The change in Sweden’s copyright law that triggered the dispute was the result of a 2019 EU directive designed to allow artistic creators to seek retrospective compensation for works that have become unexpected bestsellers.
#….#
As the snowball gained momentum as a bestseller, Wolff earned 2% in royalties for each sale of the glass lantern, allowing her to expand her practice and eventually resign from the company to set up her own studio. But in June 1984, Kosta Boda informed her in a two-sentence letter that her copyright for the snowball had expired after 10 years, as used to be common for works of applied art in Sweden.
Retroactive changing of standard contracts?
How is this even legal? Ah, yes, that’s right, it’s the EU.
In return, they wanted permission to also produce the transparent candle holder in yellow, blue and red.
This time Wolff passed on the offer. “It was out of the question, because snowballs aren’t red,” she said.
They don’t generally have candles in the middle either..Get over yourself dear.
It’s the Grauniad, so the company’s turnover (c 800m euro) gets a mention as if that’s the number to use for comparison against her desire for a multi-million euro payoff from retroactive legislation which voids contracts made between parties.
They also throw in the ‘made her sign’ line. She was made to sign a contract, or they wouldn’t have made the item. As if the commercial world carries on without contracts…. I bet she was made to sign a contract with her legal representation as well.
I wa made to sign a contract too !
@Dr Faustus: the devil is in the details.
She worked for the company that ultimately manufactured and sold the product. Presumably she was being paid for this work. So why royalties in the first place? She was doing it on their dime, so any copyright would have been theirs from the outset. Her remuneration would have been the original payment. It’s an odd variation of copyright law to begin with.