of ownership - controls the publication. Kent Ekeroth has not approved the publication. Rather, it was stolen from him and handed over to news media.
Then there are restrictions on copyright. For example, news journalists and debaters sometimes have the right to publish something even when the copyright owner does not want it.
This is an absolutely necessary exception : one should not be able to use ownership of some important truth to keep it hidden.
We journalists are used to referring to the citation right - but the citation right explicitly applies to "published works". It is not applicable in the case of the "iron pipe film", where, on the contrary, what is interesting is not published in SD's Youtube channel, ie what was cut.
The other conceivable support for SVT is the section which states that "works that are seen or heard in a daily event" may be reproduced without the copyright owner's permission. In order for that footprint to bear, SVT's attorneys must convince HD that the "day event", ie the news itself, in this case was Expressen's release of the iron pipe film. That Expressen's news was a news event that SVT must have the right to report.
The event is thus identical to the media publication; a dimension of airy postmodernity that the Patent and Market Court this summer proved incapable of grasping, or perhaps just skeptical of?
It will be exciting to follow the reasoning and the conclusion in HD.
Maybe we have to land in the end result that the publication was right, good and illegal.