The quotations that Mr. Griess has published, taken completely out of context and unobjectively annotated, in no way present the beliefs of our movement in an impartial way. Consciously, and in a manipulative way, a distorted image of “the Norwegian Movement” is presented that doesn’t reflect the faith, the world view or the social position of “the Norwegian Movement” in any context, and even directly contradicts this position.

The publications of Mr. Griess are in no way covered by the right of quotation. In his contributions and reports he presents the same false accusations that he has already been spreading for several years in his battle against “the Norwegian Movement”. As the plaintiff, we deny these allegations, but do not consider it necessary to refute them one by one yet again, as they have already been the subject of numerous lawsuits and settlement rulings against Mr. Griess.

The defendant’s reports have never been an objective, enlightening or informative work about sects. In this struggle, which has become very expensive for Mr. Griess in the meantime, he is publicly trying to review unresolved family problems. However, the truth is that the daughter of the defendant already had mental problems long before she came into contact with “the Norwegian Movement”, and actually sought psychotherapeutic help due to the encouragement, advice and support of our religious community. (Compare this to the findings of the Medical Academy).

The defendant’s contributions, which he has published without permission, are defined as literary works according to Section 2, item 3 in the Copyright Act and therefore protected by copyright. Under Section 14, paragraph 2 of the Copyright Act, it is only permitted to use an edited literary work with the express permission of the author. This consent has never been given to the defendant.

A so-called “free use” presupposes that the publication or text in question, i.e. The “Original Text” is not taken over, either in changed or original form, but that it only serves as an impulse for a separate, new work. With respect to the unaltered text passages that were used, this is certainly not the case.

We specifically deny that the defendant’s website constitutes a scientific work. In the present case the defendant argues that he has made lawful use of his right to quote, because he has indicated the places that are quoted and that it was therefore obvious for any visitor to his website that these are quotes. There is no legal basis for this argument.

The defendant also points out that most of the passages of text quoted on his website were already published before he published them there. However, in regard to the illegal editing and distribution of works on his website, this fact is legally irrelevant. The fact that a work already has been published does not replace the permission to use it. It appears that the accused has the incorrect information that a section of text that has already been published may subsequently be used by anybody without the express permission of the author.  

We would like to add the following to the tense relationship between copyright and freedom of speech: The right to reproduce something (Section 15 Copyright Act) and the right to distribute (Section 16 Copyright Act) as well as the right to edit (Section 14 Copyright Act) are rights which are reserved for the author. Therefore, since Mr. Griess has translated these works and placed them on his website, the defendant has edited, reproduced and distributed literary works. However, the texts that the defendant has placed on his website without permission of the author / owner of the copyright have in no way hurt the defendant’s legal interests. These are literary or religious, partly old, historical texts that the defendant, to emphasize this point once again, has torn out of context with the sole purpose of vilifying “the Norwegian Movement”, also adding a non-objective commentary.

Apart from the fact that the defendant’s website is not a work that falls under Section 2 of the Copyright act, the Supreme Court verdict quoted by Mr. Griess cannot be applied in this case either, since the opposing parties have quite different interests.  

The manipulative, non-objective methods used by Mr. Griess can in no way justify a violation of copyright law within the framework of the basic right to freedom of speech. Furthermore, this is not a question of free use of works in accordance with Section 46, par. 1 in the Copyright Act.