Hege Anita Eilertsen

 Photo Credit: Hege Anita Eilertsen (public) Facebook Profile. Copyright: Kjell Ove Storvik

Photo Credit: Hege Anita Eilertsen (public) Facebook Profile. Copyright: Kjell Ove Storvik

Hege Anita Eilertsen is the Marketing Director of the Lofotr "Viking" Museum. I write "Viking" in quotes, because if Hege has her ways, the museum will soon no longer have any connection with Norse history, moving instead towards becoming a safe space for offended liberals and feminists in the name of inclusion (while, of course, excluding everyone who still believe in history, facts, and science). 

Recently, Hege Anita Eilertsen came across one of our posts translating part of the Old Norse Jómsvíkingasaga (The Saga of the Jomsvikings) as it relates to the exclusion of women from combat in the Viking age. She didn't like it at all as it went against her feminist narrative as it relates to the shield maidens myth. 

She could have just moved on. After all, there are a lot of things we don't like about the museum she works at. This includes the fact they exploit male employees without remuneration in violation of Norwegian labor laws, or that they are actively rewriting history to accommodate a regressive liberal agenda. But until Hege Anita and company started harassing us for publishing historical facts, we had minded our own business. Live and let live.

But minding her own business, Hege Anita could not. After all, the worst fascists are virtue-signaling liberals and feminists, never missing an opportunity to try to oppress intact males. So Hege Anita decided to (try to) censor us

The visual used in the article was a photograph of a wood carving at the museum, taken by one of our own in-house photographers, with our own Camera (Nikon Df), during a paid visit to the public museum. The photograph was our exclusive property, and we retained all the rights, under Norwegian law. This is actually clearly outlined in section 23 (The Right to Photographic Images) of the Norwegian Copyright Act for intellectual property, etc. (intellectual property law). It is also common sense that, well, we own our own photographs.

Blinded by a sense of entitlement, probably arising out of vagina privilege and the fact Hege Anita never had to demonstrate merit to secure any position as a woman, she demanded that we remove our own photograph, from our own web site, from our own post, simply because historical facts about the place of women during the Viking age had offended her. She further demanded that we remove an unrelated video, once again taken by our own photographer, with our own company's equipment.

In an exercise in cognitive dissonance that would put a clinically retarded grouse to shame, she justified her intolerance, exclusion and politically-motivated attempt at censoring us on our own turf with, you guessed it, a lecture about tolerance, inclusion and... political neutrality.

When I advised her we would not remove the video and the only political stance was on her side, she went as far as expressing bigotry and racism against Icelanders, by criticizing my (perfectly fine) Norwegian spelling, after I had been kind enough to not respond to her in Old Norse (the original language of the Vikings, which she doesn't speak), or at least Icelandic, and right after she had given me a lecture about tolerance and inclusion...

Hege Anita then accused us of violating Norwegian law with our photographs and videos, falsely claiming we needed authorization from staff at the museum (and I am to assume, authorization from the wood carving itself), when in fact, section 104 (The Right to Own Image) of the Norwegian Copyright Act for intellectual property, etc. (intellectual property law) specifically waives the need for consent when "the person in the picture is part of an assembly or parade in public or in events of interest to the general public", as it would be the case at a museum open to the public, and staffed with re-enactors for the interest of the general public. If there was any doubt about the situation, Monica LykkeligLiten Andersen, in her eagerness to slander NORSKK and eliminate anyone allegedly associated with us, confirmed, in writing, that the subjects of the photos were part of a regular Saturday public gathering for her group (Karma is a bitch). 

Eventually, I was no longer disposed to endure Hege Anita's harassment, so I instructed our security staff to ban her at server level so I would no longer receive her nagging messages.

This latest incident is a demonstration of the entitlement, delusion and cognitive dissonance of feminism. Women are so used to getting anything without merit or effort, solely based on their gender, and so used to emasculated men complying with their every demand in fear of losing their jobs wrongly accused of some sort of harassment, that Hege Anita Eilertsen thought she could make ridiculous, unreasonable, abusive, and oppressive demands to a bunch of actual Vikings, and that it would end well.

Well, it didn't end well, as we are not removing any of our photos or videos to accommodate the sensitivities of yet another Feminazi, and we are now taking public stances with respect to the Lofotr Viking Museum, which we hadn't done previously. We are even using a photo of her we don't own, but which use we are legally entitled to as part of writing this article. Moreover, should Hege Anita attempt to get our content removed based on an inherently false copyright claim (as we own the materials), and by necessarily perjuring herself (she would have to falsely state under penalty of perjury that she or her employer owns our property), she will face criminal charges and actual jail time under the Digital Millennial Copyright Act.  

#DontFuckWithVikings. The actual historical version. Not the emasculated, transgender, Muslim, vegan, black, peace-loving, regressive liberal version that suits the sensibilities of Hege Anita.


Excerpts from the Norwegian Copyright Act for intellectual property, etc. (intellectual property law) as they relate to the use of our own photographs and videos, the ownership of our own photographs and videos, not needing consent for any of these photos in a museum, and the choice of law and forum for any dispute.

Lov om opphavsrett til åndsverk mv. (åndsverkloven) - LOV-2018-06-15-40

§ 23. Eneretten til fotografiske bilder

Den som lager et fotografisk bilde, har enerett til å fremstille eksemplar av det, enten det skjer ved fotografering, trykk, tegning eller på annen måte, og gjøre det tilgjengelig for allmennheten. Med fotografisk bilde menes bilde som er frembrakt ved bruk av kamera eller ved annen teknikk som kan likestilles med fotografering.

Eneretten til et fotografisk bilde varer i fotografens levetid og 15 år etter utløpet av fotografens dødsår, men likevel minst 50 år fra utløpet av det året bildet ble laget. Har to eller flere eneretten sammen, løper vernetiden fra utløpet av dødsåret for den lengstlevende.

Vernetiden for fotografisk bilde med ukjent fotograf varer i 50 år fra utløpet av det året bildet ble laget. Dersom fotografen i dette tidsrommet blir navngitt eller identifisert på annen måte, bestemmes vernetiden etter andre ledd.

Bestemmelsene i §§ 3 første og andre ledd, 4, 5, 8 til 10, 14, 25 til 38, 40, 43 til 58, 62 til 70, 72 til 75, 77 og 105 gjelder tilsvarende for fotografiske bilder i samme utstrekning som de gjelder for fotografiske verk.

Er et fotografi gjenstand for opphavsrett, kan også denne gjøres gjeldende.

§ 37. Gjengivelse av kunstverk og fotografiske verk i kritisk og vitenskapelig fremstilling og biografier

Offentliggjort kunstverk og offentliggjort fotografisk verk kan gjengis i tilslutning til teksten i kritisk eller vitenskapelig fremstilling som ikke er av allmennopplysende karakter, når det skjer i samsvar med god skikk og i den utstrekning formålet betinger.

Med samme begrensning kan offentliggjort fotografisk verk mot vederlag gjengis også i kritisk eller vitenskapelig fremstilling av allmennopplysende karakter og i tilslutning til tekster bestemt til bruk i opplæring.

Offentliggjort personbilde i form av fotografisk verk kan mot vederlag gjengis i tekst av biografisk innhold.

Bestemmelsene i denne paragrafen gir ikke rett til gjengivelse i digital form, med mindre det gjelder en ikke-ervervsmessig gjengivelse etter første ledd.1

§ 85. Tvungent verneting

Sivilt søksmål om inngrep i en annens rett eller andre overtredelser av denne loven må reises ved Oslo tingrett.

§ 104.Retten til eget bilde

Fotografi som avbilder en person, kan ikke gjengis eller vises offentlig uten samtykke av den avbildede, unntatt når

a) avbildningen har aktuell og allmenn interesse

b) avbildningen av personen er mindre viktig enn hovedinnholdet i bildet

c) bildet gjengir forsamlinger, folketog i friluft eller forhold eller hendelser som har allmenn interesse

d) eksemplar av avbildningen på vanlig måte vises som reklame for fotografens virksomhet og den avbildede ikke nedlegger forbud, eller

e) bildet brukes som omhandlet i § 33 andre ledd eller § 37 tredje ledd.

Vernet gjelder i den avbildedes levetid og 15 år etter utløpet av avbildedes dødsår.