The photo agency Ritzau Scanpix may appeal a recent court ruling that ordered it to pay artist Jens Haaning compensation for violating copyright related to his controversial artwork “Take the Money and Run.” The case could have lasting effects on how Danish media handle photos of art.
A Dispute Over Copyright and Artistic Rights
The Danish photo agency Ritzau Scanpix has applied to the Appeals Permission Board for permission to bring its case against artist Jens Haaning to the High Court. The move comes after the Copenhagen City Court ruled in December that the agency must pay Haaning 25,000 kroner for selling photos of his artwork “Take the Money and Run” without consent.
The case centers on Haaning’s conceptual piece, where he delivered empty frames to the Kunsten Museum of Modern Art Aalborg in 2021 instead of the agreed work containing more than half a million kroner in cash. The artwork attracted global attention for its commentary on the relationship between artists and institutions, and photographs of the piece were widely circulated by media outlets, many distributed through Ritzau Scanpix.
Ritzau Scanpix Challenges Legal Definitions
The agency argues that the court interpreted Danish copyright law too literally. The court found that an exception allowing reproduction of artwork in newspapers and magazines during current events did not apply to Ritzau Scanpix, which supplies digital material to many of those same outlets.
In practice, this means that digital media and TV stations may not fall under the legal protection previously assumed. Ritzau Scanpix believes this approach could have serious implications for how modern news coverage handles artistic images. In response to the verdict, the company has removed photos of Haaning’s work and even halted photography of other artworks until greater legal clarity is achieved.
According to Danish art institutions, this situation risks limiting how the public can access and discuss visual art. Museums like The National Gallery of Denmark depend on collaboration with photographers and media to increase visibility and understanding of art collections.
The Artist’s Position
Jens Haaning, meanwhile, has decided not to appeal. He stated that the process has been complex and that he welcomes a deeper review of the issue if Ritzau Scanpix proceeds with an appeal. For him, the central question is whether visual artists receive fair compensation when their works are used in media or commercial contexts.
Even though he did not receive the 861,000 kroner he originally claimed, Haaning views the case as an opportunity to push for broader debates on artists’ economic rights. He has expressed hope that new standards might emerge where media agencies pay artists similarly to how they compensate photographers or writers.
Broader Implications for Danish Media
Because of the ruling, many Danish newsrooms are now uncertain about what they can legally publish. Without access to authenticated images from agencies like Ritzau Scanpix, outlets risk reduced coverage of art exhibitions and public installations. That could ultimately affect the promotion of Danish culture both domestically and abroad.
The case also highlights the evolving tension between copyright rules designed for traditional publications and today’s digital-first media landscape. Media law experts suggest that clearer legal definitions are needed to prevent similar conflicts. Firms seeking guidance often turn to specialists such as those listed among the best lawyers in Denmark for foreigners who are experienced in intellectual property and media regulation.
Waiting for the Next Step
Ritzau Scanpix expects the Appeals Permission Board to decide within a few weeks whether the case can proceed to the High Court. Until then, the agency maintains its freeze on photographing artworks. The outcome will determine whether artistic imagery in Denmark can continue to circulate freely within news coverage or whether stricter licensing frameworks will become the norm.
Whatever happens, the case has already sparked serious reflection on the intersection of journalism, law, and art in Denmark. It shows how rapidly evolving media practices demand new legal interpretations that balance public interest with creative rights.
Sources and References
The Danish Dream: The National Gallery of Denmark: 700 Years of Art History
The Danish Dream: Best Lawyer in Denmark for Foreigners
DR: Billedbureau er utilfreds med kunstnerdom – søger nu om mulighed for at anke sag
