Organisation pour la sécurité et la coopération en Europe (OSCE) · book

Analiza postojećeg stanja i predlozi za unapređenje sistema kolektivnog i individualnog ostvarivanja autorskih i srodnih prava u Republici Srbiji

21 février 2022 OSCE

Le texte intégral est hébergé par l’organisation qui le publie. lawenc.com indexe les métadonnées et renvoie vers la source officielle.

Texte intégral

The publication of this analysis was supported by the Embassy of the Kingdom of Norway and the OSCE Mission to Serbia. The views expressed in this research are solely those of the authors and do not reflect the official views of the Embassy of the Kingdom of Norway or the OSCE Mission to Serbia. TABLE OF CONTENTS

ANALYSIS OF CURRENT REGULATIONS IN THE FIELD OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS AND THE PRACTICE........................................................3 Collective management....................................................................................................................................................3

EXPLANATION OF THE EXISTING LEGAL SOLUTIONS OF THE AUTHORS OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE LAW ON COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS FROM 2019................................................................................................................................................................. 7 STATEMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE STRATEGY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PUBLIC INFORMATION SYSTEM IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA FOR THE PERIOD 2020-2025 ...............................................................................10

INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE..................................................................................................................................................... 13

RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE BOTH COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND THE RELATED RIGHTS.....................................................................................................................26 COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT...................................................................................................................................... 26 INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE ................................................................................................................................................... 33 BRIEF OVERVIEW OF ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN ORDER TO IMPROVE THE MANAGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT AND ESTABLISHMENT OF LEGAL CERTAINTY...................................................................................................................................................... 35 NEED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE EU DIRECTIVE 2019/790 ON COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE SINGLE DIGITAL MARKET................................................................................................................................................................. 36

WHAT WAS THE INTENTION OF THE DIRECTIVE........................................................................................ 38 RULES INTRODUCED BY THE DIRECTIVE ....................................................................................................... 39 The author, or another copyright holder who wants to protect or exercise his/her right, can do it in individual or collective manner. Certain rights are in principle exer- cised individually, while for others due to their specifics only a collective method of management is provided, through specialized organizations established pre- cisely for the purpose of performing the activity of collective management of cop- yright and related rights, to which the competent intellectual property institution has entrusted all necessary powers for performing the specified activity. Individual management is the most comprehensive type of protection, with the largest vol- ume of offered requirements available to authors, in situations when it is practically feasible and adequate. On the other hand, collective management is especially rel- evant in the market of musical copyright works, i.e. in the market where, in addi- tion to authors, producers of phonograms, videograms and performers also appear as entities. Given the problems that occur in practice in both management alter- natives, we will present the analysis of each of the respective segments separately.

Also, the analysis will first provide an overview of the current situation and short- comings, and then point out the potential solutions that are applied in compara- tive law, and which would improve the current solutions in the positive law of the Republic of Serbia and in practice. ANALYSIS OF CURRENT REGULATIONS IN THE FIELD OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS AND THE PRACTICE

COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT Law on Copyright and Related Rights1 (hereinafter: LCRR or the Law) stipulates that copyright and related rights are collectively managed through organizations for the collective management of copyright and related rights (hereinafter: Organizations), which are not of a lucrative nature and which specialize in managing rights related to certain subject matters of protection2.

In order for a certain Organization to be able to perform the activity of collective management of copyright and related rights, it is necessary to obtain a permit from the competent authority, i.e. the Intellectual Property Office. The amendments to the Law from 2019 define the documentation that the Organization must submit3, as well as the conditions that the Organization needs to meet in order to be able to perform a specific activity4.

There are currently six organizations in the Republic of Serbia for the collective man- agement of copyright and related rights, namely:

1 Law on Copyright and Related Rights ("Official Gazette of the RS", no. 104/2009, 99/2011, 119/2012, 29/2016 - AC decision and 66/2019) 2 Ibid, 152 3 Ibid. 157, para. 3 4 Ibid, 158. and 159.

• Organization of Phonogram Producers of Serbia - OFPS;

• Organization for Collective Management of Performers' Rights - PI;

• Organization of Photography Authors - OFA;

• Organization for Management of Reprographic Rights - OORP;

• Organization of Film Authors of Serbia - UFUS AFA ZAŠTITA.

Holders of copyright, or related rights, will exclusively confer their rights on the Organization, and instruct it to conclude contract on non-exclusive assignation with persons who will use copyright works, or subject matters of related rights, in its own name and on their behalf5 (hereinafter: Users), as well as to collect remuneration from the Users in its own name and on behalf of the right holders. Also, only one Organization may obtain a permit from the competent authority for collective man- agement of rights in relation to the same type of rights over the same type of sub- ject matter of copyright or related rights6, which means that this particular Organ- ization has a monopoly position in terms of collective management of a particular type of right on a particular type of work or subject matter of related right.

Regarding the rights that their holders assign to the Organization, LCRR prescribed the mandatory collective management of certain rights, while for the other type of rights the holders have the freedom to choose whether to manage them collec- tively, i.e. through the Organization or individually.7

Some of the rights for which the legislator has prescribed collective management as mandatory are the following: the rights of the performer to the fee for broadcast- ing and rebroadcasting the interpretation from the recording issued on the sound/ sound and image carrier, for public announcement of the interpretation broad- cast from the recording issued on the sound/sound and image carrier, for public

5 Ibid, 153, paras. 2 and 3 6 Ibid, 157, para. 2 7 Ibid, 150.

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT 4 AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA announcement of the interpretation from the recording issued on the sound/sound and image carrier; the rights of phonogram producers to the fee for broadcasting and re-broadcasting of phonograms, public announcement of phonograms and public announcement of phonograms that are broadcast, etc.

Furthermore, the LCRR stipulates that each Organization must have a General Assembly, Administrative Board, Managing Director and Supervisory Board as its bodies, and concerning the general enactments of the Organization, the Statute, Tariff and Distribution Plan will be necessary, with the possibility of other general enactments that more precisely define certain matters concerning the Organ- ization's business activity8. The Statute constitutes the highest enactment of the Organization and other general enactments must be aligned with it, the Distribu- tion Plan will clearly and unambiguously set the criteria on the basis of which the Organization distributes the amount of remuneration collected from the Users. The Tariff will be a very important enactment of the Organization because it deter- mines the amount and manner of determining the remuneration that Users will be required to pay for the use of copyright or related rights. The Organization initiates negotiations on the tariff by inviting representative associations of Users and indi- vidual Users9. Following the call for negotiations, the two parties seek to conclude a tariff agreement. In case of impossibility to find a solution that would suit both par- ties, i.e. impossibility to conclude a tariff agreement within 60 days from the invita- tion to negotiations, the proposed tariff will be determined by the Administrative Board of the Organization and submitted to the competent authority for approval10.

Further, Article 184 of LCRR stipulates that the Organization is obliged to pay by the end of the calendar year, i.e. by 31 December, to the holders of copyright or related rights who have concluded a contract with it or who have not informed it that they will individually exercise their rights, the amount collected from the Users for their use of the subject matter of protection in the previous year minus the funds for cov- ering the justified costs of collective management of rights. It should also be noted

8 Ibid, 164. and 165. 9 Ibid, 173. 10 Ibid, 176.

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA 5 that the Organization may, for justified and elaborated reasons, extend this period. Therefore, holders of copyright or related rights who have concluded an exclusive assignment contract with the Organization are fully equated with those righthold- ers who have not entered into a contract, but have not informed the Organization that they will exercise their rights individually11, as there is a presumption that the Organization has the authority to act on behalf of all national and foreign righthold- ers with respect to any subject matters of protection that are within the scope of its business activity12.

As far as the Users are concerned, in accordance with the law, before they begin to use the subject matter of protection they are obliged to acquire from the Organi- zation the rights to use the copyright or the subject matter of the related rights in a certain way, and to inform Organization within 15 days about all the circumstances of relevance for the calculation and distribution of funds13.

Article 188 of the Law also stipulates the supervision over the work of the Organiza- tion by the competent authority that supervises whether the Organization operates in compliance with the license granted to it and in compliance with legal provisions. In order to conduct supervision, the competent authority will have the right to have its representative attending the sessions of the Organization’s bodies and to state opinions concerning the collective management, to demand a written answer to its questions, and to inspect business documents. In case it establishes irregularities in the work, the competent authority will indicate them to the Organization, and order the implementation of measures and a deadline for elimination of irregularities14.

In the process of conducting supervision, the Organization will have certain obli- gations towards the competent authority in terms of submitting documentation that includes: annual business reports, annual account of remunerations and cer- tified auditor's report; agreements between the organization and representative associations, and amendments to the statute, tariff and other general enactments

11 Ibid, 180, para. 4 12 Ibid, 180, para. 1 13 Ibid, 187, para. 1 -3 14 Ibid, 191.

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT 6 AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA of the Organization15. In addition, the Organization is obliged to adopt within six months from the end of the business year the annual reports of its bodies on paid amounts and allocation thereof, reports on operations of the Organization, execu- tion of agreements concluded, certified auditor's report on annual business report, calculation of remunerations, as well as the proposal of the financial plan of the Organization for the following year16.

The Law also prescribes the content of complete documentation that the Organiza- tion should submit to the competent authority or which should be adopted.

EXPLANATION OF THE EXISTING LEGAL SOLUTIONS OF THE AUTHORS OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE LAW ON COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS FROM 2019

in the Draft Law on Amendments to the Law on Copyright and Related Rights17, its authors stated in the explanation certain reasons for enacting the Law, as well as the explanations of legal solutions, some of which we will present below.

One of the goals of the amendments to the Law on Copyright and Related Rights from 2019 was to establish a more efficient, or improve the existing system of collec- tive management of copyright and related rights, according to the standards set by relevant international enactments regulating the subject matter, but also accord- ing to EU standards.

Furthermore, one of the most important amendments to the Law refers to Article 127, paragraph 10 of the previous Law, which provided for the single remuneration for public communication of interpretations and phonograms to be charged together with the author's remuneration for public communication of musical works. Also, Article 156, paragraphs 5 and 6 determined the manner of collecting that single

15 Ibid, 188, para. 2 16 Ibid, 189 17 Draft Law on Amendments to the Law on Copyright and Related Rights (http://www.parlament.gov.rs/ upload/archive/files/lat/pdf/predlozi_zakona/2019/225-19%20-%20LAT.pdf)

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA 7 remuneration. During the process of amending the Law, these provisions of the Law were amended because they were not in accordance with the provisions of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works18 (hereinafter: the Berne Convention) and the TRIPS Agreement19 adopted by the World Trade Organ- ization. Namely, by prescribing the obligation to collect a single remuneration, the author's exclusive right to public communication of his/her work is encroached upon, but also the right of phonogram producers and interpreters to remuneration for public communication of their phonograms, or interpretations. The encroach- ment on the rights of these persons is reflected in the fact that they cannot inde- pendently deliver the invoice to the Users, which would lead to the fact that if the Organization representing the rights of music authors does not function for any rea- son, or does not collect remuneration, neither the phonogram producer nor the per- former could collect a remuneration for the use of the subject matter of protection. Such a solution was unacceptable, taking into account that the right of phonogram producers and the right of performers are separate rights in relation to copyright, and their exercise cannot be conditioned by the exercise of the copyright. Also, such a provision could ultimately lead to the monopoly position of the Organization in terms of collecting remuneration for public communication of musical works, inter- pretations and phonograms, which is absolutely unacceptable and contrary to the acquis communautaire. In connection with the aforementioned amendment, the provisions of Article 156, paragraphs 5 and 6, referring to the uniform manner of col- lecting the remuneration for public communication of musical works, phonograms and interpretations, as well as to the allocation of the remuneration thus collected, in the way that 50% of the total remuneration, after deducting the costs, went to the Organization representing the authors of musical works, while the other half of that revenue was distributed to the Organizations representing performers and phonogram producers, were deleted. These provisions were deleted for several rea- sons, primarily because they are not in accordance with Article 8, paragraph 2 of EU Directive 2006/11520 regulating a single collection and allocation of remuneration

18 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (9 September 1886, amended in Paris on 4 May 1896, amended in Berlin on 13 November 1903, amended in Bern on 20 March 1914, amended in Rome on 2 June 1928, in Brussels on 26 June 1948, in Stockholm on 14 July 1967 and in Paris on 24 July 1971) 19 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) 20 Directive 2006/115/EU of the European Parliament and Council

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT 8 AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA for public communication of phonograms and interpretations, without mentioning the authors. By interpreting that Article, it is concluded that the remuneration for public communication of musical copyright works must be charged independently. Another reason for deleting these provisions is their non-compliance with Article 3, paragraph 1 of the EU Directive 2001/2921 which determines the exclusive right of the author to independently and freely, through negotiations with the User, agree on the amount of remuneration for public communication of his/her work, and that right must not be limited to fair remuneration, as regulated by law. Finally, the pro- visions in question were not harmonized with the Berne Convention either, which stipulates that states may regulate the issue of remuneration for public communi- cation of copyrighted works, but only in case of impossibility to conclude an agree- ment between the author and the User.

Another important amendment to the Law relates to Article 162, paragraph 1, item 3 of the Law, which, after the amendments, enables the competent authority to revoke the Organization's operating license in cases when the Organization "gravely or repeatedly violates the provisions of this Law, the provisions of its statute and the distribution plan." Namely, before the amendment of the Law, the competent authority was authorized to decide on revoking the Organization’s license, among other things, if it finds that it "gravely and repeatedly violates the provisions of this law". Therefore, there was a dilemma whether the repeated violation of the Law must at the same time refer to a grave violation. The new definition clarifies the intention of the legislator to revoke the license of the Organization in case it gravely violates the law, but also when it repeatedly violates the law, regardless of the sever- ity of that violation. Also, in addition to the provisions of the LCRR, the Organization must now strictly comply with its statute and distribution plan, under the threat of revoking the license.

Further, Article 167 of the Law, regulating the distribution plan, as a general act of the Organization, was amended and paragraph 2 was added. It stipulates that the provisions of the distribution plan must be "clear, unambiguous, applicable and for-

21 Directive 2001/29/EU of the European Parliament and Council

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA 9 mulated in such a way as to preclude any arbitrariness in the distribution of col- lected revenue". This provision is extremely important, as the distribution plan is the legal basis for the payment of collected revenues, and as such must be clear and guarantee security to the members of the Organization in terms of providing infor- mation about the amount belonging to them, how remunerations are calculated, and how to exercise their rights if they consider that they have not received the due amount.

One of the most important things with regards to the collective management of copyright and related rights is the definition of the tariff. Prior to the adoption of the amendments to the Law, when determining the tariff, the tariffs of countries whose gross domestic product is approximately equal to the gross domestic product of the Republic of Serbia were taken into account. The problem in practice was the fact that certain countries, with a gross domestic product close to that in the Repub- lic of Serbia, do not have some of the organizations for collective management of copyright or related rights that exist in the Republic of Serbia or that the tariffs of organizations in those countries are higher than the tariffs of the developed coun- tries’ organizations with a significantly higher standard of living than the Republic of Serbia. The new provision of the Law refers to the comparison with the tariffs of the organizations in other European countries, to the extent determined by com- paring the gross domestic product of the two countries.

STATEMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE STRATEGY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PUBLIC INFORMATION SYSTEM IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA FOR THE PERIOD 2020-2025

on 30 January 2020, the Government of the Republic of Serbia adopted the Media Strategy22, whose authors, among other things, pointed out the shortcomings of the current system and regulation related to the collective management of copyright

22 Strategy for the Development of the Public Information System in the Republic of Serbia for the period 2020-2025

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT 10 AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA and related rights in the Republic of Serbia, as well as a number of problems faced primarily by the media outlets in the Republic of Serbia.

Primarily, it was pointed out that the media, and partly the operators, often criticize the existing way of submitting data to the Organizations, which was determined by the Organizations themselves, citing the overregulation of the prescribed obliga- tion of the User, creating high additional costs. Regarding the above, especially the high unjustified costs, the Media Strategy stresses the need for strict compliance with the Decree of the Government of the Republic of Serbia23, which refers to keep- ing electronic records of broadcast works, without prescribing significant engage- ment of resources or additional costs.

Furthermore, the authors of the Media Strategy criticize the process of negotiating the Organization's tariff, pointing out that the Organizations abuse their monopoly position in negotiations with the Users, and that they do not show interest in the tariff developing as a result of compromise between the parties in the negotiations, which was intended by the legal provision prescribing negotiations. Such a conduct of the Organization in practice is particularly erroneous when taking into account that the Organizations aim exclusively at protecting the interests of the righthold- ers, and that the Organizations are of a non-profit character. As mentioned earlier, when determining the tariff, an Organization negotiates with representative asso- ciations of Users, and in this regard the Media Strategy authors point out that the Law did not clearly set criteria for determining unambiguously which Association of Users is a representative one, i.e. which could be considered a legitimate represent- ative of a certain group of Users when negotiating with the Organization.

The Media Strategy also points out the objections of electronic media outlets as a type of user of copyright works, which refer to the insufficiently precisely defined way of determining the basis for the so-called minimum author's tariff, which is cur- rently set, on a basis determined independently by the Organizations, significantly higher than the basic tariff.

23 Decree on the manner of keeping electronic records of broadcasting and rebroadcasting of copyright works ("Official Gazette of the RS", No. 108/204)

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA 11 Finally, the Media Strategy authors proposed certain measures, with the aim of improving cooperation between the media outlets and Organizations, i.e. with the aim of general improvement of legislation. These measures include, but are not lim- ited to, the following activities:

- providing a more flexible model for submitting data on the use of copy- right and related rights, which would be simpler and easier for users, with- out unnecessary generation of additional costs, and which would be harmo- nized with the Decree of the Government of the Republic of Serbia on the manner of keeping electronic records of broadcasting and rebroadcasting of copyright works;

- specifying basic elements of the minimum tariff for the use of the subject matters of protection that will not be higher than the basic tariff;

- modifying the system of collective negotiations about the tariff, in such a way that the interests of the Users and the holders of copyright or related rights are equally taken into account;

- changing the position of the Organization, as well as enabling the free organization of holders of copyright and related rights.

It should also be noted that the Media Strategy indicates that the Organizations’ monopoly position violates equal market conditions, as it restricts the media outlets, as users of copyright and related rights, to negotiate tariffs with only one Organiza- tion. Also, the authors point out that in that way the rights of the holders of copy- right and related rights are violated because they are prevented from associating in order to protect their interests.

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT 12 AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE According to the existing rules of the LCRR, if the author or copyright holder decides to exercise his/her right before the competent court, the Law provides for a number of mechanisms for protecting their interests, i.e. submitting a large number of dif- ferent motions before the competent court24 requesting:

• establishment of infringement of right (or a serious threat that the right will be infringed);

• prohibition of actions infringing the right or actions that pose a serious threat that the right will be infringed, as well as prohibition of repetition of such or similar actions under the threat of fine to the plaintiff;

• compensation for economic and non-economic damages;

• removal from the channels of commerce, seizure or destruction, alteration without any compensation of infringing objects, including the copies of subject matter of protection, their packaging, master copies, negatives and the like;

• prohibition of the sales, seizure or destruction, without any compensation, of materials and objects predominantly used in creation or manufacture of infringing objects;

• publication of the verdict at the expense of the defendant;

• providing information about the third parties who participated in the infrin- gement of rights.

From the aspect of problems that arise in practice, both in relation to the legal solu- tions and in relation to their application, the most interesting issue is compensa- tion for damages due to copyright infringement. Also, damages are one of the most common requirements that stand out in the procedures for individual exercise of copyright. Compensation for economic damage is reflected in the loss in the prop- erty of the injured party, i.e. in the lost profit.

24 Suppra Note 1, Article 205

In order for an entity to be obliged to pay damages, it is necessary for the court, within the same procedure, to previously determine the existence of a copyright infringement. Therefore, in order to resolve such a request, it is necessary to assess two legal issues based on the facts, the existence of infringement, and the existence of damage and its amount.

The problem of determining the merits of the motion for determining the infringe- ment and, based on that, the compensation for damage, also depends on the form of the copyright work for which the determination is requested.

Namely, it is much easier to determine for a photography whether there was an unauthorized download of that copyright work, rather than for copyright works composed of words (literary, journalistic, etc.) when it is necessary to compare texts and establish the scope of infringement by determining the number of taken or paraphrased words/characters.

For this reason, lawsuits for damages due to infringement of a copyright in photo- graph have a significantly larger share in practice than proceedings dealing with infringement of textual copyright works.

Another reason for the absence of more intensive exercise of copyright on textual copyright works is the lack of clearly adopted and recognized parameters for deter- mining the amount of economic damage.

B. Relationship between authors and media publishers and the assign- ment of rights to media publishers

Unlike moral copyrights, which are non-transferable, the author may assign his/her economic copyright to another person, natural or legal, by contract or other legal transaction. Such assignment may be permanent or temporary, may be territorially limited or limited in terms of the manner of use. Also, the person acquiring the eco- nomic copyrights may pay a remuneration for them or the assignment may be free of charge.

Another important division of assignments is to exclusive and non-exclusive ones. Exclusive assignment of copyrights has effect on third parties, i.e. authorizes the

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT 14 AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA acquirer, in addition to the agreed upon active acts of usage, to take other actions such as prohibiting all other entities from using a particular copyright work. The acquirer also has at its disposal all legal means for protecting and exercising its rights. As for the author, in the case of exclusive assignment, he/she no longer has the right to use his/her work, but is left with only personal legal powers, i.e. moral copyrights.

On the other hand, if the assignment is non-exclusive, the acquirer is authorized only to use the specific copyright work in the manner specified in the contract, but not to influence whether others use it and in what way, since only the author is still authorized to prohibit the use to others and to exercise his/her rights through the available legal mechanisms.

The media outlets, i.e. media publishers, are obliged, before using a certain copy- right work, to acquire economic copyrights for it, which is mostly done by way of copyright contracts, or contracts on the assignment of economic copyrights. The LCRR prescribes that the copyright contract must be in writing, with the possibil- ity of convalidation of the contract that is not made in the prescribed form, but the obligations arising from it are performed in whole or in part. Also, Article 74 of the LCRR prescribes another exception that directly concerns the work of the media outlets, so it allows the conclusion of a copyright contract that is not in writing if its subject matter is the publication of articles, drawings and other author's contribu- tions in newspapers or periodicals.

Common case in practice is that authors, primarily photographers, are employed by media publishers. Therefore, the media outlets directly instruct their employees, i.e. journalists or photographers, to create copyright works by doing their job, which will then be published in the media outlet. In this regard, the LCRR, in its Article 98, establishes special criteria for copyright works created in the course of employment. Namely, paragraph 1 of the said Article stipulates that in case the author, by per- forming his/her work duties, creates a copyright work, the employer will be author- ized to publish such work, and also to hold economic copyrights on its use within the scope of the employer’s registered business activities, for a period of 5 years from the moment the work was created. After the above mentioned term the author will acquire all economic copyrights. However, we emphasize that this legal norm is of

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA 15 a regulating character, i.e. the legislator also allowed the contracting of a different relationship through an employment contract.

So, since, in this case, publishers as employers are holders of economic copyrights for a period of 5 years from the creation of the copyright work, they have complete freedom to use it within that period and publicly communicate it in their media publications. The fate of copyrights after the expiry of the 5-year period depends on the manner in which the contracting parties agree on their rights and obligations, or on the fact whether they regulated those rights by contract at all. Namely, if the contracting parties do not mention in the employment contract the issue of cop- yright for works created in the course of employment, by force of law those rights will belong to the author after the expiry of the said term. On the other hand, if the contract emphasizes that the economic copyright will be retained by the employer after the expiry of the 5-year period, this provision will have such effect.

In practice, the fact that one or the other party is not sufficiently aware of its rights and obligations may be problematic, since the lack of regulation of this issue in the contract can lead to potential dispute in case the employer continues to use the content after the expiry of the 5-year term if the rights after that term belong to the author. Such proceedings can also escalate into mass litigation with high dis- pute value, because media publishers often continue to use the works of their for- mer employees even after the expiry of 5 years from the creation of the work due to organizational reasons or ignorance concerning regulations.

Conversely, if the author signs an employment contract with a waiver or assign- ment clause without a time limit, he/she must be aware of losing control over his/ her works and that he/she will not be able to assign them for compensation to other interested parties after the statutory period of 5 years.

Thus, the legislator allowed for a regulating possibility for the author as the assignor of the rights and the publisher of the media as the employer to regulate these rights differently by contract. On the one hand it could result in a complete waiver of the author regarding his/her future rights to the produced works, while in case of the absence of the clause on the indefinite duration of the rights belonging to the employer, it may be in a situation to be sued by the author, after the expiry of the

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT 16 AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA legal term of 5 years, if it continues to use his/her works.

C. Problem of determining the amount of economic/ material damage

The amount of economic damage usually ranges in the level of the value of the sub- ject use of the copyright work, i.e. the question arises as to how much the author would have received if the publication had been a consequence of a legal transac- tion. If such value cannot be proven by inspecting a contract or other evidence of the market value of the publication of that or similar work, it is necessary to present the evidence by expertise, where an expert or institution will assess the amount of damage, which is often a challenge in practice as the expertise price often exceeds the required amount for damages.

In order to overcome the problem of determining the amount of economic dam- age, it is common for the court to accept tariff schedules or opinions of competent organizations. Such data can serve as a parameter for determining the amount of damage, and thus beside the facilitated procedure for exercise of the rights it con- tributes to the so-called legal certainty and harmonization of case law.

For that reason the professional association ULUPUDS25, which brings together pro- fessional photographers, presented to the public its tariff schedules, the applica- tion of which over the last decade was widely accepted by the competent courts as a guide for assessing the market value of photographs, especially for professional photographers.26 As such, the mentioned tariff schedules are widely accepted by the courts. Even their changes from 2017, which brought a significant increase in remuneration, also resulted in an increase in the remunerations rendered by the courts, as relevant values.27 In practice, the Opinion of the Media Association exists in parallel28, and thereby this professional association determined its own prices for the use of photographs in the media outlets, which are significantly lower in relation to

25 http://www.ulupuds.org.rs/pdf/2017/Cenovnik%20foto%20sekcije%20ULUPUDS-a%202017.pdf 26 Judgement of the Higher Court in Belgrade, P4 165/15, dated 15 July 2016, confirmed by the decision of the Court of Appeals Gž4 28/16, dated 16/12, D. Popesku, Bulletin of the Court of Appeals in Belgrade, No. 9/2017, p. 44 27 For example, instead of the previous EUR 40 in dinar exchange rate for publishing a photo on the Internet for up to a year, in 2017 the remuneration was increased to EUR 150. 28 Opinion of the professional association, Media Association of Serbia, 22 July 2016

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA 17 the remunerations prescribed by ULUPUDS. However, the application of this opin- ion has never taken root in court practice, and the courts, at the suggestion of the author as a plaintiff, use mainly the tariff schedules of the photographs’ association.

On the other hand, the lack of a widely accepted tariff schedules for works mani- fested in textual form, beside the problems with establishing the infringement, is an additional reason why authors and copyright holders find it more difficult to decide to exercise their rights in court.

Therefore, due to uncertain standards for the calculation of remuneration for eco- nomic damage (price of the taken character of a certain type of content) in litiga- tion where the subject matter is determining the amount of economic damage for unauthorized take-over of a text, there is a need for expertise in most cases. The expertise can also be applied in the circumstance of determining whether the sub- ject matter of the dispute is a copyright work, and only then for the purpose of deter- mining the amount of damages.

It should be noted that there are price lists adopted by journalists' and media asso- ciations, which are not significantly represented in case law in the form of widely accepted standards, because disputes initiated by journalists for exercising their rights on written copyright works are not so common. In practice, a price list issued by the Independent Association of Journalists of Serbia is used to calculate remu- neration for the use of journalistic texts29, but it did not take root in the case law.

It is important to point out that such an official overview of remunerations issued by a professional association is only a guideline for calculating royalties, with the author being free to negotiate other amounts at his/her own discretion when nego- tiating remuneration.30

The fact is that disputes over the exercise of subjective copyrights on textual cop- yright works authored by journalists are not widely represented in the Republic of Serbia, but we cannot say that copyright regulations are the only culprit for such a

29 Price list of journalistic works and services, NUNS, dated 7 March 2018 30 Judgement of the Higher Court in Belgrade, P4 165/15, dated 15 July 2016, confirmed by the decision of the Court of Appeals Gž4 28/16, dated 16/12, D. Popesku, Bulletin of the Court of Appeals in Belgrade, No. 9/2017, p. 44

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT 18 AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA situation, if the problem even stems from legal provisions. In addition to the reasons we have pointed out, which concern the problem of determining the infringement and the amount of damages, such results are also influenced by the insufficiently developed awareness of journalists and media workers about which content meets the requirement to be considered a copyright work or to be subject to copyright protection. Also, we should not forget that journalists are people hired by publishers, or media owners, and that their will to exercise their rights largely depends on the readiness of the media outlet as a copyright holder or a dominant entity in relation to the journalist to initiate proceedings against another media outlet.

All these reasons together have led to the extremely poor case law in cases that as subject matter have the establishment of copyright infringement on works expressed in text, but also in the views of higher instances that could be used as guidelines. Part of the "guilt" lies in the fact that judges themselves often lack knowl- edge and experience to freely assess whether a particular journalistic report is just a current event reporting or it possesses a necessary dose of originality required by the Law. If we add to that the uncertain parameters for calculation of remunera- tion for economic damage (the price of the taken character from a certain type of content), we end up in most cases with the need for expertise in such litigations, in order to determine primarily whether the subject matter of the dispute is a copy- right work and then the amount of economic legal remuneration.

Also, the case law is very poor in terms of infringement of copyright and related rights on musical works, i.e. audio or audio-visual content. The largest number of proceedings refers to litigations conducted in order to determine the rights of pho- nogram producers for further management of those rights through the competent organization. Proceedings concerning damages related to these types of copyright works are very rare for very similar reasons as with texts as copyright works, which are listed in the previous paragraph.

D. Problem of determining infringement and the amount of non-eco- nomic / non-pecuniary damage

As for non-pecuniary damage, for which, in addition to the economic one, a claim can be made, it is reflected in rendering a monetary amount as a form of reward to the injured party (author), who will thus be provided with a form of satisfaction to compensate for the loss in a form of emotional distress. Current case law implies

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA 19 that the amount of remuneration for non-pecuniary damage due to infringement of the author's moral rights is assessed in each specific case, and there are no uni- form tariff schedules based on which objective parameters the damage could be precisely determined, so the amounts are within informally determined limits.

As the moral rights of the author represent the personal relation of the author with his/her work, the consequences of infringing the moral copyrights are manifested through the psychological suffering of the author due to diminished reputation, honour and personality rights. Therefore, non-pecuniary damage can be awarded only when the author through his/her personal relation with the work really suffered emotional distress due to the infringement of the moral right of the author, which justifies the award of remuneration within the meaning of Article 200 of the Law on Contracts and Torts. Thus, the right to remuneration for non-pecuniary damage in our law is derived from the provision of the mentioned Law which regulates con- tractual arrangements, while the application of the provisions of the Law on Copy- right and Related Rights is limited only to determining the existence of moral copy- right infringement as a tort.31

The fact that the defendant violated the moral copyright of the plaintiff does not in itself mean that the plaintiff suffered non-pecuniary damage in this case. The plain- tiff, as the injured party, must prove that s/he suffered a harmful consequence in the form of emotional distress, as well as a causal link between the infringement of his/ her moral copyright and the infringement of his/her personal rights, as one of the recognized forms of non-pecuniary damage.32

Non-economic and economic damage can be claimed independently of each other, i.e. in the form of cumulative claims. Thus, if the court finds that the circumstances of the case justify it, and especially the intensity and duration of distress, it will award a fair monetary remuneration for the emotional distress and for fear suffered, regard- less of the remuneration for pecuniary damage, as well as in its absence. Also, when deciding on a claim for remuneration for non-pecuniary damage, and the amount of remuneration, the court will take into account the significance of the damaged

31 Ruling of the Court of Appeals in Belgrade, Gž. 227/2013 dated 16 April 2014 32 Ibid.

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT 20 AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA property and the purpose of that remuneration, but also that it does not favour aspi- rations incompatible with its nature and social purpose.33

E. Usual amount of non-economic / non-pecuniary damage rendered

When assessing the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage, in addi- tion to the intensity of the emotional distress suffered, other circumstances are also taken into account. Thus, when making a decision on the amount of fair monetary remuneration for non-pecuniary damage due to infringement of the author's moral rights, for publishing disputed photographs without indicating the author's name, and the publication in incomplete form, the court will assess the circumstance of whether the plaintiff is a professional photographer and whether it is important for him/her to be signed as the author of the photographs, and that they are not altered, but presented as the author created them.

Thus, in one decision, the court took a position, having in mind the fact that the plaintiff is a photographer by profession, and that it is therefore important for her to be signed as the author of the photographs, and that they are not altered, while the disputed photos were taken out of the context in which they were recorded, in accordance with the provision of Article 200 of the Law on Contracts and Torts, in addition to the amounts already awarded for these types of non-pecuniary damage, that the plaintiff was entitled to another RSD 30,000.00 for each photograph, i.e. RSD 30,000.00 for the photograph "VV" and "VV1" respectively, because they were published without the indicated name or pseudonym of the author and additional RSD 30,000.00 for each of the photographs due to the communication in incom- plete form. Thus, according to the opinion of the second instance court, with the already awarded amounts of RSD 10,000.00 each and now awarded RSD 30,000.00 each, i.e. RSD 40,000.00 in total for each of the above infringements for each of the mentioned photographs, the plaintiff would be able to obtain certain satisfaction and thus overcome the non-economic damage suffered due to the infringement of her rights.34

33 Law on Obligations of the RS ("Official Gazette of the SFRY", No. 29/78, 39/85, 45/89 - decision of the CCY and 57/89, "Official Gazette of the FRY", no. 31/93 and "Official Gazette of SCG", no. 1/2003 - Constitutional Charter) 34 Ruling of the Court of Appeals in Belgrade, Gž4 159/2017 dated 19 October 2018

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA 21 The court will take special care if the alteration of the work significantly affects the value of the photograph itself, i.e. if the integrity of the work is substantially com- promised, and especially if the copyright work was published in a negative context and without respecting the legitimate interests of the author. There was a dispute before the High Court in Belgrade, because the defendants published a photograph of the plaintiff in a negative context, not respecting his artistic expression. They pub- lished the cut, shortened photograph, so that the legality of the form was changed, and the composition of the photograph that the plaintiff wanted to achieve was dis- turbed. The whole event also undermined the professional reputation of the plain- tiff, which led to a justified feeling of discomfort, agitation and anxiety for the future. In that court decision, starting from the criteria prescribed in the provision of Arti- cle 200 of the Law on Contracts and Torts, and calculating the remuneration for the plaintiff, the court found that the plaintiff should be awarded a remuneration in the total amount of RSD 70,000, for the infringement of the author's moral rights due to the violation of the moral rights of the author by public communication of the cop- yright work in an altered form without author's consent. Therefore, when the alter- ation is of greater intensity, the amount of awarded damages may be higher than with the usual alteration of the work, for adapting it to the needs of the infringer.35

In our case law, the court will in most cases assess the intensity of emotional dis- tress, i.e. appropriate remuneration at its discretion, taking into account the need for efficiency and economy of the procedure. Otherwise, each individual expertise by a psychiatrist would prolong litigation for moral copyright infringement by sev- eral hearings, and increase litigants' costs by a fairly high amount of money, bring- ing them to a level not comparable to the usual remunerations awarded in these types of disputes.36 37

35 Ruling of the Higher Court in Belgrade, P4 119/13 36 Ibid, From the explanation: “This remuneration is measured at own discretion, and in accordance with the rule prescribed by the provision of Article 232 of the CAP” 37 Civil Procedure Law ("Official Gazette of the RS", no. 72/2011, 49/2013 - CC decision, 74/2013 - CC decision, 55/2014 and 87/2018), Article 232: "If it is determined that the party has the right to remuneration, monetary amount or a fungible item, but the amount or quantity of things cannot be determined or could be determined only with disproportionate difficulties, the court will determine the monetary amount, or the quantity of fungible items at its discretion."

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT 22 AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA The authors of the Media Strategy from 2020 expressed concern over the "high amounts of remunerations" awarded in copyright disputes when it comes to pub- lishing photographs, on the one hand, but also "insufficient protection of copyright works created by journalists" on the other. Namely, according to the Media Strat- egy, awarding high remunerations to holders of subjective copyrights and authors represent "inappropriate pressure on the media outlets". The case law concerning copyright disputes related to photographs, as well as a large number of such dis- putes with remunerations awarded on the one hand, and on the other a negligible number of copyright disputes concerning other media content, and the practice of uncontrolled downloading of other's media content, has led to the impression in a part of media community that copyrights and related rights associated with media activities (journalistic texts, videos, etc.) do not enjoy the same level of protection as photographs, as stated in the wording of the Strategy. Problems related to cop- yright disputes are also reflected in the narrow interpretation of copyright restric- tions for the purpose of satisfying interests in the area of public information (daily reporting on current events, parodies and satire, etc.). At the end of the part con- cerning copyright, the Media Strategy concludes that it is necessary to improve the regulatory framework in the area of protection of copyright and related rights with regard to the protection of journalistic content.38

Also, we note that in relevant professional circles, even after the adoption of the Media Strategy, it is still commented that awarding excessive amounts of damages to the plaintiffs, i.e. authors or holders of economic copyrights, represents a kind of pressure on the media and their work. A similar point was made at the round table "The role of the media outlets in the protection of copyright and related rights".

Finally, it should be noted that there are examples in the case law in which the courts, when deciding on the amount of remuneration for non-economic damage, determined rather low amounts of monetary remuneration. When passing one of such rulings, the High Court in Belgrade determined the amount of RSD 5,000.00 per public communication of the photograph, i.e. RSD 20,000.00 in total, as a fair amount for remuneration of non-economic damage due to infringement of the

38 Suppra Note 22

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA 23 right to be named, as well as the amount of RSD 3,000.00 per public communica- tion of the photograph, amounting to a total of RSD 12,000.00 for remuneration of non-economic damage due to infringement of the right to protection of the work’s integrity by communicating it in an incomplete form39.

Namely, in the stated case, when determining the amount of damages for infringe- ment of the right to protection of integrity, the court took into account the fact that the plaintiff infringed the moral copyright of the plaintiff, "by cutting the bottom part of the photograph, so the composition of the copyright work was slightly dis- turbed". Therefore, the court took the position that the intensity of the infringement of the right to protection of the work’s integrity was not high, so in accordance with such assessment it awarded the amount of remuneration of RSD 3,000.00 for each individual public communication of the photograph that violated the integrity of the work.

Also, in the explanation, the court stated the reasons for which it awarded the stated amounts, i.e. the reasons for which it partially rejected the claim, and thus deter- mined the following: "The court rejected as too high the part of the plaintiff's claim for non-economic damages due to infringement of the author's moral rights by pub- lic communication of the plaintiff's copyright work without indicating the author's name or pseudonym exceeding the awarded amount of RSD 20,000.00, up to RSD 30,000.00, as in paragraph VI of the wording, and the part of the plaintiff's claim for non-economic damages due to infringement of the author's moral rights by public communication of the plaintiff's copyright work in incomplete form exceeding the awarded amount of RSD 12,000.00, up to RSD 30,000.00, as in paragraph VII of the wording of the ruling, all with legal default interest starting from 24 January 2019, as the day of the ruling until the final payment. The court took into account the impor- tance of the infringed property and the purpose of the remuneration, as well as that the remuneration did not favour aspirations that were incompatible with its nature and social purpose and that remuneration for non-pecuniary damage was redress, and not reparation for the committed infringement, by which the plaintiff should obtain certain satisfaction to alleviate the infringement of his/her moral copyrights."

39 Final ruling of the High Court in Belgrade, operating number 15 P4 45/18, dated 24 January 2019

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT 24 AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA Therefore, when determining the amount of RSD 3,000.00 and RSD 5,000.00, the court took into account the significance of the infringed property, the purpose of the remuneration, as well as the fact that too high remuneration would not be com- patible with the nature and purpose of non-pecuniary damages. So, those were the main reasons for determining the unusually low amounts of remuneration for non-pecuniary damages. Finally, considering the above, we can conclude that the courts in each individual case take into account the specific circumstances of the case, and accordingly determine the amounts of remuneration they consider appro- priate and fair.

COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT Bearing in mind that the Law on Copyright and Related Rights has not yet been fully harmonised with the European legal standards and solutions in the domain of the collective management, legal provisions entered into force via the Amended Law of 2019 are solely transitory solution towards the implementation of the EU Directive no. 2014/26 (hereinafter referred to as: Directive)40. This part of the text will focus on solutions stemming from the Directive and solutions from the Copyright and Related Rights Act of the Republic of Croatia41 (hereinafter referred to as: the Republic of Croatia Act), as an EU member state from the neighbourhood, given that those solutions might in different fashion improve Serbian legislation focusing on the issue of the collective management of copyright and related rights, in case accepted and adapted.

40 EU Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and Council. 41 Copyright and Related Rights Act of the Republic of Croatia (NN 167/03, 79/07, 80/11, 125/11, 141/13, 127/14, 62/17, 96/18)

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT 26 AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA The major change the Directive prescribes, which among other things relates to problems caused by the monopoly position of the Organisations, is establishment of the so called independent managerial entities used as a vehicle for the hold- ers of power to manage their rights (hereinafter referred to as: Independent Enti- ties). Namely, in line with the Directive, Independent Entities act as commercially oriented communities, unlike non-profit organisation nowadays present, such as SOKOJ42, and also Independent Entities are not owned by, nor under the control of holders of copyright and related rights, which further enables their independ- ent work when providing services they charge for. By the introduction of Independ- ent Entities, Organisations would no longer have monopoly position over the collec- tive management of rights concerning a specific type of rights over a specific type of subject matters of copyright or related rights. Also, Independent Entities would ensure through their operations a high level of transparency in terms of collection and distribution of funds, and thereby a low level of costs of their operation in rela- tion to the operation of the Organizations.

By the Republic of Croatia Act, an Independent Entity that intends to perform the activity of collective management of rights is obliged to inform the State Intellec- tual Property Office (Intellectual Property Office in the Republic of Serbia, hereinaf- ter: the Office) thereof, and provide the Office with data on the type of rights and the category of rightholders, as well as on the number of rightholders for which it intends to perform collective management43. The Independent Entity must also notify the Office of any changes to the information it has stated when submit- ting the request44. However, the introduction of the possibility of managing rights through Independent Entities is not enough, it is also necessary to provide super- vision over their work. The Republic of Croatia Act has given the authority to the authorised inspectors of the Office45 to conduct supervision over the work of Inde- pendent Entities, distinguishing between planned supervision conducted on an annual basis and unplanned supervision carried out at the proposal of the inter-

42 Organization of music authors of Serbia 43 Suppra Note 41, Article 171.b, paragraph 1 44 Ibid. 171.b, paragraph 2 45 Ibid. 171.c, paragraph 1

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA 27 ested party46. During the inspection control, the authorized inspector of the Office has the right to request access to the business records and other documentation of the Independent Entity, and in case s/he finds any deficiencies or irregularities, s/he will order their removal by a decision, and in case of non-compliance with the decision, s/he will prohibit the work of the Independent Entity by a new decision47. The stated decisions of the authorized inspector of the Office cannot be appealed, but an administrative dispute may be initiated. Therefore, if the Republic of Serbia would enable the existence of Independent Entities, with its legal solutions, their work in the field of collective management of copyright and related rights could contribute to the general reduction of the costs of collective management of rights. In addition, Organizations would no longer have their current monopoly position, and thereby would be motivated to optimize their operations in order to compete in the market.

Furthermore, as regards the organization of the operations of the Organizations, the introductory provisions of the Directive, under number 22 state that Organi- sations should act in the best collective interests of the rightholders they repre- sent and should not impose additional obligations on rightholders, enabling their participation in the decision-making processes of the Organization. Organizations that have different categories of rightholders among their membership (e.g. pro- ducers and performers) should ensure equal representation of these categories in decision-making bodies. Likewise, the Directive stipulates that the Organisation should under its Statute or any other publicly published enactment set objective and non-discriminatory criteria for admitting rightholders, i.e. persons representing rightholders in its membership, and in case of rejection it has to explain to that per- son the reasons for the rejection48. In order for the work of the Organization to be efficient, persons with management functions must not be in a conflict of interest, and the obligation of EU member states to monitor the likely possibility of a conflict of interest is prescribed by the Directive49. The introductory provisions of the Direc- tive, under number 25, stipulate that it would be efficient for persons such as direc-

46 Ibid. 171.c, paragraph 3 47 Ibid. 171.c, paragraph 4 -6 48 Suppra Note 40, Chapter 2, Article 6, paragraph 2 49 Ibid, Chapter 2, Article 10, paragraph 2

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT 28 AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA tors or members of the supervisory board to declare that there is no conflict of inter- est immediately before taking office, and once a year thereafter. Also, Organizations should be able to make these statements publicly or to submit them to government agencies. In case of introduction of such a mechanism in our legislation, it would be most effective to make the supervisory board of the Organization competent for control and for sanctioning the existence of conflicts of interest.

Furthermore, the Republic of Croatia Act indicates that the Organization may entrust a natural or legal person to perform administrative, technical or supporting works under its supervision, all in order to reduce costs and optimize the function- ing of the Organization50. Therefore, by harmonizing the regulation with the Direc- tive or taking over the mentioned legal solutions from the Republic of Croatia Act, the Republic of Serbia would ensure greater efficiency and transparency in the work of the Organizations, equal representation of all categories of members in the bod- ies of the Organization, and thereby the provisions on conflict of interest would pro- vide additional protection to rightholders, Users and the Organizations respectively.

Although the legislator, as explained earlier in the text, amended the provisions of the Law related to the tariff and adjusted them to European standards, one of the most problematic provisions in the LCRR still refers to negotiations regarding the tariff and the adoption of the tariff. As mentioned earlier, in case of impossibility to find a compromise, the tariff is determined by the Organization, i.e. its administra- tive board and it is submitted to the competent authority for approval. The Repub- lic of Croatia Act refers primarily to the execution of a contract between the Organi- zation and the User, i.e. between the Organization and the Association of Users, and in case of impossibility to execute a contract, the tariff is determined by the Organi- zation, but with a number of restrictions. First of all, it is necessary to submit the tar- iff to the Association of Users, which has a period of 30 days to provide comments, otherwise it would be deemed they accepted the proposed tariff. In the event that there are objections by the Association, the two parties may negotiate an arbitration agreement on the basis of which the tariff will be determined in the arbitration pro-

50 Suppra Note 41, Article 158, paragraph 3

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA 29 ceedings. In case the two parties do not reach an agreement on the arbitration pro- ceedings, the Republic of Croatia Act instructs the Organization to ask the expert body for an opinion on the subject matter of disagreement (the expert body con- sists of 5 persons from among prominent experts in the subject matter, appointed by the Ministry upon the proposal of the Director of the Office)51. The tariff-setting procedure set out above prevents the Organization from conducting negotiations without the intention of accepting compromises and thus from abusing its domi- nant position vis-à-vis Users. The introduction of this or a similar procedure would beyond any doubt improve the position of the Users when negotiating the setting of tariffs, and that was one of the objections of the authors of the Media Strategy. In order to achieve greater objectivity of the expert body and reduce control over it to the minimum, clear criteria for the selection of persons should be prescribed in advance by law, and the procedure for its formation should be transparent and sub- ject to public discussion.

Furthermore, the deadline for payment of collected funds provided for by the LCRR is 31 December of the current year for the amounts collected for the previous year, while the Directive and the Republic of Croatia Act indicate a shorter period of max- imum 9 months from the end of the year for which the amounts are paid52. Accord- ing to the solution from the Republic of Croatia Act, in case the Organization can- not pay the funds because the rightholder is unknown, specific amounts are kept in separate accounts of the Organization, while the Organization itself must take all necessary measures to find those rightholders53. In the event that after the expi- ration of the period of 3 years the stated amounts are not distributed to the right- holders, these amounts are deemed non-distributable, and their further use will be decided upon by the General Assembly of the Organization54. Also, it is nec- essary to legally establish certain rules concerning revenue management by the Organization. Namely, the Organization should have a legal obligation to keep its own assets separately in its business registers, on the one hand, and revenues from rights, i.e. revenues generated by investing revenues stemming from rights on the

51 Ibid, Article 162 52 Suppra Note 40, Chapter 2, Article 13 and Ibid 167, paragraph 4 53 Suppra Note 41, Article 167, paragraphs 5 and 6 54 Ibid. 167, paragraphs 7 and 8

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT 30 AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA other hand, following the example of the Republic of Croatia Act55. Also, according to the Republic of Croatia Act, the Organisation cannot use revenues stemming from rights, including revenues acquired by investing revenues from rights, for purposes other than distribution to rightholders, except to cover the costs of collective man- agement56. All the aforementioned solutions, as well as deadlines, are prescribed in the interest of rightholders, which is in line with the goal for which the Organi- zations deal with collective management in the first place, which is to protect the interests of holders of copyright or related rights.

As per the supervision over the work of the Organization, although the LCRR pre- scribes the possibility and specifics of supervision by the competent authority, it should be regulated in more detail in order to be harmonized with the Directive. Fol- lowing the instructions from the Directive and the Republic of Croatia Act, planned supervision and unplanned supervision upon the reasoned proposal of the inter- ested party should be separated57. Also, what constitutes an important difference compared to the LCRR is a more precise definition of the possibility of adopting appropriate measures by a person conducting the supervision, primarily the deci- sion to rectify identified deficiencies, and later possibly the decision to revoke the license to conduct the activities of collective management of copyright and related rights58.

In order to harmonize regulations with the Directive, rightholders should be legally allowed to object to the Organization, for all aspects of the activities performed by the Organization on their behalf, and in particular in terms of membership criteria, powers of attorney issued to the Organisation and their withdrawal, and distribu- tion of the amounts collected59. In addition, the Directive refers to the possibility of alternative dispute resolution among the Organization, its members, rightholders or the Users60, in addition to the possibility of resolving the dispute before the court

55 Ibid. 165.b, paragraph 2 56 Ibid. 165.b, paragraph 3 57 Ibid. 170, paragraph 2 58 Ibid. 170, Articles 3-5 59 Suppra Note 40, Chapter 4, Article 33 and Ibid. 168.p 60 Suppra Note 40, Chapter 4, Article 34

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA 31 in civil proceedings. By providing a procedure to file an objection to the Organiza- tion, and enabling an efficient alternative way of dispute resolution, the Republic of Serbia would protect its judiciary to a great extent, which is currently overwhelmed by various proceedings concerning the determination of holders of copyright and related rights. Various internal enactments of the Organization also contributed to that, such as the Rulebook on registration of phonograms and resolution of dis- puted and duplicated phonograms of the Organization of Phonogram Producers of Serbia - OFPS, which stipulates that when registering phonograms only contracts, invoices and the like are accepted as proof that a certain person is the rightholder of phonogram producers, while previously it was allowed for persons to submit vari- ous types of evidence, including statements of other persons61. The current situation is not sustainable, considering that a large number of rightholders have been pre- vented from exercising their rights.

Furthermore, the Organizations should be given the opportunity to entrust to other Organizations certain works of collective management of rights on the basis of a written contract, while the performance of those works may be in the name and for the account of the Organization that entrusted performance of those works or in its own name, but for the account of that Organization62. Also, rightholders who have entrusted the Organization to collectively manage their rights should be able to issue licenses to various persons for non-commercial use of those rights, in which case the Organization should make public the clear criteria for issuing such licenses63. By transposing these or including similar provisions into the Law, the effi- ciency of the Organization would be significantly increased. However, the weak points of allowing rightholders to issue licenses for non-commercial use of copy- right works or subject matter of protection, even after they have ceded their rights to the Organization for the purpose of collective management, could be the possi- ble legal uncertainty that this could cause, that is, the confusion in which potential users could find themselves in terms of the persons to whom they should apply for a license to use.

61 Rulebook on registration of phonograms and resolution of disputed and duplicated phonograms, Article 13. 62 Suppra Note 41, Article 158, paragraph 2 63 Ibid. 159, paragraph 2

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT 32 AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA Finally, current development and advancement of technology can be used to improve the collective management of rights. Namely, there are already software that per- form or at least facilitate the performance of collective management of rights by Organizations (e.g. WIPOCOS software). The states should encourage organizations, i.e. help and enable them to obtain software solutions that will enable a higher level of transparency, cost reduction and, in general, more efficient work of the Organi- zation, all with the aim of having better protection of the interests of holders of cop- yright and related rights. However, it is necessary to point out that when choosing this type of software, Organizations must be very careful, since the software will be entrusted with the protection of the interests of other persons, i.e. rightholders.

INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE One of the measures prescribed by the Media Strategy is to reduce the number of disputes whose subject matter is to determine copyright infringements regarding the publication of photographs. This goal can be reached in several ways. Attempt- ing to revoke the "original copyright work" status to a photograph, or to take a stand- point in the case law that allows the suspension of economic copyright when it comes to photographs, is certainly not a recommended way to reduce the num- ber of the instigated litigation proceedings, as this would be contrary to legal norms and case law that have been developed for decades on the one hand, and to the interests of the content or photograph producers on the other. However, raising the level of awareness among media workers about the importance of respecting copy- right, and reducing to an acceptable level the amount of remunerations that courts adjudicate would significantly relieve, first the courts and then potential defend- ants in these disputes as well.

Therefore, it would be suitable for as many professional associations of authors and media associations as possible, either independently or under the auspices of the competent authorities, to gather around a single tariff schedule that would pre- cisely define the parameters for categorizing copyright works, assessing their value, and the amount for the damages appropriate for cases of unauthorized use of the copyright work. If such a harmonized enactment existed, authors on the one hand, as well as media publishers on the other, would have clear instructions for calculat- ing and paying fees and there would be no need to initiate unnecessary and expen-

On the other hand, when it comes to possible amendments to the LCRR that would relate to the individual exercising of copyright, or the status of a photograph or jour- nalistic text as a copyright work, we note that the provisions of the Law are clear and in line with the Berne Convention64, and EU directives65 that regulate this seg- ment of the copyright subject matter. Therefore, the solution should be sought in the application of the law, the case law, i.e. in an attempt to reach the necessary compromises through professional associations, which would in the end certainly result in a higher level of compliance with copyright and a reduction in the number of disputes.

To that end, the competent entities can clearly determine the criteria for catego- rization of copyright works, according to the manner and purpose for which they were created, according to the time and resources required for their creation and the properties and achievements of their author. Also, it is necessary to break down the proposed amount of damages according to the degree of infringement, which would also result in a much fairer redistribution of remuneration for the damages caused.

For example, photographs used to illustrate texts, taken in the usual environment, without prior preparation and with medium quality equipment, should not have the same market value, and therefore the same criteria for determining the amount of economic damage, as the photographs taken in a photography studio, on a loca- tion outside the author's place of residence or with the use of valuable photogra- phy equipment. Currently the ULUPUDS (The Applied Artists and Designers Asso- ciation of Serbia) tariff schedule prescribes a remuneration of EUR 150 for one year of unauthorized use of each photo on the web. Thus, the extent of remuneration for economic damage can range from just a few euros for illustrative photographs of objects and common, everyday motifs, to several hundred Euro in the case of photo- graphs of nudes, portraits where prior permission had to be obtained from the per-

64 Suppra Note 13 65 Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT 34 AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA son whose image is recorded, or in the case of professional photographs of celebri- ties taken for special purposes.

On the other hand, it is not fair for the remuneration to be the same for publications on small portals with only a few hundred visits per day, or on pages that are open several thousand times, as in the case of mass exploitation of works on websites with millions of visits. Although there are no clear criteria for determining a visit, this can be done by submitting an excerpt from Google Analytics by the infringer or determining the rank that the internet portal occupies on platforms such as alexa. com, etc.

From all the above, we can conclude that by comparing the existing legal solutions concerning the individual exercise of copyright and related rights in the Republic of Serbia, with the EU solutions governing the same subject matter, specifically Direc- tive 2004/48/EU of the European Parliament and Council, and Directive 2019/790/EU of the European Parliament and Council, it can be concluded that the regulation of individual exercise of copyright and related rights in the Republic of Serbia is har- monized with EU law, so improvement in individual exercise of these rights should not be sought in the amendments to the Law on Copyright and Related Rights, but rather in its consistent application.

BRIEF OVERVIEW OF ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN ORDER TO IMPROVE THE MANAGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT AND ESTABLISHMENT OF LEGAL CERTAINTY Given the above mentioned in sections 2.1. and 2.2, the proposed measures in order to improve individual exercise and collective management can be summarized as follows:

• For the needs of individual exercise of rights - adoption of uniform tariff schedules by a group of renowned professional associations that would serve as a parameter for calculating the amount of remuneration for econo- mic damage due to subjective copyright infringement, on journalistic texts, photographs, videos, for determining the amount of remuneration fairly on the basis of multiple criteria.

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA 35 • Standardization of case law vis-a-vis the standpoints for determination of infringement and the amount of economic and non-economic damage due to copyright infringement, which would contribute to legal certainty.

• Establishing transparency in the case law, which would make decisions whose subject matter is the determination of copyright infringement and remuneration for damages available to interested parties and other judges.

• Abolition of monopolies in the field of collective management in a way that will allow the work of Independent Entities, following the solutions from the EU, which would contribute to competition on the market and more effi- cient work of organizations for collective management.

• Implementation of software solutions in the work of organizations for colle- ctive management of copyright, thus making the process of reporting used works/phonograms and revenue distribution more efficient, economical and transparent.

• Amending the procedure for adopting the tariff for exercising the right, so that in case the agreement is not reached, the Legislator will prescribe the obligation to determine the final amount of the tariff with the help of arbi- tration or a group of independent experts. Setting clear and specific rules to determine the way to manage the revenues collected by organizations for collective management, in order to increase the transparency of their work.

• Ensuring supervision over the work of organizations for collective mana- gement, especially through empowering supervisory bodies to adopt appropriate measures.

NEED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE EU DIRECTIVE 2019/790 ON COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE SINGLE DIGITAL MARKET EU Directive 2019/790 on copyright and related rights in the digital single market (hereinafter: the Directive) is a regulation from the application of which much is

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT 36 AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA expected particularly when it comes to the regulation of copyright, and especially a fairer redistribution of revenues thereof, that come from digital distribution and the Internet. Therefore, from the aspect of media outlets and journalistic profession, this is an extremely important regulation, considering that technological progress has greatly influenced journalism and changed it by creating completely new types of media outlets that are becoming the dominant form of media outlet compared to the traditional form.

The adoption of the Directive by the EU Member States on 17 April 2019, formally ended one of the most controversial decision-making processes at the EU level, ini- tiated in September 2016, when the proposal for this directive was submitted to the European Commission. The whole process of negotiations was monitored world- wide66, and the biggest dust was raised around two articles - Article 15, which intro- duces a new right of the press publishers in relation to the use of their publications on the Internet, the so-called hyperlink fee, and Article 17, the so-called article of the discrepancy in the value/setting of filters, which envisages the manner of use of pro- tected content by the content sharing service provider via the Internet and deter- mines the responsibility of the provider of that service. Rightholders in question, i.e. publishers, musicians and their representatives, provided the greatest and most sig- nificant support to these controversial Articles. On the other hand, criticism of these Articles was not absent and came from academia, experts and non-governmental organizations dealing with digital rights, and it was so intense in certain cases that civil protests were organized. However, a fact that both sides can agree upon is that the final version of the Directive represents a significant improvement compared to the initial draft text.

66 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/06/internet-luminaries-ring-alarm-eu-copyright-filtering-proposal https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/09/today-europe-lost-internet-now-we-fight-back http://www.filmdirectors.eu/over-100-authors-professional-organisations-call-in-support-of-the- copyright-directive/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXlFYE-w4Q0 https://www.liberties.eu/en/news/delete-article-thirteen-open-letter/13194 https://www.create.ac.uk/blog/2019/03/24/the-copyright-directive-articles-11-and-13-must-go- statement-from-european-academics-in-advance-of-the-plenary-vote-on-26-march-2019/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyujNlpxu9k

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA 37 The application of the Directive at the EU level started on 7 June 2021, and the Mem- ber States are obliged to adapt their legislation to the solutions from this regula- tion, provided that the rules relating to agreements on licensing and transfer of rights between authors and performers will apply only as of 7 June 2022. Although the deadlines in question do not refer to the Republic of Serbia, it is certain that the implementation of the solution from the Directive into the national legislation should be a priority for our legislator in the medium term. However, it should be noted that, taking into account the quantity and scope of changes, as well as the complexity of implementing the solutions from the Directive in practice, the imple- mentation process should be carried out under the supervision of the professional public and subject to the necessary public discussion.

WHAT WAS THE INTENTION OF THE DIRECTIVE

The Directive67 is one of the most extensive acts in the history of copyright at the EU level, given that its text consists of as many as 86 recitals and 32 Articles. It is divided into 5 titles which, in addition to general provisions, include measures to adapt exceptions and limitations to the digital and cross-border environment, measures to improve licensing practices and ensure wider access to content, measures to cre- ate a functioning copyright market, and final provisions.68

The adoption of such an enactment was inevitable, as there is a need to harmonize the relevant regulations at the EU level with the rapid technological development that has changed the way of creating, producing and exploiting copyright works and related rights. Namely, the Directive was adopted in order to finally solve the prob- lem of legal uncertainty during the digital and cross-border use of protected works, which refers both to the holders of copyright and related rights, and to the users of the subject matter of protection. The provisions of the Directive are designed to strike a balance between the conflicting interests of digital and cross-border market participants. As stated in the text of the Directive, it aims to:

67 Directive on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN-HR/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32019L0790&from=EN 68 Milić, D, Trendovi i sudska praksa u domenu autorskog prava u novinarstvu, / Trends and case law in the field of copyright in journalism/ IJAS, Belgrade, 2020, p. 15

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT 38 AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA • regulate the relations between the holders of copyright and related rights, and also the users of their works;

• ensure wide access to content;

• provide fair compensation for its creators;

• recognize the right to profit of the individual, but also to take into account the public interest and the importance that access to content has for the European cultural heritage, and in that sense prescribe exceptions;

• that its provisions create efficient licensing mechanisms, but also equally effective mechanisms for its revocation;

• that its provisions respect the right of the public to be informed, but also recognize the organizational and financial contribution of publishers in the production of news, as well as the importance that the survival of the pub- lishing industry has for the availability of reliable information.

The Directive does not affect existing rules in the EU, except in explicitly stated cases, such as laying down rules on exceptions and limitations concerning copyright and related rights and facilitating licensing, or rules aimed at further securing the mar- ket for exploitation of works and other subject matters of protection.

RULES INTRODUCED BY THE DIRECTIVE

A. Adapting exceptions and limitations to the digital and cross-border environment

In this section, the Directive provides for several exceptions and limitations that Member States must not only provide for in their national legislation, but also ensure that these exceptions remain outside the autonomy of the will of the contracting parties (they must be found in national pieces of legislation as provisions of the coercive regulations that cannot be changed by the agreement of the contracting parties).69

69 Ibid. 16

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA 39 The first two exceptions relate to the so-called text and data mining, i.e. “any auto- mated analytical technique aimed at analysing text and data in digital form in order to generate information which includes but is not limited to patterns, trends and correlations". Namely, text and data mining is extremely important nowadays for acquiring new knowledge and discovering trends because it represents a new method of discovering the data and their value. Thus, text and data mining is in fact the search for valuable information among a large amount of available data, in order to convert the raw information found in this way into useful one. However, text and data mining can very easily include actions that are under copyright protection, especially concerning databases, and it was therefore necessary to provide for some legitimate exceptions to this protection. Exceptions are provided in the case of text and data mining for scientific purposes in the case of scientific research, as well as in the case of reproduction and extraction of text that can be legally accessed for those purposes. The third exception concerns digital and cross-border teaching, which takes place on a non-commercial basis, with the aim of setting an example in teaching, while leaving the possibility for Member States to freely limit the scope of this provision at the national level. The last exception concerns the preservation of cultural heritage, i.e. the text and data mining for that purpose by the competent institutions.70

Although this section is mostly noticed by the public for its positive aspects, crit- ics point out that the exceptions are set very narrow, and that set as such, they will not lead to harmonization of the system of exemptions in the EU, primarily because Member States are left with a lot of liberty to both interpret provisions relating to exemptions and prescribe these exemptions at the national level. Due to all the above, this section has been declared by a part of the public as yet another missed opportunity to provide legal certainty to stakeholders at the EU level.71

70 Ibid. 71 https://eua.eu/news/150:eu-copyright-reform-european-parliament-vote-is-a-missed-opportunity-to- bolster-r-i.html

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT 40 AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA Significance of exceptions for media / freedom of information

B. Improving licensing practices and ensuring wider access to content

In this part, the Directive is divided into several chapters, the first of which deals with subject matters of the protection that are not available in the market. Namely, this chapter envisages the possibility for representative organizations for collective management of the rights to conclude an agreement with cultural heritage insti- tutions on a non-exclusive license for works that are in the permanent collections of these institutions, all on a non-commercial basis. It is interesting that righthold- ers are given the opportunity to exclude their works not only from organisations for collective management, but also from this licensing mechanism, both in gen- eral and in individual cases. The chapter also provides for an exception related to the right of cultural heritage institutions to make available for non-commercial pur- poses other works and subject matter of protection that are not available on the market and that they hold in their permanent collections, as well as when there is no organization for the collective management of rights on a certain type of work (which meets the conditions in relation to representativeness or in relation to equal treatment of all rightholders over that type of work). It is also interesting that in the case of this exception, cultural heritage institutions are forced to operate exclusively within the borders of the state in which the institution is based, while in the case of the rule there is no such restriction, and cultural heritage institutions can allow the use of works in any Member States. Finally, in order to comply with this provision, it is envisaged to encourage dialogue between stakeholders, as well as the establish- ment of a single on-line portal under the competence of the EU Intellectual Prop- erty Office.72

The next chapter refers to the extended effect of collective licensing, and what is most important is that the conditions that a collective management organization must meet are finally listed exhaustively:

72 Suppra Note 67, Article 10, paragraph 1

• guarantees of equal treatment of all rightholders and equal licensing conditions;

• option for holders to exclude their works from the licensing mechanism;

• effective information rendering measures.

The third chapter determines the rules for access to audio-visual works on the so-called video-on-demand platforms, as well as for the availability of these works. Namely, the Member States are obliged to appoint authorized intermediaries, i.e. impartial bodies to provide assistance to interested parties in reaching an agree- ment regarding these works. Compliance with the provision of Chapter III of the Directive is in fact reflected in the provision of an effective mechanism that will fur- ther enable stakeholders to, first of all, negotiate and then conclude agreements on audio-visual works located on video-on-demand platforms. Finally, the chap- ter 4 contains a provision concerning the works of visual art in the public domain. Namely, this chapter refers to the works of visual art whose term of protection has expired, and it states that any material resulting from the reproduction of that work is not subject to copyright or related rights, but is in the public domain as well as the work to which it refers. The only exception mentioned is the situation in which the material created as a consequence of reproduction in itself represents the original, i.e. the author's intellectual creation. It is also interesting that this chapter was not included in the first proposal of the Directive, and it is one of the witnesses of the already mentioned progress of the final text in relation to its first proposal, because the existence of this provision is not only justified but necessary. Namely, the pro- visions of this chapter are envisaged primarily with the aim of striking the balance between the interests of institutions for the preservation of cultural heritage and the interests of the public to freely access works. This provision beyond any doubt contributes to the promotion of culture and the enrichment of Europe's cultural heritage. Certainly, the second value of this provision is that it really provides a uni- form solution and thus brings legal certainty to the flow of works of visual art in the public domain, the reproductions of which will now be free to use in the EU. There- fore, the provisions of this chapter satisfy the interests of both institutions for the

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT 42 AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA preservation of cultural heritage, on the one hand, and also the public, i.e. the users of this type of work, on the other hand.73

This provision is of great importance precisely because of the practice of many countries (Italy, Germany, Sweden, etc.) to protect reproductions of works of visual art and thus render them an exclusive right, which actually means that works are withdrawn from the public domain in this way. The best example of the above is the widespread practice of museums to seek this type of protection for works in their collections (one example is the Prado Museum in Spain, which sought copyright protection over a work by an artist who passed away 350 years ago74). This provi- sion means that digital reproductions of artistic paintings/sculptures will not be pro- tected either (provided that it should be borne in mind here that sufficiently original works of this kind will still be protected).75

C. Creating a functional market for the trade in subjective copyright

It is within this title that the most controversial Articles of this Directive are found:

Article 15:

This Article prescribes the exclusive right of publishers (established in the territory of the EU) to explicitly prohibit/allow the reproduction and making available to the public their online publication in respect of Internet use by information society ser- vice providers. It is also envisaged that the provisions establishing this right do not apply to individual users who use these publications privately and non-commer- cially, as well as that this right does not apply to hyperlinking, use of individual words or very short excerpts from press publications. The publisher's right is limited in time, and the publisher cannot invoke it when the two-year period from the publi- cation has expired. In addition to this restriction, the publisher's right is limited by the right of the author of the publication, who has the right to share in the revenues

73 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN-HR/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016PC0593&from=EN 74 https://www.museodelprado.es/en/the-collection/art-work/judith-at-the-banquet-of-holofernes- previously/08f69e61-f7c5-43f9-a76d-b24fbdc63681?searchid=83276974-5ac1-9507-a0ec-9f755e87b0f1 75 Suppra Note 68, p. 17

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA 43 generated by the publisher under this right, and by the right of other users author- ized by the author, in case the publisher does not have an exclusive license for the publication.

Among the explanations for the introduction of this provision in the Directive is the need to recognize publishers' organizational and financial contribution to the pro- duction of these publications, in order to ensure the sustainability of this profes- sion, and thus the production of reliable information. The provisions of the Directive do not negate the great importance that free access to information has for public debate and the preservation of a modern democratic society. However, the expla- nation states the fact that in the current society, a large number of market partici- pants build the entire business model on the exploitation of press publications, and on that basis make huge profits, while publishers and authors are left without any remuneration for usage.

It is exactly the provision concerning the remuneration for downloading or "bor- rowing" Internet publications on the Internet that has sparked the dialogue among publishers, academia, politicians and persons relevant to the Internet sector and the civil sector in general. What is obvious is that the traditional journalistic profession is threatened - every year journalists lose their jobs both nationally and regionally, authors and publishers spend a huge amount of time and money, first in research and then in writing quality newspaper articles, and they fail to adequately charge for their work. One of the problems is the so-called online news collectors who are rarely willing to pay a fee for the use of newspaper articles, but their business model is based on collecting and communicating on their websites news and media cov- erage of various media outlets and authors, and thus allow users or readers to have access to various news at one place. However, in that way, they negatively affect the media outlets and publishers, that is, cause damage to them since, in that way, the media outlets lose users who are redirected to the websites of online news col- lectors. Media monitoring services create a similar problem for publishers, i.e. the media outlets, because they also generally do not agree to pay a fee for the use of newspaper and other similar articles.

Also, another relevant problem is the preferences of users who are less and less will- ing to pay and thus support quality journalism, but turn to information through

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT 44 AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA social networks or through cheap tabloids as direct competition. Namely, although the relevant public supported the idea to finally place beside the rights of users to wide access to quality and timely information, the interest of persons who pro- duce such content, the question remains whether this provision was the best way to do so. The shortcoming of the provision that critics point out refers to the possi- bility that tabloids abuse this right and determine the fee for the use of their publi- cations in a minimal amount76, or not even determine it at all, which would further lead to even bigger problems and widespread information disruption. This situa- tion, in addition to being a problem for producers of informative publications, would also affect the public, as it would allow tabloids of certain interest groups to achieve even greater visibility, through news containing less verified or unverified informa- tion and through biased reporting in favour of these interest groups which they already profit from, and thus completely suppress producers who have determined an adequate fee for the production of quality and verified news, which would also be the "final nail in the coffin" of investigative journalism that would not have enough funds to remain in the race with the tabloids. Also, according to critics, another dan- ger to the survival of journalists and publishers lies in the absolute monopoly that the Google platform has in the market. Namely, in their opinion, Google has at least two ways to abuse this provision of the Directive. First, it may refuse to pay a fee for the use of publications by certain producers if it considers it excessive, and as Google controls positioning on Google search, this may result in insufficient visibility of these producers, and thus large financial losses under the very provision that was supposed to generate them profit. This is exactly what happened when some coun- tries tried to include similar provisions at the national level (the example of Germany and publisher Axel Springer that restricted access to Google search for their publica- tions due to inability to adequately license their content, resulting in a drop of 40% on Google search and large material losses, as a result of which they were forced to suspend this restriction77). Another possibility of abuse, both by the Google plat- form and by other commercial platforms, lies in the exception which is abstractly set, and refers to the use of "single words and very short clips" for which no fee

76 https://juliareda.eu/2018/04/fake-news-link-tax/ 77 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-axel-sprngr/germanys-top-publisher-bows-to-google-in- news-licensing-row-idUSKBN0IP1YT20141105

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA 45 is due. If countries do not define these terms precisely enough in their respective national regulations or set them too broadly, leaving room for different interpreta- tions, it is this exception that will provide ample room to avoid paying a fee for the use of publications.78

Critics of the Directive see in this provision not only a danger for news publishers but also for users, other commercial platforms, and for the very authors of press publi- cations.79 Namely, it can be dangerous fact for users that commercial platforms are not defined precisely enough, so there is a possibility that this provision of the direc- tive "hits" blogs or Facebook pages run by individuals with a large reach, i.e. a large audience. This provision could also mean an end for new commercial platforms that want to engage in media monitoring or online news collection, as they will find it difficult to cover licensing costs of the publisher, providing Google an even stronger position in the market and a complete monopoly while suppressing small entities from the market. As far as the authors are concerned, even if the publishers manage to obtain some share in the profit of the commercial platform, the question arises as to how much of that fee will ultimately belong to the author himself/herself.80

Article 17:

This provision applies to providers of content sharing services via the Internet, i.e. to platforms that store copyrighted content for commercial purposes, and then allow their users to upload and share that content while they organize and promote it (e.g. Facebook, Youtube, Vimeo and other).

The Directive imposes an obligation to them to obtain from the authors, whose con- tent they share on their platform, adequate authorisation for sharing activities in order to avoid liability. If, on the other hand, the platforms do not obtain the neces- sary authorisation from the author, it is prescribed that they are responsible for any unauthorized communication to the public, including making available to the pub- lic works protected by copyright and related rights on them.

78 Suppra Note 68, p. 18. 79 https://www.ivir.nl/academics-against-press-publishers-right/ 80 Suppra Note 68, p. 18

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT 46 AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA In addition to obtaining author’s authorization (e.g. by license), platforms can avoid this liability only if they prove that they:

• have undertaken everything in their power to obtain approval from the author;

• have undertaken everything in their power, in accordance with high sec- toral standards of professional care, to make protected works inaccessible;

• after receiving the notification from the author, have acted without delay in order to prevent further access to the protected content, and then have removed it, also without delay.

Content that represents a quote, critique, overview, as well as works of parody, car- icature or pastiche is excluded from this provision. The so-called new Internet con- tent sharing service providers whose services are available for less than 3 years, with an annual turnover of less than 3 million and an audience not exceeding 5 million people in one month are also excluded.

It is obvious that this provision is aimed at reducing the discrepancy in the value of the profit generated by authors on the one hand and large platforms on the other. What is stated in the Directive is that large platforms such as Youtube have revolu- tionized the diversity of content and the ease with which it can be accessed today, which is invaluable for the Internet as we know it today. On the other hand, while these platforms indirectly or directly earn huge amounts of money on their busi- ness models, it has become very difficult, even almost impossible, for today's con- tent authors to determine whether their works are used and under what conditions. The Directive sees a solution to this problem in the development of a licensing mar- ket between copyright and related rights holders and the platforms for sharing their content, which would ensure that in addition to platforms, authors receive appropri- ate remuneration for the use of their works.81

81 Suppra Note 67, recital 61

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA 47 It is this provision that has been subjected to the most intense criticism from the rel- evant public. First of all, according to critics, this provision would represent the end of the Internet as we know it today and the beginning of the Internet as a means of monitoring and controlling its users, i.e. such a provision would lead to a narrow- ing of Internet freedom of users.82 Namely, having in mind the amount of content that moves on large platforms every day, as well as the number of their users, crit- ics point out that the only way to avoid liability set by the Directive is the introduc- tion of advanced technology capable of recognizing and filtering the content pro- tected by copyrights and related rights. From the point of view of non-governmental organizations, such content monitoring represents, to say the least, a violation of the human rights of users.83 As for smaller platforms, they will be destroyed by this pro- vision, because they are the ones that will not have the means to obtain sufficiently advanced technology for content filtering, and will not be able to meet the require- ments of the Directive, which means they will not be able to continue with the per- formance of their activities. From the point of view of users and the general public, if platforms invest money in new technology, what prevents them from using it for other purposes in the future, such as filtering content that offers a critical assess- ment of a government? Furthermore, from the point of view of technology only, how advanced must it be in order not to filter the parody/caricature works together with the copyright work to which they refer? According to experts, this would prob- ably block them along with illegal content, possibly allowing for the holders of the right over that content to appeal to the platform, which further raises the question of how it will work and how effective the platform's mechanisms will be. Further- more, critics of the text of the Directive question whether the insufficiently clear definition of the provisions ("did everything in their power", for example) will be det- rimental or in favour of the platforms in certain countries. Namely, the provision set in this way, which will be further interpreted by each state and its courts, will lead to complete legal uncertainty for all interested parties and inconsistency in practice.84

Given that there is an obligation to organize a dialogue on the application of Article

82 https://fee.org/articles/europes-censorious-new-copyright-directive-is-the-end-of-the-internet-as-we- know-it/ 83 https://openmedia.org/en/open-letter-57-ngos-ask-deletion-eu-copyright-censorship-filter 84 Suppra Note 68, p. 19

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT 48 AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA 17 among stakeholders before the EU Commission, the world public can only wait for the results of these dialogues to see the best practices regarding this provision and all its real consequences.

The final part of this chapter regulates the obligation to pay fair remuneration in connection with exploitation contracts concluded with authors and performers, and this is precisely the issue in which critics see a real discrepancy in value in the world of copyright. What must be provided for in the contracts is a proportionate and appropriate remuneration for authors/ performers, transparency regarding these contracts, mechanisms for their adjustment after changed circumstances and the procedure for alternative dispute resolution arising from these contracts, as well as the right to revoke.85

D. Future application and adaptation of the rules stemming from the Directive

In addition to the implementation of the rules of the Directive, an important issue for our Legislator will be the guidelines for its implementation that are necessary for solutions to be applicable in practice, which will certainly best show whether both provisions have met their goal - to strike a balance between all participants in a mar- ket that use works protected by copyright and related rights. Certainly, the existing legal framework will be changed, adapted and harmonized with the needs of prac- tice until an adequate balance and protection of the interests of all participants in this market is established, and time will show how the Directive has contributed to this process.

It is clear that the Directive is not aimed at the average user, although it will have an impact on it to a certain extent, but it is primarily aimed at creating and improv- ing the digital single market at the EU level, which ultimately aims to encourage innovation, creativity and new content in the digital world. It should be noted that the freedom of expression of the average user will not be endangered in this way

85 http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/01/20/unwaivable-equitable-remuneration-rights-for- performers-disruption-or-balancing-of-interests/

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA 49 because they will still be able to present their content through social networks and hyperlinks that lead to various websites and posts.

The adoption of such an enactment that regulates this subject matter was impera- tive, because it is necessary that European regulations keep pace with technologi- cal progress. Prior to the adoption of the Directive, the existing enactments regulat- ing this subject matter were not sufficiently focused on the problems of copyright and related rights, or on publishers of press publications. Finally, the aim of such an enactment, through the regulation of the digital market, is to provide legal certainty to holders of copyright and related rights, average Internet users, but also providers of access to content on the Internet.

ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION AND PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT 50 AND INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA

Objavljivanje ove analize pomogli su Ambasada Kraljevine Norveške i Misija OEBS-a u Srbiji. Stavovi izraženi u ovom istraživanju pripadaju isključivo autorima i ne pred- stavljaju zvaničan stav Ambasade Kraljevine Norveške i Misije OEBS-a u Srbiji. SADRŽAJ

ANALIZA POSTOJEĆIH PROPISA IZ OBLASTI AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA I PRAKSE........................................................................................................................3 KOLEKTIVNO OSTVARIVANJE.......................................................................................................................................3

OBRAZLOŽENJE POSTOJEĆIH ZAKONSKIH REŠENJA DONOSIOCA IZMENA I DOPUNA ZAKONA O AUTORSKOM I SRODNIM PRAVIMA IZ 2019. GODINE......................................................................................................................................................................... 7 NAVODI I PREPORUKE IZ STRATEGIJE RAZVOJA SISTEMA JAVNOG INFORMISANJA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI ZA PERIOD 2020-2025. GODINE....................................10

INDIVIDUALNO OSTVARIVANJE................................................................................................................................ 12

PREPORUKE ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA.................................24 KOLEKTIVNO OSTVARIVANJE....................................................................................................................................24 INDIVIDUALNO OSTVARIVANJE...............................................................................................................................30 KRATAK PREGLED RADNJI KOJE TREBA PREDUZETI U CILJU UNAPREĐENJA OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH PRAVA I USPOSTAVLJANJA PRAVNE SIGURNOSTI...................................................................................................................................................... 33 POTREBA ZA USKLAĐIVANJEM SA ODREDBAMA DIREKTIVE EU 2019/790 O AUTORSKIM I SRODNIM PRAVIMA NA JEDINSTVENOM DIGITALNOM TRŽIŠTU.....................................................................................................................................................34

ŠTA SE ŽELELO POSTIĆI DIREKTIVOM..................................................................................................................35 PRAVILA KOJA DONOSI DIREKTIVA ..................................................................................................................... 37 Autoru, odnosno drugom nosiocu autorskih prava koji želi da zaštiti odnosno ostvari svoje pravo stoji na raspolaganju mogućnost individualnog i kolektivnog načina ostvarivanja. Neka prava se u načelu ostvaruju individualno, dok je za neka zbog svo- jih specifičnosti predviđen samo kolektivni metod ostvarivanja, posredstvom speci- jalizovanih organizacija osnovanim upravo u cilju obavljanja delatnosti kolektivnog ostvarivanja autorskog i srodnih prava, a kojima je nadležna institucija za intelek- tualnu svojinu poverila sva neophodna ovlašćenja za obavljanje navedene delatno- sti. Individualno ostvarivanje je najsveobuhvatniji vid zaštite, sa najvećim obimom ponuđenih zahteva koji autorima stoje na raspolaganju, u situacijama kada je to praktično izvodljivo i celishodno. S druge strane, kolektivno ostvarivanje je naročito aktuelno na tržištu muzičkih autorskih dela, odnosno tržištu gde se kao subjekti, pored autora, pojavljuju i proizvođači fonograma, videograma i interpretatori. S obzi- rom na probleme koji se u praksi javljaju u obe varijante ostvarivanja, prikazaćemo analizu svakog od predmetnih segmenata odvojeno.

Takođe, metodologija analize će podrazumevati najpre prikaz postojećeg stanja i manjkavosti, nakon čega će biti ukazano na potencijalna rešenja koja su u primeni u uporednom pravu, a koja bi unapredila trenutna rešenja u pozitivnom pravu Repu- blike Srbije i praksi. ANALIZA POSTOJEĆIH PROPISA IZ OBLASTI AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA I PRAKSE

KOLEKTIVNO OSTVARIVANJE Zakonom o autorskom i srodnim pravima1 (dalje: ZASP ili Zakon) propisano je da se autorsko i srodna prava kolektivno ostvaruju preko organizacija za kolektivno ostvari- vanje autorskog i srodnih prava (dalje: Organizacije), koje nisu lukrativnog karaktera i koje su specijalizovane za ostvarivanje prava u vezi sa određenim predmetima zaštite2.

Da bi određena Organizacija mogla da obavlja delatnost kolektivnog ostvarivanja autorskog i srodnih prava, neophodno je da dobije dozvolu nadležnog organa, odno- sno Zavoda za intelektualnu svojinu. Izmenama Zakona iz 2019. godine, definisana je dokumentacija koju Organizacija mora da podnese3, kao i uslovi koje Organizacije treba da ispunjava da bi mogla da obavlja konkretnu delatnost4.

U Republici Srbiji trenutno postoji šest organizacija za kolektivno ostvarivanje autor- skog i srodnih prava i to:

• Organizacija muzičkih autora Srbije – SOKOJ;

• Organizacija proizvođača fonograma Srbije – OFPS;

1 Zakon o autorskom i srodnim pravima („Sl. glasnik RS“, br. 104/2009, 99/2011, 119/2012, 29/2016 – odluka US i 66/2019) 2 Ibid, 152 3 Ibid. 157, stav 3. 4 Ibid, 158. i 159.

ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI 3 • Organizacija za kolektivno ostvarivanje prava interpretatora – PI;

• Organizacija fotografskih autora – OFA;

• Organizacija za ostvarivanje reprografskih prava – OORP;

• Organizacija filmskih autora Srbije – UFUS AFA ZAŠTITA.

Nosioci autorskog, odnosno srodnih prava isključivo ustupaju Organizaciji svoja prava, te nalažu istoj da ona u svoje ime, a za njihov račun dalje zaključuje ugovore o neisključivom ustupanju sa licima koja će koristiti autorska dela, odnosno predmete srodnih prava5 (dalje: Korisnici), kao i da prikuplja naknadu od Korisnika u svoje ime i za račun nosilaca prava. Takođe, samo jedna Organizacija može dobiti dozvolu nad- ležnog organa za kolektivno ostvarivanje prava u odnosu na istu vrstu prava na istoj vrsti predmeta autorskog ili srodnog prava6, što znači da ta konkretna Organizacija ima monopolski položaj u pogledu kolektivnog ostvarivanja konkretne vrste prava na konkretnoj vrsti dela ili predmeta srodnog prava.

Što se tiče prava koja nosioci istih ustupaju Organizaciji, ZASP je propisao obave- zno kolektivno ostvarivanje određenih prava, dok za drugu vrstu prava nosioci imaju slobodu izbora da li će ista ostvarivati kolektivno, odnosno preko Organizacije ili individualno.7

Neka od prava za koje je zakonodavac propisao da je obavezno kolektivno ostvariva- nje su: prava interpretatora na naknadu za emitovanje i reemitovanje interpretacije sa snimka izdatog na nosaču zvuka/zvuka i slike, za javno saopštavanje interpretacije koja se emituje sa snimka izdatog na nosaču zvuka/zvuka i slike, za javno saopšta- vanje interpretacije sa snimka izdatog na nosaču zvuka/zvuka i slike, prava proizvo- đača fonograma na naknadu za emitovanje i reemitovanje fonograma, javno saop- štavanje fonograma i javno saopštavanje fonograma koji se emituje i sl.

5 Ibid, 153, stav 2. i 3. 6 Ibid, 157, stav 2. 7 Ibid, 150.

4 ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI Dalje, ZASP-om je propisano da svaka Organizacija mora imati skupštinu, upravni odbor, direktora i nadzorni odbor kao svoje organe, a što se tiče opštih akata Orga- nizacije neophodni su statut, tarifa i plan raspodele, uz mogućnost da postoji još opštih akata koji će preciznije definisati određena pitanja iz rada Organizacije8. Sta- tut predstavlja najviši akt same Organizacije i ostali opšti akti moraju biti usklađeni sa njim, plan raspodele jasno i nedvosmisleno određuje kriterijume na osnovu kojih Organizacija vrši raspodelu iznosa naknade koje je prikupila od Korisnika. Tarifa predstavlja veoma važan akt Organizacije jer se njom određuju visina i način odre- đivanja naknade koju su Korisnici dužni da plate za iskorišćavanje autorskog dela ili predmeta srodnog prava. Organizacija inicira pregovore o tarifi, tako što na iste poziva reprezentativna udruženja Korisnika i individualne Korisnike9. Nakon poziva na pregovore, dve strane nastoje da zaključe sporazum o tarifi. U slučaju nemoguć- nosti pronalaska rešenja koje bi odgovaralo obema stranama, odnosno nemoguć- nosti zaključenja sporazuma o tarifi u roku od 60 dana od poziva na pregovore, pred- log tarife određuje upravni odbor Organizacije i dostavlja ga nadležnom organu na potvrdu10.

Dalje, članom 184. ZASP-a utvrđeno je da je Organizacija dužna da do kraja kalendar- ske godine, odnosno do 31. decembra isplati nosiocima autorskog ili srodnih prava koji su sa njom zaključili ugovor ili koji je nisu obavestili da će individualno ostvarivati svoja prava, iznos naknade prikupljen od Korisnika za korišćenje predmeta zaštite u prethodnoj godini umanjen za pokriće opravdanih troškova kolektivnog ostvariva- nja prava. Takođe, treba napomenuti da Organizacija može iz opravdanih i obrazlo- ženih razloga produžiti navedeni rok. Dakle, nosioci autorskog ili srodnih prava koji su zaključili ugovor o isključivom ustupanju prava sa Organizacijom su u potpunosti izjednačeni sa onim nosiocima prava koji nisu zaključili ugovor, ali nisu ni obave- stili Organizaciju da će svoja prava ostvarivati individualno11, budući da postoji pret- postavka da Organizacija ima ovlašćenje da deluje za račun svih domaćih i stranih nosilaca prava u okviru onih predmeta zaštite koji su u njenoj delatnosti12.

8 Ibid, 164. i 165. 9 Ibid, 173. 10 Ibid, 176. 11 Ibid, 180, stav 4. 12 Ibid, 180, stav 1.

ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI 5 Što se tiče samih Korisnika, oni u skladu sa zakonom imaju obavezu da, pre početka korišćenja predmeta zaštite, od Organizacije pribave prava za korišćenje autorskog dela ili predmeta srodnih prava na određeni način, kao i da u roku od 15 dana od kori- šćenja predmeta zaštite obaveštavaju Organizaciju o svim relevantnim okolnostima koje su bitne za obračun i raspodelu novčanih sredstava13.

Članom 188. Zakona je utvrđen i nadzor nad radom Organizacije od strane nadlež- nog organa, koji proverava da li Organizacija funkcioniše u skladu sa dozvolom koja joj je izdata i u skladu sa zakonskim odredbama. Nadležni organ da bi sproveo nad- zor ima pravo da, preko svog predstavnika, prisustvuje sednicama organa Organi- zacije i da iznosi mišljenja koja se tiču poslova kolektivnog ostvarivanja, te da zah- teva pismeni odgovor na svoja pitanja, kao i da vrši uvid u poslovnu dokumentaciju. U slučaju da utvrdi nepravilnosti u radu, nadležni organ ukazuje Organizaciji na njih, te nalaže sprovođenje mera i rok za otklanjanje nepravilnosti14.

U postupku sprovođenja nadzora, Organizacija ima određene obaveze prema nad- ležnom organu u smislu dostavljanja dokumentacije koja obuhvata: godišnje izv- štaje o poslovanju, godišnji obračun naknada i izveštaj ovlašćenog revizora, spora- zume između organizacije i reprezentativnih udruženja, kao i izmene statuta, tarife i ostalih opštih akata Organizacije15. Pored toga, Organizacija je u obavezi da u roku od šest meseci od završetka poslovne godine usvoji godišnje izveštaje svojih organa o isplaćenim iznosima i raspodeli istih, poslovanju Organizacije, izvršavanju spora- zuma koje je zaključila, izveštaj ovlašćenog revizora o godišnjem izveštaju o poslo- vanju, obračunu naknada, kao i predlog finansijskog plana Organizacije za godinu koja sledi16.

Zakonom je takođe propisana i sadržina kompletne dokumentacije koju Organiza- cija treba da dostavi nadležnom organu ili koju treba da usvoji.

13 Ibid, 187, stav 1-3. 14 Ibid, 191. 15 Ibid, 188, stav 2. 16 Ibid, 189.

6 ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI OBRAZLOŽENJE POSTOJEĆIH ZAKONSKIH REŠENJA DONOSIOCA IZMENA I DOPUNA ZAKONA O AUTORSKOM I SRODNIM PRAVIMA IZ 2019. GODINE

U predlogu zakona o izmenama i dopunama Zakona o autorskom i srodnim pra- vima17, autori istog su u obrazloženju naveli određene razloge za donošenje zakona, kao i objašnjenja pravnih rešenja, od kojih ćemo u nastavku predstaviti neka.

Jedan od ciljeva usvajanja izmena i dopuna Zakona o autorskom i srodnim pravima iz 2019. godine je bilo i uspostavljanje efikasnijeg, odnosno unapređenje postoje- ćeg sistema kolektivnog ostvarivanja autorskog i srodnih prava, po uređenim stan- dardima postavljenim relevantnim međunarodnim aktima koji regulišu predmetnu materiju, ali i po standardima EU.

Dalje, jedna od važnijih izmena Zakona odnosi se na član 127, stav 10. ranijeg Zakona u kom je bilo predviđeno da se jedinstvena naknada za javno saopštavanje interpre- tacija i fonograma naplaćuje zajedno sa autorskom naknadom za javno saopšta- vanje muzičkih dela. Takođe, članom 156, stav 5. i 6. bio je određen način prikuplja- nja te jedinstvene naknade. Prilikom procesa izmene i dopune Zakona, ove odredbe Zakona su izmenjene jer nisu u skladu sa odredbama Bernske konvencije o zaštiti književnih i umetničkih dela18 (dalje: Bernska konvencija) i TRIPS Sporazuma19 done- tog od strane Svetske trgovinske organizacije. Naime, propisivanjem obaveze ubira- nja jedinstvene naknade zadire se u isključivo pravo autora na javno saopštavanja njegovog autorskog dela, ali isto tako i na pravo proizvođača fonograma i interpe- tatora na naknadu od javnog saopštavanja njihovih fonograma, odnosno interpre- tacija. Zadiranje u prava navedenih lica se ogleda u činjenici da ne mogu samo- stalno da isporuče račun Korisnicima, što bi dovelo do toga da, ukoliko Organizacija koja zastupa prava muzičkih autora iz bilo kog razloga ne funkcioniše, odnosno ne prikuplja naknadu, ni proizvođač fonograma i interpretator ne bi mogli da prikupe

17 Predlog zakona o izmenama i dopunama zakona o autorskom i srodnim pravima (http://www.parlament. gov.rs/upload/archive/files/lat/pdf/predlozi_zakona/2019/225-19%20-%20LAT.pdf) 18 Bernska konvencija o zaštiti književnih i umetničkih dela (od 9. septembra 1886. godine, dopunjena u Parizu 4. maja 1896, izmenjena u Berlinu 13. novembra 1903, dopunjena u Bernu 20. marta 1914, izmenjena u Rimu 2. juna 1928, u Briselu 26. juna 1948, u Stokholmu 14. jula 1967. i u Parizu 24. jula 1971. godine.) 19 Sporazum o trgovinskim aspektima prava intelektualne svojine (TRIPS Sporazum)

ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI 7 naknadu za korišćenje njihovih predmeta zaštite. Ovakvo rešenje je bilo neprihvat- ljivo, uzevši u obzir da su pravo proizvođača fonograma i pravo interpretatora zasebna prava u odnosu na autorsko, te njihovo ostvarivanje ne može biti uslovljeno ostva- rivanjem autorskog prava. Takođe, ovakva odredba bi u krajnjem slučaju mogla da dovede i do monopolskog položaja Organizacije u pogledu prikupljanja naknada za javno saopštavanje muzičkih dela, interpetacija i fonograma, što je apsolutno nepri- hvatljivo i protivno pravnim tekovinama EU. U vezi sa prethodno navedenom izme- nom, brisane su i odredbe člana 156, stav 5. i 6. koje su se odnosile na jedinstveni način prikupljanja naknade za javno saopštavanje muzičkih autorskih dela, fono- grama i interpretacija, kao i na raspodelu tako prikupljene naknade i to na način što je 50% od ukupne naknade, po odbijanju troškova, išlo Organizaciji koja zastupa autore muzičkih dela, dok je druga polovina tih prihoda bila raspoređena Organi- zacijama koje zastupaju interpretatore i proizvođače fonograma. Ove odredbe su brisane iz nekoliko razloga, prvenstveno jer nisu u saglasnosti sa članom 8, stav. 2 Direktive EU 2006/11520 koji reguliše jedinstveno prikupljanje i raspodelu naknade za javno saopštavanje fonograma i interpretacija, ali ne pominje autore. Tumače- njem tog člana, dolazi se do zaključka da se naknada za javno saoštavanje muzič- kih autorskih dela mora naplaćivati samostalno. Još jedan razlog za brisanje ovih odredaba jeste njihova neusaglašenost sa članom 3, stav 1. Direktive EU 2001/2921 kojim je utvrđeno isključivo pravo autora da samostalno i slobodno, kroz pregovore sa Korisnikom, dogovori visinu naknade za javno saopštavanje svog dela, te se to pravo ne sme ograničavati na pravičnu naknadu, kako je to bilo regulisano Zako- nom. Konačno, predmetne odredbe nisu bile usaglašene ni sa Bernskom konven- cijom koja predviđa da države mogu da urede pitanje naknade za javno saopštava- nje autorskih dela, ali tek u slučaju nemogućnosti zaključenja sporazuma između autora i Korisnika.

Još jedna važna izmena Zakona odnosi se na član 162, stav 1, tačka 3. Zakona, u kom je nakon izmena omogućeno nadležnom organu da oduzme Organizaciji dozvolu za obavljanje delatnosti u slučajevima kada Organizacija „teže ili ponovljeno krši odredbe ovog zakona, odredbe statuta i plana raspodele”. Naime, pre izmene Zakona, nadležni organ je bio ovlašćen da donese rešenje o oduzimanju dozvole Organiza-

20 Direktiva 2006/115/EU Evropskog parlamenta i Saveta 21 Direktiva 2001/29/EU Evropskog parlamenta i Saveta

8 ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI cije, između ostalog, i ako utvrdi da ista „teže i ponovljeno krši odredbe ovog zakona”, dakle postojala je nedoumica izazvana nepreciznom definicijom, te se postavljalo pitanje da li se ponovljeno kršenje Zakona mora istovremeno odnositi i na teže krše- nje. Novom definicijom jasna je intencija zakonodavca da oduzme dozvolu Organi- zaciji u slučaju da teže krši zakon, ali i kada više puta krši zakon bez obzira na težinu tog kršenja. Takođe, pored odredaba ZASP-a, Organizacija sada mora striktno pošto- vati i svoj statut i plan raspodele, pod pretnjom oduzimanja dozvole.

Dalje, u članu 167. Zakona koji reguliše plan raspodele, kao opšti akt Organizacije, dodat je stav 2. koji utvrđuje da odredbe plana raspodele moraju biti “jasne, ned- vosmislene, primenljive i tako formulisane da isključuju svaku arbitrarnost u raspo- deli ubranog prihoda”. Ovakva odredba je izuzetno važna, budući da plan raspodele predstavlja pravni osnov za isplatu ubranih prihoda, te kao takav mora biti jasan i garantovati sigurnost članovima Organizacije u pogledu informisanja o činjenici koliko im novca pripada, na koji način su obračunate naknade, kao i na koji način mogu ostvariti svoja prava ukoliko smatraju da nisu dobili iznos koji im pripada.

Jedna od najznačajnijih stvari u pogledu kolektivnog ostvarivanja autorskog i srod- nih prava, jeste definisanje tarife. Pre donošenja izmena i dopuna Zakona, prilikom određivanja tarife, uzimale su se u obzir tarife država čiji je bruto društveni proizvod približne vrednosti bruto društvenom proizvodu Republike Srbije. Problem u praksi je predstavljala činjenica da određene države koje imaju bruto društveni proizvod približan onom u Republici Srbiji, nemaju neke od organizacija za kolektivno ostva- rivanje autorskog ili srodnih prava koje postoje u Republici Srbiji ili da su tarife Orga- nizacija u tim državama više od tarifa Organizacija iz razvijenih zemalja koje imaju znatno viši životni standard od Republike Srbije. Nova odredba Zakona upućuje na upoređivanje sa tarifama Organizacija sa drugim državama Evrope, i to u razmeri koja se određuje upoređivanjem bruto društvenog proizvoda dveju država.

ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI 9 NAVODI I PREPORUKE IZ STRATEGIJE RAZVOJA SISTEMA JAVNOG INFORMISANJA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI ZA PERIOD 2020-2025. GODINE

Vlada Republike Srbije je 30. januara 2020. godine donela Medijsku strategiju22, čiji su autori, između ostalog, ukazali i na manjkavosti trenutnog sistema i regulacije koja se odnosi na kolektivnog ostvarivanje autorskog i srodnih prava u Republici Srbiji, kao i na niz problema sa kojima se na prvom mestu suočavaju mediji u Repu- blici Srbiji.

Pre svega, ukazano je na to da mediji, a delimično i operatori, često kritikuju posto- jeći način dostavljanja podataka Organizacijama, a koji su svojim opštim aktima utvrdile same Organizacije, navodeći kao razlog prenormiranost propisane oba- veze Korisnika koja stvara velike dodatne troškove. U vezi sa prethodno navedenim, a naročito sa velikim neopravdanim troškovima, u Medijskoj strategiji se posebno ukazuje da potrebu striktnog poštovanja Uredbe Vlade Republike Srbije23, koja se odnosi na vođenje elektronske evidencije emitovanih dela, a koja ne propisuje zna- čajnije angažovanje resursa niti dodatne troškove.

Dalje, autori Medijske strategiju kritikuju i sam postupak pregovaranja oko tarife Organizacije, ukazujući na to da Organizacije zloupotrebljavaju svoj monopolski položaj u pregovorima sa Korisnicima, te da ne pokazuje zainteresovanost da tarifa nastane kao rezultat kompromisa među stranama u pregovorima, što je prven- stveno intencija zakonske odredbe koja propisuje pregovore. Ovakvo postupanje Organizacije u praksi je naročito pogrešno kada se uzme u obzir da Organizacije imaju za cilj isključivo zaštitu interesa nosilaca prava, te da su Organizacije nepro- fitnog karaktera. Kao što je ranije navedeno, prilikom određivanja tarife, Organiza- cija pregovara sa reprezentativnim udruženjima Korisnika, pa u vezi sa tim autori Medijske strategije ukazuju da Zakon nije jasno postavio kriterijume po kojima bi se nedvosmisleno moglo utvrditi koje udruženje Korisnika je reprezentativno, odnosno

22 Strategija razvoja sistema javnog informisanja u Republici Srbiji za period 2020-2025. godine 23 Uredba o načinu vođenja elektronske evidencije emitovanja i reemitovanja autorskih dela („Sl. glasnik RS“, br. 108/204)

10 ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI koje bi se moglo smatrati legitimnim predstavnikom određene grupacije Korisnika prilikom pregovaranja sa Organizacijom.

U Medijstoj strategiji se takođe ukazuje na primedbe elektronskih medija kao jedne vrste korisnika autorskih dela, a koje se odnose na nedovoljno precizno definisan način utvrđivanja osnovice za tzv. minimalnu autorsku tarifu, koja je trenutno, po osnovici koju su samostalno utvrdile Organizacije, znatno veća od osnovne tarife.

Konačno, autori Medijske strategije su predložili određene mere, a sve u cilju pobolj- šanja saradnje između medija i Organizacija, odnosno u cilju generalnog poboljšanja zakonske regulative. Te mere, između ostalog, podrazumevaju sledeće aktivnosti:

- predviđanje fleksibilnijeg modela za dostavljanje podataka o iskorišćavanju autorskog i srodnih prava, koji bi bio jednostavniji i lakši za Korisnike, koji ne bi bespotrebno generisao dodatne troškove i koji bi bio usklađen sa Ured- bom Vlade Republike Srbije o načinu vođenja elektronske evidencije emito- vanja i reemitovanja autorskih dela;

- predviđanje osnovnih elemenata minimalne tarife za iskorišćavanje pred- meta zaštite koji neće biti u većem iznosu od osnovne tarife;

- izmena sistema kolektivnog pregovaranja u vezi sa tarifom, na način da se podjednako uzmu u obzir interesi Korisnika i nosilaca autorskog, odnosno srodnih prava;

- izmena položaja Organizacija, kao i omogućavanje slobodnog organizova- nja nosilaca autorskog i srodnih prava.

Takođe, treba napomenuti da se u Medijskoj strategiji ukazuje da monopolski polo- žaj Organizacija narušava ravnopravne tržišne uslove, jer ograničava medije, kao korisnike autorskog i srodnih prava, na pregovore o tarifi sa samo jednom Organiza- cijom. Takođe, autori ističu da se na taj način krše prava nosilaca autorskog i srodnih prava jer im je onemogućeno da se udružuju radi zaštite svojih interesa.

ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI 11 INDIVIDUALNO OSTVARIVANJE Prema postojećim pravilima ZASP-a, ukoliko se autor ili nosilac autorskog prava odluči da svoje pravo ostvari pred nadležnim sudom, zakon mu stavlja na raspolaga- nje niz instrumenata za zaštitu sopstvenih interesa, odnosno isti može podneti veliki broj različitih zahteva pred nadležnim sudom24 kojima se može zahtevati:

· utvrđivanje povrede prava (ili ozbiljne pretnje da će pravo biti povređeno);

· zabrana radnji kojima se povređuje pravo ili radnji koje predstavljaju ozbiljnu pretnju da će pravo biti povređeno, kao i zabrana ponavljanja takvih ili slič- nih radnji pod pretnjom plaćanja primerenog novčanog iznosa tužiocu;

· naknada imovinske i neimovinske štete;

· isključenje iz prometa, oduzimanje ili uništenje, preinačenje bez bilo kakve naknade predmeta kojima je izvršena povreda prava, uključujući i primerke predmeta zaštite, njihove ambalaže, matrice, negative i slično;

· zabrana otuđenja, oduzimanje ili uništenje, bez bilo kakve naknade, materi- jala i predmeta koji su pretežno upotrebljeni u stvaranju ili proizvodnji pred- meta kojima se povređuje pravo;

· objavljivanje presude o trošku tuženog;

· davanje podataka o trećim licima koja su učestvovala u povredi prava.

Sa aspekta problema koji se javljaju u praksi, kako u odnosu na zakonska rešenja, tako i u odnosu na njihovu primenu, najinteresantnije je pitanje naknade štete zbog povrede autorskih prava. Takođe, naknada štete je ujedno i jedan od najčešćih zah- teva koji se ističe u postupcima za individualno ostvarivanje autorskih subjektiv- nih prava. Naknada imovinske štete ogleda se u gubitku u imovini oštećene strane, odnosno u izmakloj dobiti.

24 Suppra Note 1, član 205.

12 ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI A. Problem utvrđivanja postojanja povrede imovinskih autorskih prava

Da bi jedan subjekt bio obavezan na naknadu štete, neophodno je da sud, u okviru istog postupka, prethodno utvrdi postojanje povrede autorskih prava. Dakle, u cilju rešavanja jednog takvog zahteva potrebno je na osnovu činjeničnog stanja oceniti dva pravna pitanja, postojanje povrede, kao i postojanje štete i njenu visinu.

Problem utvrđivanja osnovanosti zahteva za utvrđivanje povrede i na osnovu toga i naknadu štete, zavisi i od forme autorskog dela za koje se utvrđivanje traži.

Naime, za fotografiju je daleko lakše utvrditi da li je došlo do neovlašćenog preuzi- manja tog autorskog dela, dok je za autorska dela sačinjena od reči (književna, novi- narska itd) potrebno vršiti poređenja tekstova i kroz utvrđivanje broja preuzetih ili parafraziranih reči/karaktera utvrditi i obim povrede.

Iz tog razloga, tužbe za naknadu štete zbog povrede autorskih prava na fotografiju zauzimaju znatno veći udeo u praksi, nego postupci koji za predmet imaju povredu tekstualnih autorskih dela.

Drugi razlog izostanka intenzivnijeg ostvarivanja autorskih prava na tekstualnim autorskim delima je i nedostatak jasno usvojenih i prepoznatih parametara za utvr- đivanje visine imovinske štete.

B. Odnos autora i izdavača medija i ustupanje prava izdavačima medija

Za razliku od moralnih autorskih prava koja su neprenosiva, autor može ugovorom ili drugim pravnim poslom ustupiti drugom licu, fizičkom ili pravnom, svoja imo- vinska autorska prava. Takvo ustupanje može biti trajno ili privremeno, može biti teritorijalno ograničeno ili ograničeno u pogledu načina korišćenja. Takođe, sticalac imovinskih autorskih prava za ista može platiti naknadu ili ustupanje može biti bez ikakve naknade.

Još jedna važna podela ustupanja, jeste na ona isključivog i neisključivog karaktera. Isključivo ustupanje autorskih prava proizvodi dejstva prema trećim licima, odnosno ovlašćuje sticaoca da, pored aktivnih radnji korišćenja koje su ugovorene, predu- zima i druge radnje kao što je zabranjivanje svim drugim licima da koriste konkretno autorsko delo, ali takođe mu na raspolaganju stoje i sva pravna sredstva koja može koristiti u cilju zaštite i ostvarenja svojih prava. Što se tiče autora, u slučaju isključivog

ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI 13 ustupanja on više nema pravo da koristi svoje delo, već mu ostaju jedino ličnopravna ovlašćenja, odnosno moralna autorska prava.

S druge strane, ukoliko je ustupanje neisključivo, sticalac je ovlašćen samo da kori- sti konkretno autorsko delo na način određen ugovorom, ali ne i da utiče na to da li ga drugi koriste i na koji način, budući da je i dalje jedino autor ovlašćen da drugima zabrani korišćenje i da ostvaruje svoja prava putem pravnih instituta koji mu stoje na raspolaganju.

Mediji, odnosno izdavači medija su u obavezi da, pre korišćenja određenog autor- skog dela, pribave imovinska autorska prava na istom, a što u najvećem broju sluča- jeva rade kroz autorske ugovore, odnosno ugovore o ustupanju imovinskih autorskih prava. ZASP propisuje da autorski ugovor mora biti u pismenoj formi, uz mogućnost konvalidacije ugovora koji nije sačinjen u propisanoj formi, ali su obaveze koje iz njega proističu izvršene u celini ili u pretežnom delu. Takođe, ZASP u članu 74. propi- suje još jedan izuzetak koji se direktno odnosi na rad medija, pa omogućava zaklju- čenje autorskog ugovora bez pismene forme ukoliko je u pitanju ugovor čiji je pred- met izdavanje članaka, crteža i drugih autorskih priloga u novinama ili periodičnoj štampi.

Ono što predstavlja čest slučaj u praksi jeste da su autori, pre svega fotografi, u rad- nom odnosu kod izdavača medija. Dakle, mediji direktno upućuju svoje zaposlene, odnosno novinare ili fotografe, da obavljajući svoj posao stvaraju autorska dela, koja će nakon toga biti objavljivana u samom mediju. U vezi sa tim, ZASP svojim članom 98. uspostavlja posebne kriterijume za autorska dela stvorena u radnom odnosu. Naime, u stavu 1. navedenog člana propisano je da u slučaju da autor, izvršavajući svoje radne obaveze, stvori autorsko delo, poslodavac je ovlašćen da to delo objavi, a pored toga je i nosilac imovinskih autorskih prava na iskorišćavanje tog dela u okviru svoje privredne delatnosti, u periodu od 5 godina računajući od trenutka nastanka dela, nakon čega sva imovinska autorska prava pripadaju autoru. Ipak, ističemo da je ova pravna norma dispozitivnog karaktera odnosno zakonodavac je dozvolio i ugo- varanje drugačijeg odnosa kroz ugovor o radu.

Dakle, budući da su, u navedenom slučaju izdavači kao poslodavci, nosioci imo- vinskih autorskih prava za period od 5 godina od kada nastane autorsko delo, oni

14 ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI imaju potpunu slobodu da u okviru tog perioda isto koriste i javno ga saopštavaju u izdanjima medija čiji su izdavači. Sudbina autorskih prava nakon isteka roka od 5 godina zavisi od načina kako ugovorne strane ugovore svoja prava i obaveze odno- sno od činjenice da li uopšte ta prava i urede ugovorom. Naime, ukoliko ugovorne strane u ugovoru o radu uopšte ne pomenu pitanje autorskih prava za dela iz rad- nog odnosa, po sili zakona ta će prava po istpeku predmetnog roka pripasti autoru. S druge strane, ukoliko se ugovorom naglasi da će imovinska autorska prava po isteku roka od 5 godina zadržati poslodavac, ova odredba će i imati ovakvo dejstvo.

Ono što predstavlja probleme u praksi jeste činjenica da jedna ili druga ugovorna strana ne poznaju dovoljno svoja prava i obaveze, pa izostanak regulacije ovog pita- nja ugovorom može voditi potencijalnim sudskim sporovima ukoliko poslodavac nastavi da koristi sadržaj nakon isteka roka od 5 godina ukoliko su prava nakon tog perioda pripala autoru. Ovakvi postupci mogu takođe prerasti u masovne sudske postupke sa velikom vrednošću spora, jer izdavači medija često iz organizacionih razloga ili nepoznavanja propisa nastavljaju da koriste dela svojih bivših zaposlenih i nakon proteka 5 godina od trenutka nastanka dela.

I obratno, ukoliko autor potpisuje ugovor o radu sa klauzulom o odricanju od prava odnosno ustupanju istih bez vremenskog ograničenja mora biti svestan da gubi kontrolu nad svojim delima da neće moći da ih ustupa uz naknadu drugim zainte- resovanim licima po isteku zakonom utvrđenog perioda od 5 godina.

Dakle, zakonodavac je ostavio dispozitivnu mogućnost autoru kao ustupiocu prava i izdavaču medija kao poslodavcu da drugačije urede ova prava ugovorom, s tim što s jedne strane možemo imati za posledicu poptuno odricanje autora u pogledu nje- govih budućih prava na proizvedenim delima, dok u slučaju nezaključivanja klau- zule o vremenskoj neograničenosti prava koja pripadaju poslodavcu, isti mogu doći u situaciju da budu tuženi od strane autora, po proteku zakonskog roka od 5 godina, ukoliko nastave da koriste njegova dela.

C. Problem utvrđivanja visine imovinske/materijalne štete

Iznos imovinske štete najčešće se kreće u nivou vrednosti predmetnog korišćenja autorskog dela, odnosno postavlja se pitanje koliki bi iznos autor dobio da je objava

ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI 15 bila posledica pravnog posla. Ukoliko takva vrednost ne može da se dokaže uvidom u neki ugovor ili drugi dokaz o tržišnoj vrednosti objave tog ili sličnog dela, potrebno je izvesti dokaz veštačenjem, gde će stručno lice odnosno institucija proceniti iznos štete, što je često izazov u praksi jer cena veštačenja često prevazilazi zahtevani iznos naknade štete.

U cilju prevazilaženja problema utvrđivanja visine imovinske štete, uobičajeno za sud je da prihvata i tarifnike odnosno mišljenja kompetentnih organizacija, koji podaci mogu poslužiti kao parametar za utvrđivanje visine štete, na koji način se pored olakšanog postupka ostvarivanja prava doprinosi i tzv. pravnoj sigurnosti i ujednače- nju sudske prakse.

Iz tog razloga strukovno udruženje ULUPUDS25 koje okuplja profesionalne fotografe izašlo je u javnost sa svojim tarifnikom, čija je primena tokom poslednje decenije široko prihvaćena od strane nadležnih sudova kao vodič za ocenu tržišne vredno- sti fotografija, naročito za profesionalne fotografe.26 Pomenuti tarifnik je kao takav široko prihvaćen i od strane sudova. Čak su i izmene istog iz 2017. godine, koje su donele značajno povećanje naknada, takođe rezultirale povećanjem dosuđenih naknada od strane sudova, kao relevantne vrednosti.27 U praksi paralelno egzistira i Mišljenje Asocijacije medija28, kojim je ovo strukovno udruženje opredelilo sop- stvene cene za upotrebu fotografija u medijima, a koje su znatno niže u odnosu na naknade koje je propisao ULUPUDS. Međutim, primena ovog mišljenja nikada nije zaživela u sudskoj praksi, a sudovi po predlogu autora u svojstvu tužioca koriste uglavnom tarifnik fotografskog udruženja.

S druge strane, nedostatak široko prihvaćenog tarifnika za dela koja se ispoljavaju u formi teksta, pored problema sa utvrđivanjem povrede, dodatni je razlog zbog čega se autori i nosioci autorskih prava teže odlučuju da svoja prava ostvaruju pred sudom.

25 http://www.ulupuds.org.rs/pdf/2017/Cenovnik%20foto%20sekcije%20ULUPUDS-a%202017.pdf 26 Presuda Višeg suda u Beogradu, P4 165/15, od 15.07.2016. potvrđena odlukom Apelacionog suda Gž4 28/16, od 16/12, D. Popesku, Bilten Apelacionog suda u Beogradu, broj 9/2017, str. 44 27 Na primer, umesto dotadašnjih 40 EUR u dinarskojprotivvrednosti na ime objave fotografije na internetu u trajanju do godinu dana, 2017 je naknada povećana na 150 EUR. 28 Mišljenje strukovnog udruženja, Asocijacija Medija Srbije, 22.07.2016. godine

16 ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI Dakle, zbog neustaljenih standarda za obračun naknada imovinske štete (cena pre- uzetog karaktera određene vrste sadržaja) u parnicama gde je predmet utvrđiva- nje visine imovinske štete za neovlašćeno preuzet tekst, u većini slučajeva se javlja potreba za veštačenjem. Veštačenje se može izvesti i na okolnost utvrđivanja da li je predmet spora autorsko delo, a tek potom i radi utvrđenja visine naknade štete.

Treba napomenuti da postoje cenovnici usvojeni od novinarskih i medijskih udru- ženja, koji nisu u toj meri zastupljeni u sudskoj praksi u vidu široko prihvaćenih stan- darda, a upravo iz razloga jer sporovi koje novinari pokreću radi ostvarivanja prava na svojim pisanim autorskim delima nisu toliko česti. U praksi se za obračun naknada na ime korišćenja novinarskih tekstova koristi cenovnik koji je donelo Nezavisno udruženje novinara Srbije29, ali isti nije zaživeo u sudskoj praksi.

Važno je istaći da jedan takav zvaničan pregled naknada izdat od strukovnog udru- ženja, predstavlja samo smernicu za odmeravanje autorskih naknada, s tim da je autor prilikom ugovaranja naknade slobodan da ugovara i druge iznose po sopstve- nom nahođenju.30

Činjenica je da sporovi povodom ostvarenja subjektivnih autorskih prava na tekstu- alnim autorskim delima čiji su autori novinari nisu u velikoj meri zastupljeni u Repu- blici Srbiji, ali ne možemo reći da je autorskopravna regulativa jedini krivac za to sta- nje, ako uopšte problem i potiče iz zakonskih odredbi. Pored razloga koje smo istakli, a koji se tiču problema utvrđivanja povrede i visine štete, na ovakve rezultate utiče i nedovoljno razvijena svest novinara, medijskih radnika o tome koji sadržaj ispunjava uslov da bude smatran autorskim delom odnosno da uživa autorskopravnu zaštitu. Takođe, ne treba zaboraviti i da su novinari radno angažovana lica od strane izda- vača, odnosno vlasnika medija i da njihova volja da svoja prava ostvaruju u velikoj meri zavisi i od spremnosti medijske kuće kao nosioca autorskih prava ili subjekta u dominantnom položaju u odnosu na novinara da pokrene postupak protiv druge medijske kuće.

29 Cenovnik novinarskih radova i usluga, NUNS, od 7.03.2018. godine 30 Presuda Višeg suda u Beogradu, P4 165/15, od 15.07.2016. potvrđena odlukom Apelacionog suda Gž4 28/16, od 16/12, D. Popesku, Bilten Apelacionog suda u Beogradu, broj 9/2017, str. 44

ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI 17 Svi ovi razlozi zajedno doveli su do toga da sudska praksa u predmetima koji za predmet imaju utvrđivanje povrede autorskih prava na delima koja su izražena tekstualno, bude više nego siromašna slučajevima, ali i zauzetim stavovima viših instanci koji bi se mogli koristiti kao smernice. Deo „krivice“ leži i u činjenici da same sudije često nemaju dovoljno znanja i iskustva da slobodnom procenom utvrde da li je određeni novinarski izveštaj samo izveštavanje o tekućem događaju ili pak nosi potrebnu dozu originalnosti koju Zakon zahteva. Ako ovome dodamo i neustaljene parametre za obračun naknada za imovinsku štete (cena preuzetog karaktera odre- đene vrste sadržaja), dolazimo do potrebe da se u ovakvim parnicama u većini slu- čajeva javlja potreba za veštačenjem kako bi se utvrdilo najpre da li je predmet spora autorsko delo, a zatim i visina imovinskopravne naknade.

Takođe, sudska praksa je veoma siromašna i u pogledu povrede autorskih i srodnih prava na muzičkim delima, odnosno audio ili audio-vizuelnom sadržaju. Najveći broj postupaka se odnosi na sporove u parničnim postupcima koji se vode radi utvrđiva- nja prava proizvođača fonograma radi daljeg ostvarivanja istih prava preko nadležne organizacije. Postupci koji su vezani za ove vrste autorskih dela, a tiču se naknade štete su jako retki iz jako sličnih razloga koji se tiču tekstova kao autorskih dela, a koji su navedeni u prethodnom pasusu.

Da li dodati i za audio tj, audio-vizuelne sadrzaje?

Da li u ovom delu dodati i kako se uredjuju odnosi izdavac/vlasnik – novinar/fotograf, ustupanje prava izdavacu i sl.?

D. Problem utvrđivanja povrede i visine neimovinske/nematerijalne štete

Što se tiče nematerijalne štete, za koju se pored imovinske može istaći zahtev, ona se ogleda u dosuđivanju novčanog iznosa kao vida satisfakcije oštećenom (autoru), koji će kroz predmetni novčani iznos obezbediti sebi neki vid zadovoljstva kako bi nadomestio gubitak nastao u vidu duševnog bola. Trenutna rešenja sudske prakse podrazumevaju da se visina naknade nematerijalne štete zbog povrede moralnih prava autora procenjuje u svakom konkretnom slučaju, te ne postoji jedinstveni tari- fnik na osnovu čijij objektivnih parametara bi se šteta mogla precizno utvrditi, pa se iznosi kreću unutar neformalno utvrđenih granica.

Kako moralna prava autora predstavljaju lični odnos autora prema svom delu, pa se posledice nastale povredom moralnih autorskih prava manifestuju kroz pretr-

18 ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI pljene psihičke patnje autora koje nastaju zbog umanjenog ugleda, časti i prava lič- nosti, nematerijalna šteta može se dosuditi samo onda kada je autor kroz svoj lični odnos prema delu zaista i pretrpeo duševne bolove usled povrede moralnog prava autora, koji opravdavaju dosuđenje naknade u smislu člana 200. Zakona o obligacio- nim odnosima. Dakle, pravo na naknadu nematerijalne štete u našem pravu crpi se iz odredbe pomenutog zakona koji reguliše obligacionopravne odnose, dok je pri- mena odredaba Zakona o autorskim i srodnim pravima ograničena samo na utvrđi- vanje postojanja povrede moralnog autorskog prava kao štetne radnje.31

Činjenica da je tuženi povredio moralno autorsko pravo tužioca sama po sebi ne znači da je tužilac pretrpeo nematerijalnu štetu u ovom slučaju. Tužilac kao ošte- ćeni mora da dokaže da je pretrpeo štetnu posledicu u vidu duševnih bolova, kao i uzročnu vezu između povrede njegovih moralnih autorskih prava i povrede prava ličnosti kao jednom od priznatih oblika nematerijalne štete.32

Neimovinska i imovinska šteta mogu se zahtevati nezavisno jedna od druge, odno- sno u vidu kumulativnih zahteva. Dakle, ukoliko nađe da okolnosti slučaja to oprav- davaju, a naročito intenzitet i trajanje bola, sud će za pretrpljenu duševnu bol, kao i za strah dosuditi pravičnu novčanu naknadu, nezavisno od naknade materijalne štete, kao i u njenom odsustvu. Takođe, prilikom odlučivanja o zahtevu za naknadu nema- terijalne štete, kao i o visini njene naknade, sud će voditi računa o značaju povre- đenog dobra i cilju kome služi ta naknada, ali i o tome da se njome ne pogoduje težnjama koje nisu spojive sa njenom prirodom i društvenom svrhom.33

E. Uobičajena visina dosuđene neimovinske/nematerijalne štete

Kod ocene visine iznosa naknade nematerijalne štete, osim intenziteta pretrpljenog duševnog bola, cene se i druge okolnosti. Tako, kod donošenja odluke o visini pra- vične novčane naknade nematerijalne štete zbog povrede moralnih prava autora, zbog objavljivanja spornih fotografija, bez naznačenja imena autora, kao i objave u nepotpunoj formi, sud će ceniti okolnost činjenice da li je tužilac fotograf po profesiji,

31 Presuda Apelacionog suda u Beogradu, Gž. 227/2013 od 16.4.2014. godine 32 Ibid. 33 Zakon o obligacionim odnosima RS (("Sl. list SFRJ", br. 29/78, 39/85, 45/89 - odluka USJ i 57/89, "Sl. list SRJ", br. 31/93 i "Sl. list SCG", br. 1/2003 - Ustavna povelja)

ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI 19 odnosno samim tim da li mu je bitno da bude i potpisan kao autor fotografija, kao i da iste ne budu izmenjene, već da budu predstavljene onakve kakve ih je autor i stvorio.

Tako je u jednoj odluci sud zauzeo stav, imajući u vidu činjenicu da je tužilja foto- graf po profesiji, i da joj je samim tim bitno da bude i potpisana kao autor fotogra- fija, kao i da iste ne budu izmenjene, a sporne fotografije su izvučene iz pozadine, iz konteksta u kome su snimljene, to u skladu sa odredbom člana 200. ZOO tužilji pored iznosa koji su već dosuđeni za ove vidove neimovinske štete, pripadaju iznosi od po još 30.000,00 dinara za svaku fotografiju, znači po 30.000,00 dinara za fotogra- fiju "VV" i "VV1" zbog objavljivanja istih bez naznačenja imena odnosno pseudonima autora i po 30.000,00 dinara za svaku od fotografija zbog saopštavanja u nepotpu- noj formi, jer po nalaženju drugostepenog suda sa iznosima koji su već dosuđeni od po 10.000,00 dinara i sa sada dosuđenih po 30.000,00 dinara, dakle po 40.000,00 dinara ukupno za svaku od navedenih povreda za svaku od navedenih fotografija, biće omogućeno tužilji da pribavi sebi određena zadovoljstva i time prevaziđe pretr- pljenu neimovinsku štetu zbog povrede svojih prava.34

Sud će posebno voditi računa ukoliko izmena dela znatno utiče na vrednost same fotografije, odnosno ukoliko je integritet dela u većem stepenu ugrožen, a naročito ako je autorsko delo objavljeno u negativnom kontekstu i bez poštovanja legitimnih interesa autora. U jednom slučaju Višeg suda u Beogradu, vođen je spor jer su tuženi objavili fotografiju tužioca u negativnom kontekstu, ne poštujući njegov umetnički izraz. Fotografiju su objavili isečenu, skraćenu, tako da je izmenjena zakonitost forme, te je narušena kompozicija fotografije koju je tužilac želeo da postigne. Čitav doga- đaj ugrozio je i profesionalnu reputaciju tužioca, što je kod njega dovelo do opravda- nog osećaja neprijatnosti, uznemirenosti i zebnje za budućnost. U istoj sudskoj odluci, polazeći od kriterijuma propisanih u odredbi člana 200. ZOO, a odmeravajući naknadu tužiocu, sud je našao da tužiocu treba dosuditi naknadu za povredu moralnih prava autora i to zbog povrede moralnih prava autora javnim saopštavanjem autorskog dela u izmenjenoj formi bez ovlašćenja autora, ukupno u iznosu od 70.000 RSD. Dakle, kada je izmena većeg intenziteta iznos dosuđene štete može biti viši nego kod uobi- čajene izmene dela, radi prilagođavanja potrebama štetnika.35

34 Presuda Apelacionog suda u Beogradu, Gž4 159/2017 od 19.10.2018. godine 35 Presuda Višeg suda u Beogradu, P4 119/13

20 ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI U našoj sudskoj praksi, sud će u većini slučajeva ceniti intenzitet duševnog bola, odnosno primerenu naknadu po slobodnoj proceni, uzimajući u obzir potrebu za efikasnošću i ekonomičnošću postupka. U suprotnom, svako pojedinačno veštače- nje od strane lekara neuropsihijatra, produžilo bi parnice zbog povrede moralnih autorskih prava za nekoliko ročišta, a troškove parničnih strana bi uvećalo za prilično visok novčani iznos, te bi ih dovelo na nivo koji nije uporediv sa uobičajenim nakna- dama koja se dosuđuju u ovim vrstama sporova.36 37

Autori Medijske strategije iz 2020. godine izrazili su zabrinutost zbog „visokih iznosa naknada“ koje se dosuđuju u autorskopravnim sporovima kada su objave fotogra- fija u pitanju s jedne, ali i „nedovoljne zaštite autorskih dela koju stvaraju novinari“ sa druge strane. Naime, prema Medijskoj strategiji, dosuđivanje visokih naknada nosi- ocima subjektivnih autorskih prava i autorima predstavlja „neprimeren pritisak na medije“. Sudska praksa u odnosu na autorske sporove koji se tiču fotografija, kao i veliki broj sporova te vrste sa naknadama kakve se dosuđuju na jednoj strani, i na drugoj zanemarljivo mali broj autorskih sporova koji se tiču drugih medijskih sadr- žaja, te praksa nekontrolisanog preuzimanja tuđih medijskih sadržaja, dovela je do toga da je u delu medijske zajednice stvoren utisak da autorska dela i predmeti srodnih prava koji se vezuju za medijsku delatnost (novinarski tekstovi, video pri- lozi itd.) ne uživaju jednaki stepen zaštite kao fotografije, kako se u tekstu Strategije navodi. Problemi u vezi sa autorskim sporovima ogledaju se i u uskom tumačenju ograničenja autorskog prava za potrebe zadovoljavanja interesa u oblasti informi- sanja (dnevno izveštavanje o tekućim događajima, parodija i satira itd.). U Medijskoj strategiji se na kraju dela koji se tiče autorskog prava zaključuje da je neophodno unaprediti regulatorni okvir u oblasti zaštite autorskih i srodnih prava u pogledu zaštite novinarskih sadržaja.38

36 Ibid, Iz obrazloženja: “Ova naknada odmerena je po slobodnoj oceni, a u skladu sa pravilom propisanim odredbom člana 232. ZPP-a” 37 Zakon o parničnom postupku ("Sl. glasnik RS", br. 72/2011, 49/2013 - odluka US, 74/2013 - odluka US, 55/2014 i 87/2018), član 232: „Ako se utvrdi da stranci pripada pravo na naknadu štete, na novčani iznos ili na zamenljivu stvar, a visina iznosa, odnosno količina stvari ne može da se utvrdi ili bi mogla da se utvrdi samo sa nesrazmernim teškoćama, sud će visinu novčanog iznosa, odnosno količinu zamenljivih stvari da odredi po slobodnoj oceni.“ 38 Suppra Note 22

ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI 21 Takođe, napominjemo da se u relevantnim stručnim krugovima, čak i nakon usvaja- nja Medijske strategije, i dalje ističe da dosuđivanje previsokih iznosa naknada štete tužiocima, odnosno autorima ili nosiocima imovinskih autorskih prava, predstav- lja svojevrsan pritisak na medije i njihov rad. Slično je istaknuto na okruglom stolu „Uloga medija u zaštiti autorskih i srodnih prava“.

Konačno, treba napomenuti i činjenicu da postoje primeri u sudskoj praksi u kojima su sudovi, prilikom odlučivanja o visini naknade neimovinske štete, određivali pri- lično niske iznose novčane naknade. Prilikom donošenja jedne od takvih presuda, Viši sud u Beogradu je opredelio iznos od 5.000,00 dinara po javnom saopštavanju fotografije, odnosno 20.000,00 dinara ukupno, kao pravičan iznos za naknadu nei- movinske štete zbog povrede prava na naznačenje imena, kao i iznos od 3.000,00 dinara po javnom saopštavanju fotografije, što je ukupno iznosilo 12.000,00 dinara za naknadu neimovinske štete zbog povrede prava na zaštitu integriteta dela, saop- štavanjem istog u nepotpunoj formi39.

Naime, u predmetnom slučaju sud je, prilikom određivanja visine naknade štete za povredu prava na zaštitu integriteta, uzeo u obzir to što je tužilac izvršio povredu moralnog autorskog prava tužioca, i to „na taj način što je fotografiju isekao sa donje strane, pa je neznatno poremećena kompozicija autorskog dela“. Dakle, sud je zau- zeo stav da intenzitet povrede prava na zaštitu integriteta dela nije veliki, pa je u skladu sa takvom ocenom dosudio iznos naknade štete od 3.000,00 dinara za svako pojedinačno javno saopštavanje fotografije, kojom prilikom je došlo do povrede integriteta dela.

Takođe, sud je u obrazloženju izneo razloge zbog kojih je dosudio navedene iznose, odnosno razloge zbog kojih je delimično odbio tužbeni zahtev, pa je tako utvrdio sledeće: „Sud je odbio deo tužbenog zahteva tužioca za naknadu neimovinske štete zbog povrede moralnih prava autora javnim saopštavanjem autorskog dela tužioca bez naznačenja imena ili pseudonima autora preko dosuđenog iznosa od 20.000,00 dinara, pa do iznosa od 30.000,00 dinara kao u stavu VI izreke i deo tužbenog zahteva tužioca za naknadu neimovinske štete zbog povrede moralnih prava autora javnim saopštavanjem autorskog dela tužioca u nepotpunoj formi preko dosuđenog iznosa

39 Pravnosnažna presuda Višeg suda u Beogradu, poslovni broj 15 P4 45/18, od dana 24.01.2019. godine

22 ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI od 12.000,00 dinara, pa do iznosa od 30.000,00 dinara, kao u stavu VII izreke presude, a sve sa zakonskom zateznom kamatom počev od 24.01.2019. godine, kao dana pre- suđenja pa do isplate, kao previsoko postavljen, vodeći računa o značaju povređe- nog dobra i cilju kome služi naknada, kao i o tome da se naknadom ne pogoduje težnjama koje nisu spojive sa njenom prirodom i društvenom svrhom i da naknada nematerijalne štete predstavlja satisfakciju, a ne reparaciju za izvršenu povredu i kojom tužilac treba da pribavi izvesno zadovoljenje kojom će ublažiti povredu svojih moralnih autorskih prava.“

Dakle, prilikom određivanja iznosa od 3.000,00 i 5.000,00 dinara sud je uzeo u obzir značaj povređenog dobra, cilj same naknade, kao i činjenicu da previsok iznos naknade ne bi bio spojiv sa prirodom i svrhom naknade nematerijalne štete, te su to glavni razlozi za određivanje neuobičajeno niskih iznosa naknade nematerijalne štete.Konačno, uzevši u obzir prethodno navedeno, možemo zaključiti da sudovi u svakom pojedinačnom slučaju uzimaju u obzir konkretne okolnosti tog slučaja, te u skladu sa tim određuju iznose naknade za koje smatraju da su odgovarajući i pravični.

ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI 23 PREPORUKE ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA

KOLEKTIVNO OSTVARIVANJE Uzevši u obzir činjenicu da ZASP nije još uvek u potpunosti usaglašen sa evrop- skim pravnim standardima i rešenjima u domenu kolektivnog ostvarivanja, zakon- ske odredbe koje su stupile na snagu izmenama Zakona iz 2019. godine su predstav- ljale samo prelazno rešenje do implementacije Direktive Evropske Unije br. 2014/26 (dalje: Direktiva)40. U ovom delu teksta, osvrnućemo se na rešenja iz Direktive i reše- nja iz Zakona o autorskom pravu i srodnim pravima Republike Hrvatske41 (dalje: Zakon Republike Hrvatske), kao zemlje članice EU iz okruženja, budući da bi ta reše- nja mogla na različit način da unaprede zakonsku regulativu Republike Srbije koja se tiče kolektivnog ostvarivanja autorskog i srodnih prava, u slučaju da budu preu- zeta i prilagođena.

40 Direktiva 2014/26/EU Evropskog parlamenta i Saveta 41 Zakon o autorskom pravu i srodnim pravima Republike Hrvatske (NN 167/03, 79/07, 80/11, 125/11, 141/13, 127/14, 62/17, 96/18)

24 ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI Najveća promena koju Direktiva propisuje, a koja se između ostalog odnosi i na pro- bleme koje stvara monopolski položaj Organizacija, jeste uspostavljanje tzv. neza- visnih upravljačkih subjekata preko kojih će nosioci moći da ostvaruju svoja prava (dalje: Nezavisni subjekti). Naime, po Direktivi Nezavisni subjekti deluju kao komer- cijalno orijentisane zajednice, za razliku od neprofitnih organizacija koje su danas zastupljene, kakva je na primer SOKOJ42, a takođe Nezavisni subjekti nisu u vlasniš- tvu ni pod nadzorom ili kontrolom nosilaca autorskog ili srodnih prava, što im dalje omogućava nezavistan rad prilikom obavljanja svojih usluga koje naplaćuju. Uvođe- njem Nezavisnih subjekata, Organizacije ne bi više imale monopolski položaj nad kolektivnim ostvarivanjem prava u odnosu na određenu vrstu prava na određenoj vrsti predmeta autorskog ili srodnog prava. Takođe, Nezavisni subjekti bi kroz svoj rad mogli da obezbede visok nivo transparentnosti u pogledu prikupljanja i raspo- dele novčanih sredstava, te nizak nivo troškova njihovog funkcionisanja u odnosu na funkcionisanje Organizacija.

Zakonom Republike Hrvatske Nezavisni subjekt koji namerava da obavlja delatnost kolektivnog ostvarivanja prava dužan je o svojoj nameri obavestiti Državni zavod za intelektualno vlasništvo (Zavod za intelektualnu svojinu u Republici Srbiji, dalje: Zavod), te mu dostaviti podatke o vrsti prava i kategoriji nosilaca prava, kao i o broju nosilaca prava za koje namerava da vrši kolektivno ostvarivanje43. Nezavisni subjekt takođe mora obaveštavati Zavod o svim promenama podataka koje je naveo pri- likom podnošenja zahteva44. Ipak samo uvođenje mogućnosti ostvarivanja prava preko Nezavisnih subjekata nije dovoljno, već je neophodno obezbediti i nadzor nad njihovim radom. Zakon Republike Hrvatske je ovlašćenje za sprovođenje nadzora nad radom Nezavisnih subjekata dao ovlašćenim inspektorima Zavoda45, i to razliku- jući redovni nadzor koji se sprovodi na godišnjem nivou i vanredni nadzor koji spro- vodi na predlog zainteresovanog lica46. Prilikom sprovođenja inspekcijskog nadzora, ovlašćeni inspektor Zavoda ima pravo da zahteva uvid u poslovne knjige i drugu dokumentaciju Nezavisnog subjekta, a u slučaju da utvrdi da postoje bilo kakvi

42 Organizacija muzičkih autora Srbije 43 Suppra Note 41, član 171.b, stav 1. 44 Ibid. 171.b, stav 2. 45 Ibid. 171.c, stav 1. 46 Ibid. 171.c, stav 3.

ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI 25 nedostaci ili nepravilnosti rešenjem će naložiti njihovo uklanjanje, dok u slučaju nepostupanja po navedenom rešenju, novim rešenjem može zabraniti rad Neza- visnog subjekta47. Na navedena rešenja ovlašćenog inspektora Zavoda se ne može uložiti žalba, ali se može pokrenuti upravni spor. Dakle, ukoliko bi Republika Srbija svojim zakonskim rešenjima omogućila postojanje Nezavisnih subjekata, njihov rad na polju kolektivnog ostvarivanja autorskog i srodnih prava bi mogao da doprinese generalnom smanjenju troškova kolektivnog ostvarivanja prava. Pored toga, Orga- nizacije ne bi više imale monopolski položaj kakav trenutno imaju, te bi bile motivi- sane da optimizuju svoje poslovanje u cilju nadmetanja na tržištu.

Dalje, što se tiče organizacije rada samih Organizacija, u uvodnim odredbama Direktive, pod brojem 22, navodi se da bi Organizacije trebalo da funkcionišu u najboljem zajed- ničkom interesu nosilaca prava koje zastupaju i da ne nameću dodatne obaveze nosio- cima prava, te da bi trebalo svojim članovima da omoguće učešće u postucima odluči- vanja Organizacije. Organizacije koje među svojim članstvom imaju različite kategorije nosilaca prava (npr. producente i izvođače) trebalo bi da obezbede jednaku zastuplje- nost tih kategorija u organima odlučivanja. Takođe, Direktivom je utvrđeno da bi Orga- nizacija trebalo da svojim statutom ili drugim javno objavljenim opštim aktom utvrdi objektivne i nediskriminišuće kriterijume za prihvatanje nosilaca prava, odnosno lica koja zastupaju nosioce prava u svoje članstvo, te da u slučaju odbijanja mora tom licu obrazložiti razloge za odbijanje48. Takođe, da bi rad same Organizacije bio efikasan, lica koja imaju upravljačke funkcije ne smeju biti u sukobu interesa, a obaveza država čla- nica EU da nadziru eventualnu mogućnost sukoba interesa propisana je i Direktivom49. Takođe, u uvodnim odredbama Direktive, pod brojem 25, utvrđeno je da bi bilo celis- hodno, da lica poput direktora ili članova nadzornog odbora daju izjavu da ne postoji sukob interesa neposredno pre stupanja na funkciju, a nakon toga jednom godišnje. Takođe, Organizacije bi trebalo da imaju mogućnost da te izjave javno objave ili da ih dostave državnim organima. U slučaju uvođenja ovakvog instituta u naše zakonodav- stvo, najcelishodnije bi bilo utvrditi nadležnost nadzornog odbora same Organizacije da kontroliše i eventualno sankcioniše postojanje sukoba interesa.

47 Ibid. 171.c, stav 4-6. 48 Suppra Note 40, glava 2, član 6, stav 2. 49 Ibid, glava 2, član 10, stav 2.

26 ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI Dalje, Zakon Republike Hrvatske ukazuje da Organizacija može poveriti fizičkom ili pravnom licu da pod njenim nadzorom obavlja administrativne, tehničke ili pomoćne poslova, a sve radi sniženja troškova i optimizacije funkcionisanja Orga- nizacije50. Dakle, usklađivanjem regulacije sa Direktivom ili preuzimanjem navede- nih zakonskih rešenja iz Zakona Republike Hrvatske, Republike Srbija bi obezbedila veću efikasnost i transparentnost u radu Organizacija, jednaku zastupljenost svih kategorija članova u organima Organizacije, te bi kroz odredbe o sukobu interesa dodatno zaštitila nosioce prava, Korisnike, pa i same Organizacije.

Iako je zakonodavac, kao što je ranije u tekstu obrazloženo, vršio izmene odredaba Zakona koje se odnose na tarifu i prilagođavao ih evropskim standardima, i dalje se jedna od najproblematičnijih odredaba u ZASP-u odnosi na pregovore u vezi sa tari- fom i samo usvajanje tarife. Kao što je već ranije navedeno, u slučaju nemogućnosti pronalaska kompromisa, tarifu određuje Organizacija, odnosno njen upravni odbor i dostavlja je na saglasnost nadležnom organu. Zakon Republike Hrvatske upu- ćuje prvenstveno na zaključenje ugovora između Organizacije i Korisnika, odnosno između Organizacije i udruženja Korisnika, a u slučaju nemogućnosti zaključenja ugovora tarifu određuje Organizacija ali uz niz ograničenja. Pre svega, neophodno je da tarifu dostavi udruženju Korisnika, koje ima rok od 30 dana da stavi primedbe na istu, u suprotnom će se smatrati da prihvataju predloženu tarifu. U slučaju da postoje zamerke od strane udruženja, dve strane se mogu sporazumeti o arbitraž- nom sporazumu na osnovu kog će tarifa biti određena u arbitražnom postupku. U slučaju da se dve strane ne postignu saglasnost da rešenje pronađu u arbitraž- nom postupku, Zakon Republike Hrvatske upućuje Organizaciju da zatraži od struč- nog tela mišljenje o predmetu neslaganja (stručno telo se sastoji od 5 lica iz redova istaknutih stručnjaka za predmetnu materiju, koje imenuje ministarstvo na predlog direktora Zavoda)51. Postupak utvrđivanja tarife koji je prethodno izložen, onemogu- ćava Organizaciju da pregovore vodi bez namere da pristaje na kompromise i da na taj način zloupotrebljava svoj dominantan položaj u odnosu na Korisnike. Uvođe- njem ovakvog ili sličnog postupka, definitivno bi se poboljšao položaj Korisnika pri- likom pregovaranja o određivanju tarife, a upravo je to bila jedna od zamerki autora

50 Suppra Note 41, član 158, stav 3. 51 Ibid, član 162.

ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI 27 Medijske strategije. U cilju postizanja što veće objektivnosti stručnog tela i svođenja korntrole nad istim na najmanju moguću meru, jasne kriterijume za izbor lica bi tre- balo unapred propisati zakonom, a postupak njihegovog formiranja bi trebao biti transparentan i podložan javnoj diskusiji.

Dalje, rok za isplatu prikupljenih novčanih sredstava koji predviđa ZASP je 31. decem- bar tekuće godine za iznose koji su prikupljeni za prethodnu godinu, dok Direk- tiva, a i Zakon Republike Hrvatske ukazuju na kraći rok od maksimalno 9 meseci od završetka godine za koju se iznosi isplaćuju52. Po rešenju iz Zakona Republike Hrvatske, u slučaju da Organizacija ne može da isplati novčana sredstva jer je nosi- lac prava nepoznat, konkretni iznosi se čuvaju na zasebnim računima Organizacije, dok sama Organizacija mora preuzeti sve neophodne mere da pronađe te nosioce prava53. U slučaju da po isteku roka od 3 godine navedeni iznosi ne budu raspo- deljeni nosiocima prava, ti iznosi će se smatrati neraspodeljivim, te će o njihovom daljem korišćenju odlučivati skupština Organizacije54. Takođe, neophodno je zakon- ski utvrditi određena pravila koja se tiču upravljanja prihodima od strane Organiza- cije. Naime, Organizacija bi trebalo da ima zakonsku obavezu da odvojeno vodi u svojim poslovnim knjigama sopstvenu imovinu, s jedne strane, a prihode od prava, odnosno prihode ostvarene ulaganjem prihoda od prava, s druge strane, po uzoru na Zakon Republike Hrvatske55. Takođe, po Zakonu Republike Hrvatske prihode od prava, uključujući prihode stečene ulaganjem prihoda od prava, Organizacije ne sme koristiti u svrhe različite od raspodele nosiocima prava, osim za pokrivanje troš- kova kolektivnog ostvarivanja56. Sva prethodno navedena rešenja, kao i rokovi pro- pisani su u interesu nosilaca prava, što je u skladu sa ciljem radi kog se Organizacije uopšte i bave kolektivnim ostvarivanjem, a to je zaštita interesa nosilaca autorskog, odnosno srodnih prava.

Što se tiče nadzora nad radom Organizacije, iako ZASP propisuje mogućnost i spe- cifičnosti nadzora od strane nadležnog organa, radi usaglašavanja sa Direktivom

52 Suppra Note 40, glava 2, član 13. i Ibid 167, stav 4. 53 Suppra Note 41, član 167, stav 5. i 6. 54 Ibid. 167, stav 7. i 8. 55 Ibid. 165.b, stav 2. 56 Ibid. 165.b, stav 3.

28 ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI neophodno je detaljnije regulisati isti. Po ugledu na upute iz Direktive i Zakon Repu- blike Hrvatske trebalo bi razdvojiti redovni nadzor i vanredni nadzor na obrazloženi predlog zainteresovanog lica57. Takođe, ono što predstavlja bitnu razliku u odnosu na ZASP jeste preciznija definicija mogućnosti donošenja celishodnih mera od strane lica koje sprovodi nadzor, pre svega donošenja rešenja kojim se nalaže uklanjanje utvređenih nedostataka, a kasnije eventualno donošenja rešenja kojim se oduzima dozvola za obavljanje delatnosti kolektivnog ostvarivanja autorskog i srodnih prava58.

Radi usklađivanja regulative sa Direktivom, trebalo bi zakonski omogućiti nosiocima prava pravo podnošenja prigovora Organizaciji, u pogledu svih aspekata delatnosti koju Organizacija obavlja za njihov račun, a posebno u pogledu kriterijuma članstva, punomoćja datih Organizaciji i povlačenju istih, kao i raspodeli prikupljenih iznosa59. Pored toga, Direktiva upućuje i na obezbeđivanje mogućnosti alternativnog rešava- nja sporova između Organizacije, njenih članova, nosioca prava ili Korisnika60, pored mogućnosti rešavanja spora sudskim putem u parničnom postupku. Obezbeđiva- njem postupka podnošenja prigovora Organizaciji, te omogućavanjem efikasnog alternativnog načina rešavanja sporova, Republika Srbija bi u velikoj meri zaštitila svoje pravosuđe, koje je po trenutnom stanju stvari zatrpano različitima postup- cima koji se tiču utvrđivanja nosilaca autorskog i srodnih prava. Tome su doprineli i različiti interni akti Organizacija, kao što je Pravilnik o prijavi fonograma i rešavanju spornih i dupliranih fonograma Organizacije proizvođača fonograma Srbije – OFPS kojim je propisano da se prilikom prijave fonograma kao dokaz da je određeno lice nosilac prava proizvođača fonograma prihvataju isključivo ugovori, fakture i sl, dok je ranije bilo omogućeno licima da podnesu različite vrste dokaza, uključujući i izjave drugih lica61. Trenutno stanje nije održivo, uzevši u obzir da je velikom broju nosilaca prava onemogućeno da svoja prava i ostvaruju.

Dalje, Organizacijama treba ostaviti mogućnost da poveravaju drugim Organizaci- jama određene poslove kolektivnog ostvarivanja prava na osnovu pisanog ugovora,

57 Ibid. 170, stav 2. 58 Ibid. 170, član 3-5. 59 Suppra Note 40, glava 4, član 33. i Ibid. 168.p 60 Suppra Note 40, glava 4, član 34. 61 Pravilnik o prijavi fonograma i rešavanju spornih i dupliranih fonograma, član 13.

ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI 29 dok obavljanje tih poslova može biti u ime i za račun Organizacije koja je poverila obavljanje tih poslove ili u svoje ime, a za račun te Organizacije62. Takođe, nosiocima prava koji su prepustili Organizaciji kolektivno ostvarivanje njihovih prava, trebalo bi omogućiti da i nakon toga mogu da izdaju dozvole različitim licima za nekomer- cijalno korišćenje tih prava, a u tom slučaju Organizacija bi trebalo da javno objavi jasne kriterijume za izdavanje takvih dozvola63. Preuzimanjem ovih ili implemen- tacijom sličnih odredaba u Zakon, efikasnost Organizacija bi se znatno povećala. Ipak, ono što bi moglo da predstavlja slabe tačke omogućavanja nosiocima prava da izdaju dozvole za nekomercijalno korišćenje autorskih dela ili predmeta zaštite, čak i nakon što su Organizaciji ustupili svoja prava u cilju kolektivnog ostvarivanja, jeste eventualna pravna nesigurnost koju bi to moglo da izazove, odnosno konfuzija u kojoj bi se mogli naći potencijalni korisnici u pogledu lica kojim bi trebalo da se obraćaju za pribavljanje dozvole za korišćenje.

Konačno, današnji razvoj i napredak tehnologije se može iskoristiti u cilju pobolj- šanja kolektivnog ostvarivanja prava. Naime, već postoje softveri koji obavljaju ili barem olakšavaju obavljanje delatnosti kolektivnog ostvarivanja prava Organizaci- jama (npr. softver WIPOCOS), te bi države trebalo da podstaknu Organizacije, odno- sno da im pomognu i omoguće da obezbede softverska rešenje koja će omogućiti viši nivo transparentnosti, smanjenje troškova i generalno efikasniji rad Organi- zacija, a sve u cilju bolje zaštite interesa nosilaca autorskog i srodnih prava. Ipak, neophodno je istaći da prilikom odabira ovog tipa softvera Organizacije moraju biti veoma oprezne, budući da će softveru poveravati zaštitu interesa drugih lica, odno- sno nosilaca prava.

INDIVIDUALNO OSTVARIVANJE Redukovanje broja sporova koji za predmet imaju utvrđivanje povreda autorskih prava povodom objave fotografija, jedna je od mera propisanih Medijskom strategi- jom. Do tog cilja može se doći na više načina. Pokušaj oduzimanja statusa „original-

62 Suppra Note 41, član 158, stav 2. 63 Ibid. 159, stav 2.

30 ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI nog autorskog dela“ fotografiji ili zauzimanje stava u sudskoj praksi kojim se dozvo- ljava suspenzija imovinskih autorskih prava kada su fotografije u pitanju, svakako nije preporučljiv način da se broj pokrenutih parničnih postupaka redukuje, jer bi se to kosilo sa zakonskim normama i sudskom praksom koja je građena decenijama s jedne, i sa interesima samih proizvođača sadržaja odnosno fotografija s druge strane. Međutim, podizanje nivoa svesti kod medijskih radnika o značaju poštovanja autor- skih prava i svođenje visine naknada koje sudovi dosuđuju na prihvatljivu meru, zna- čajno bi rasteretilo, najpre sudove, a zatim i potencijalne tužene u ovim sporovima.

S toga bi bilo celishodno da se što više strukovnih udruženja autora i medijskih udruženja, nezavisno ili pod okriljem nadležnih organa i zajedno okupi oko izrade jedinstvenog tarifnika kojim bi se precizno definisali parametri za kategorizovanje autorskih dela, procenu njihove vrednosti, kao i visine naknade štete koja bi bila pri- merena za slučajeve neovlašćenog korišćenja autorskog dela. Ukoliko bi jedan takav usaglašen akt postojao, autori s jedne, ali i izdavači medija s druge, imali bi jasna uputstva za obračun i isplatu naknada i ne bi bilo potrebe da se za ostvarenje prava pokreću bespotrebni i skupi sudski postupci čiji troškovi često višestruko nadma- šuju dosuđeni iznos štete.

S druge strane, kada su u pitanju eventualne izmene ZASP-a koje bi se odnosile na individualno ostvarivanje autorskih prava, odnosno na status fotografije ili novi- narskog teksta kao autorskog dela, napominjemo da su odredbe Zakona jasne i usklađene sa Bernskom konvencijom64, ali i sa direktivama EU65 koje regulišu ovaj segment autorskopravne oblasti. S toga bi rešenje trebalo tražiti u primeni zakona, sudskoj praksi odnosno u pokušaju da se kroz stručna udruženja dođe do neophod- nih kompromisa, što bi na kraju sigurno rezultiralo većem nivou poštovanja autor- skih prava i redukovanjem broja pokrenutih sporova.

U tu svrhu, od strane kompetentnih subjekata mogu se jasno utvrditi kriterijumi za kategorizaciju autorskih dela, prema načinu i svrsi za koju su stvorena, prema potrebnom vremenu i resursima za njihovo kreiranje i svojstvima i dostignućima samog autora. Takođe, neophodno je predloženu visinu štete razložiti i prema ste-

64 Suppra Note 13. 65 Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights

ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI 31 penu povrede, što bi takođe uticalo na znatno pravičniju preraspodelu naknade za pričinjenu štetu.

Na primer, fotografije koje služe ilustraciji tekstova, načinjene u uobičajenom ambi- jentu, bez prethodnih priprema i sa opremom srednjeg kvaliteta, ne bi trebalo da imaju istu tržišnu vrednost, a samim tim i isti kriterijum za utvrđivanje visine imo- vinske štete, sa fotografijama koje su nastale u studiju, na lokaciji izvan mesta pre- bivališta autora ili uz korišćenje vredne fotografske opreme. Sada je slučaj, da tari- fnik ULUPUDS-a propisuje naknadu od 150 EUR na ime jedne godine neovlašćenog korišćenja svake fotografije na web-u. Dakle, opseg u kom se može kretati naknada imovinske štete može polaziti od svega nekoliko eura za ilustrativne fotografije predmeta i uobičajenih, svakodnevnih motiva pa do nekoliko stotina ako su u pita- nju fotografije aktova, portreta gde je prethodno trebalo pribaviti dozvolu lica čiji se zapis lika zabeležava, ili ako su u pitanju profesionalne fotografije poznatih ličnosti nastale u posebne namene.

S druge strane, nije pravično da naknada bude ista za objave na malim portalima koji imaju svega par stotina poseta dnevno, odnosno na stranicama koje su ukupno otvorene nekoliko hiljada puta, kao i u slučaju masovne eksploatacije dela na inter- net sajtovima koji imaju milionske posete. Iako nema jasnih kriterijuma za utvrđi- vanje posete, to se može učiniti dostavljanjem izvoda iz Google Analitike od strane štetnika ili utvrđivanje ranga koji internet portal zauzima na platformama poput alexa.com itd.

Iz svega iznetog možemo zaključiti da upoređivanjem postojećih zakonskih reše- nja koja se tiču invidivualnog ostvarivanja autorskog i srodnih prava u Republici Srbiji, sa rešenjima iz EU koja uređuju istu materiju, konkretno Direktivom 2004/48/ EU Evropskog parlamenta i Saveta, kao i Direktivom 2019/790/EU Evropskog parla- menta i Saveta, može se doći do zaključka da je regulativa individualnog ostvariva- nja autorskog i srodnih prava u Republici Srbiji usklađena sa pravom EU, pa unap- ređenje u individualnom ostvarivanju navedenih prava ne treba tražiti u izmenama Zakona o autorskom i srodnim pravima, već u doslednoj primeni istog.

32 ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI KRATAK PREGLED RADNJI KOJE TREBA PREDUZETI U CILJU UNAPREĐENJA OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH PRAVA I USPOSTAVLJANJA PRAVNE SIGURNOSTI S obzirom na izneto u odeljcima 2.1. i 2.2. predložene mere u cilju unapređenja indi- vidualnog i kolektivnog ostvarivanja se mogu sumirati na sledeći način:

· Za potrebe individualnog ostvarivanja prava - donošenje jedinstvenih tari- fnika od strane grupe reprezentativnih strukovnih udruženja koji bi služili kao parametar za obračun visine naknade imovinske štete zbog povrede subjektivnih autorskih prava, na novinarskim tekstovima, fotografijama, video zapisima, koji bi visinu naknade opredelili na pravičan način na osnovu više kriterijuma.

· Ujednačavanje sudske prakse u pogledu stavova povodom utvrđivanja povrede i visine imovinske i neimovinske štete zbog povrede autorskih prava, što bi doprinelo pravnoj sigurnosti.

· Uspostavljanje transparentnosti u sudskoj praksi, što bi odluke koje za pred- met imaju utvrđivanje povrede autorskih prava i naknadu štete učinili dostu- pnim zainteresovanim licima i drugim sudijama.

· Ukidanje monopola u oblasti kolektivnog ostvarivanja na način što će biti dozvoljen rad nezavisnih subjekata, po ugledu na rešenja iz EU, a što bi doprinelo konkurenciji na tržištu i efikasnijem radu organizacija za kolek- tivno ostvarivanje.

· Implementacija softverskih rešenja u rad organizacija za kolektivno ostva- rivanje autorskih prava, čime bi proces prijava korišćenih dela/fonograma i raspodela prihoda bili efikasniji, ekonomičniji i transparentniji.

· Izmeniti postupak za donošenje tarife za ostvarivanje prava, na način što će u slučaju da sporazum izostane, Zakonodavac propisati obavezu da se konačna visina tarife utvrđuje uz pomoć arbitraže ili skupa nezavisnih struč- nih lica.Utvrđivanje jasnih i preciznih pravila kojima bi se utvrdio način uprav- ljanja prihodima prikupljenim od strane organizacija za kolektivno ostvari-

ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI 33 vanje, u cilju povećanja transparentnosti rada istih.

· Obezbeđivanje nadzora nad radom organizacija za kolektivno ostvarivanje, posebno kroz davanje ovlašćenja nadzornim telima da donose celishodne mere.

POTREBA ZA USKLAĐIVANJEM SA ODREDBAMA DIREKTIVE EU 2019/790 O AUTORSKIM I SRODNIM PRAVIMA NA JEDINSTVENOM DIGITALNOM TRŽIŠTU Direktiva EU 2019/790 o autorskim i srodnim pravima na jedinstvenom digitalnom tržištu (u daljem tekstu: Direktiva) predstavlja propis od čije primene se mnogo oče- kuje kada je regulisanje autorskih prava u pitanju, a naročito pravičnija preraspodela prihoda od istih koji dolaze iz digitalne distribucije i interneta. Dakle, i sa aspekta medija i novinarske profesije u pitanju je izuzetno važan propis, s obzirom na to da je tehnološki napredak u velikoj meri uticao na novinarstvo i izmenio ga stvorivši sasvim nove vrste medija koje postaju dominatna forma medija u odnosu na tradi- cionalnu formu.

Usvajanjem Direktive od strane zemalja članica Evropske unije dana 17. aprila 2019. godine i formalno je okončan jedan od kontroverznijih procesa donošenja odluka na nivou EU, koji je započet još u septembru 2016. godine, kada je predlog ove direktive predat Evropskoj komisiji. Ceo proces pregovora ispraćen je od strane svetske jav- nosti66, a najveća prašina podigla se oko dva člana – člana 15, u kome se uvodi novo pravo izdavača informativnih publikacija u odnosu na korišćenje njihovih publikacija

34 ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI na internetu, tzv. taksa na link, i člana 17, tzv. člana raskoraka u vrednosti/postavljanja filtera, koji predviđa način korišćenja zaštićenog sadržaja od strane pružaoca usluga deljenja sadržaja putem interneta i utvrđuje odgovornost pružaoca te usluge. Nosi- oci predmetnih prava, odnosno izdavači, muzičari i njihovi predstavnici su pružili najveću i najznačajniju podršku ovim kontroverznim članovima. S druge strane, ni kritike navedenih članova nisu izostale i došle su od strane raznih akademika, ekspe- rata i nevladinih organizacija koje se bave digitalnim pravima, a neke od njih su bile toliko intenzivne da su organizovani i građanski protesti. Ipak, činjenica oko koje mogu da se slože obe strane, jeste da finalna verzija Direktive predstavlja značajan napredak u odnosu na inicijalni predlog teksta.

Direktiva počinje da se primenjuje na nivou EU, 7. juna 2021. godine, a države članice su obavezane da svoja zakonodavstva prilagode rešenjima iz ovog propisa, s tim što se pravila koja se odnose na sporazume o licenciranju i prenosu prava autora i izvo- đača primenjuju tek od 7. juna 2022. godine. Iako se predmetni rokovi ne odnose na Republike Srbiju, svakako da bi implementacija rešenja iz Direktive u nacionalno zakonodavstvo morala predstavljati prioritet našem zakonodavcu na srednji rok. Ipak, treba napomenuti da, uzevši u obzir kvantitet i obim promena, kao i komplek- snost sprovođenja rešenja iz Direktive u praksi, proces implementacije bi morao biti sproveden uz nadzor stručne javnosti i uz neophodnu javnu diskusiju.

ŠTA SE ŽELELO POSTIĆI DIREKTIVOM

Direktiva67 predstavlja jedan od obimnijih akata u istoriji autorskog prava na nivou EU, s obzirom da se njen tekst sastoji od čak 86 recitala i 32 člana. Podeljena je na 5 naslova koji, pored opštih odredbi, obuhvataju mere za prilagođavanje izuzetaka i ograničenja digitalnom i prekograničnom okruženju, mere za poboljšavanje praksi licenciranja i osiguravanje šireg pristupa sadržaju, mere za stvaranje funkcionalnog tržišta za autorsko pravo, kao i završne odredbe.68

67 Direktiva o autorskim i srodnim pravima na jedinstvenom digitalnom tržištu EU 2019/790 https://eur- lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN-HR/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32019L0790&from=EN 68 Milić, D, Trendovi i sudska praksa u domenu autorskog prava u novinarstvu, NUNS, Beograd, 2020, str. 15

ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI 35 Donošenje jednog ovakvog akta bilo je neminovno, budući da postoji potreba da se relevantni propisi na nivou EU usklade sa brzim tehnološkim razvojem koji je prome- nio način stvaranja, proizvodnje i iskorišćavanja autorskih dela i predmeta srodnih prava. Naime, Direktiva je doneta kako bi se konačno rešio problem pravne nesigur- nosti prilikom digitalnog i prekograničnog korišćenja zaštićenih dela, koji se odnosi kako na same nosioce autorskih i srodnih prava, tako i za korisnike predmeta zaštite. Odredbe Direktive donete su sa ciljem da naprave ravnotežu između sukobljenih interesa učesnika na digitalnom i prekograničnom tržištu. Kao što je i u samom tek- stu Direktive navedeno, ista ima cilj:

• da reguliše odnose između nosilaca autorskih i srodnih prava, ali i korisnika njihovih dela;

• da osigura širok pristup sadržaju;

• da obezbedi pravednu naknadu za stvaraoce istog;

• da priznaje pravo na profit pojedinca, ali da ima u vidu i javni interes i značaj koji pristup sadržaju ima za evropsko kulturno nasleđe, te u tom smislu pro- pisuje izuzetke;

• da njene odredbe stvore efikasne mehanizme licenciranja, ali i jednako efi- kasne mehanizme njenog opoziva;

• da njene odredbe poštuju pravo javnosti da bude informisana, ali i priznaju organizacijski i finansijski doprinos izdavača u proizvodnji vesti, kao i značaj koji opstanak izdavačke industrije ima za dostupnost pouzdanih informacija.

Direktiva ne utiče na postojeća pravila u EU, osim u izričito navedenim slučajevima, poput utvrđivanja pravila o izuzecima i ograničenjima koja se tiču autorskih i srod- nih prava i olakšavaju licenciranje ili u pravila koja imaju za cilj dodatno osiguranje tržišta za iskorišćavanje dela i drugih predmeta zaštite.

36 ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI PRAVILA KOJA DONOSI DIREKTIVA

A. Prilagođavanje izuzetaka i ograničenja digitalnom i prekograničnom okruženju

U ovom odeljku Direktiva predviđa nekoliko izuzetaka i ograničenja koje države čla- nice moraju ne samo da predvide u okviru svog nacionalnog zakonodavstva, već i da osiguraju da ovi izuzeci ostanu izvan autonomije volje ugovornih strana (moraju da se nađu u nacionalnom zakonodavstvu kao odredbe prinudnih propisa koje ne mogu da se menjaju saglasnošću volja ugovornih strana).69

Prva dva izuzetka odnose se na tzv. rudarenje teksta i podataka, odnosno na „svaku automatizovanu analitičku tehniku čiji je cilj analiza teksta i podataka u digitalnom obliku radi stvaranja informacija koje uključuju ali se ne ograničavaju na uzorke, trendove i korelacije“. Naime, rudarenje teksta i podataka je u današnje vreme od izuzetne važnosti za sticanje novih znanja i otkrivanje trendova jer predstavlja novi metod otkrivanja samih podataka i njihove vrednosti. Dakle, rudarenje teksta i podataka je ustvari traženje vrednih informacija među velikom količinom dostu- pnih podataka, u cilju pretvaranja na taj način pronađenih sirovih informacija u kori- sne.Međutim, rudarenje teksta i podataka može vrlo lako obuhvatati radnje koje su pod autorskopravnom zaštitom, posebno koje se odnose na baze podataka, te je zbog toga bilo potrebno predvideti neke legitimne izuzetke od ove zaštite. Izu- zeci su predviđeni u slučaju rudarenja teksta i podataka u naučne svrhe za slučaj naučnog istraživanja, kao i u slučaju reprodukcije i izvlačenja teksta kome se može zakonito pristupiti u te svrhe. Treći izuzetak odnosi se na digitalnu i prekograničnu nastavu koja se odvija na nekomercijalnoj osnovi, a sa ciljem davanja primera prili- kom nastave, uz ostavljanje mogućnosti državama članicama da, na nacionalnom nivou, slobodno ograniče domet ove odredbe. Poslednji izuzetak tiče se očuvanja kulturne baštine, odnosno rudarenja teksta i podataka u te svrhe od strane nadlež- nih institucija.70

69 Ibid. 16 70 Ibid.

ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI 37 Iako je ovaj odeljak većinom zapažen od strane javnosti po svojim pozitivnim aspek- tima, kritičari ističu da su izuzeci određeni vrlo usko, te da isti ovako postavljeni neće voditi harmonizaciji sistema izuzetaka u EU, pre svega zbog toga što je državama čla- nicama ostavljena prevelika sloboda kako za interpretaciju odredbi koje se odnose na izuzetke, tako i za propisivanje ovih izuzetaka na nacionalnom nivou. Zbog svega prethodno navedenog, ovaj odeljak je u delu javnosti proglašen i kao još jedna pro- mašena šansa za pružanje pravne sigurnosti zainteresovanim licima na nivou EU.71

Znčaj izuzetaka za medija/slobodu informisanja

B. Poboljšavanje prakse licenciranja i osiguravanje šireg pristupa sadržaju

U ovom delu Direktiva je podeljena na nekoliko poglavlja, od kojih se prvo odnosi na predmete zaštite koji su nedostupni na tržištu. Naime, u ovom poglavlju je pred- viđena mogućnost reprezentativnim organizacijama za kolektivno ostvarivanje prava da sa institucijama kulturne baštine zaključe ugovor o neisključivoj licenci na delima koji se nalaze u trajnim zbirkama ovih institucija, a sve to na nekomer- cijalnoj osnovi. Interesantno je da se nosiocima prava ostavlja mogućnost da svoja dela isključe ne samo iz organizacija za kolektivno ostvarivanje prava nego i iz ovog mehanizma licenciranja, kako generalno tako i u pojedinačnom slučaju. U poglav- lju je predviđen i izuzetak koji se odnosi na pravo institucija kulturne baštine da stave na raspolaganje u nekomercijalne svrhe i druga dela i predmete zaštite koji su nedostupni na tržištu, a ulaze trajno u njihove zbirke, kao i kada za određenu vrstu dela ne postoji organizacija za kolektivno ostvarivanje prava (koja ispunjava uslove u odnosu na reprezentativnost ili u odnosu na jednako postupanje prema svim nosi- ocima prava nad tom vrstom dela). Interesantna je i činjenica da je u slučaju nave- denog izuzetka institucija kulturne baštine primorana da deluje isključivo u okviru granica države u kojoj institucija ima sedište, dok u slučaju samog pravila ovakvo ograničenje ne postoji, te institucije kulturnih baština mogu da dopuste korišće- nje dela u bilo kojoj državi članici. Na kraju, predviđeno je da, u cilju poštovanja ove odredbe, podsticanje dijaloga između zainteresovanih strana, kao i osnivanje jedin- stvenog onlajn portala pred upravom Zavoda za intelektualnu svojinu pri EU.72

71 https://eua.eu/news/150:eu-copyright-reform-european-parliament-vote-is-a-missed-opportunity-to- bolster-r-i.html 72 Suppra Note 67, član 10, stav 1

38 ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI Sledeće poglavlje odnosi se na prošireno dejstvo kolektivnog licenciranja, a ono što je najbitnije jeste da su konačno taksativno nabrojani uslovi koje organizacija za kolektivno ostvarivanje mora da ispunjava:

• reprezentativnost;

• garancije jednakog postupanja sa svim nosiocima prava i jednakih uslova licenciranja;

• opciju isključivanja svojih dela iz mehanizma licenciranja za nosioce;

• efikasne mere informisanja.

Trećim poglavljem utvrđuju se pravila za pristup audio-vizuelnim delima na plat- formama za tzv. video na zahtev, kao i za dostupnost ovih dela. Naime, državama članicama je propisana obaveza imenovanja ovlašćenih posrednika, odnosno nepri- strasnih tela za pružanje pomoći zainteresovanim stranama u pogledu postizanja sporazuma u vezi sa navedenim delima. Poštovanje odredbe iz poglavlja III Direktiva se ustvari ogleda u obezbeđivanju efikasnog mehanizma koji će dalje omogućiti zainteresovanim stranama da, pre svega pregovaraju, a onda i zaključe sporazume u vezi sa audio-vizuelnim delima koja se nalaze na platformama za video na zahtev. Konačno, četvrto poglavlje sadrži odredbu koja se tiče dela vizuelne umetnosti u jav- nom domenu. Naime, ovo poglavlje odnosi se na dela vizuelne umetnosti čiji je rok zaštite istekao, te je navedeno da materijal nastao reprodukcijom takvog dela ne podleže autorskom pravu i srodnim pravima, nego se nalazi u javnom domenu kao i samo delo na koje se odnosi. Kao izuzetak navedena je jedino situacija u kojoj mate- rijal koji nastaje kao posledica reprodukcije sam po sebi predstavlja original, odno- sno autorovu intelektualnu tvorevinu. Interesantna je i činjenica da se ovo poglavlje nije našlo u okviru prvog predloga Direktive, te je upravo ono jedan od svedoka već pomenutog napretka finalnog teksta u odnosu na njegov prvi predlog, jer je posto- janje ove odredbe ne samo opravdano, već i potrebno. Naime, odredbe ovog poglav- lja predviđene su pre svega sa ciljem da se nađe ravnoteža između interesa institu- cija za očuvanje kulturnog nasleđa i interesa javnosti da slobodno pristupi delima. Nesumnjivo je da ova odredba doprinosi promociji kulture i bogaćenju evropskog kulturnog nasleđa. Svakako, druga vrednost ove odredbe je što ona zaista daje uni- formno rešenje i samim tim i unosi pravnu sigurnost u protok dela vizuelne umet- nosti u javnom domenu, čije će reprodukcije od sada moći slobodno da se koriste

ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI 39 na teritoriji EU. Dakle, odredbe ovog poglavlja zadovoljavaju interese i institucija za očuvanje kulturnog nasleđa, s jedne strane, ali i javnosti, odnosno korisnika ove vrste dela, s druge strane.73

Ova odredba ima ogroman značaj upravo zbog prakse mnogih država (Italija, Nemačka, Švedska i dr.) da štite reprodukcije dela vizuelne umetnosti i da im time daju ekskluzivno pravo, što zapravo znači da se dela na ovaj način povlače iz javnog domena. Najbolji primer prethodno navedenog jeste široko rasprostranjena praksa muzeja da traže ovu vrstu zaštite za dela koja se nalaze u njihovim kolekcijama (pri- mer je Muzej Prado u Španiji, koji je tražio zaštitu autorskih prava nad delom umet- nika koji nije živ već 350 godina74). Ova odredba znači da se neće štititi ni digitalne reprodukcije umetničkih slika/skulptura (s tim što ovde treba imati u vidu da će dovoljno originalna dela ove vrste ipak biti zaštićena).75

C. Stvaranje funkcionalnog tržišta za promet subjektivnih autorskih prava

Upravo u okviru ovog naslova našli su se najkontroverzniji članovi ove direktive:

Član 15:

Ovaj član propisuje ekskluzivno pravo izdavača (osnovanih na teritoriji EU) da izri- čito zabrane/dozvole reprodukciju i stavljanje na raspolaganje javnosti svoje inter- net publikacije u pogledu internetskih korišćenja od strane pružalaca usluga infor- macijskog društva. Predviđeno je i da se odredbe kojima se uspostavlja ovo pravo ne odnose na pojedinačne korisnike koji ove publikacije koriste privatno i nekomer- cijalno, kao i da se ovo pravo ne primenjuje na stavljanje poveznica (hyperlinking), korišćenje pojedinačnih reči ili vrlo kratkih isečaka iz informativnih publikacija. Pravo izdavača vremenski je ograničeno, te na njega izdavač ne može da se poziva kada istekne period od dve godine od objave publikacije. Pored ovog ograničenja, pravo izdavača ograničeno je i pravom autora publikacije, koji ima pravo na udeo u priho-

40 ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI dima koje izdavač na temelju ovog prava ostvari, kao i pravom drugih korisnika ovla- šćenih od strane samog autora, u slučaju kada izdavač nema isključivu licencu na publikaciji.

Među obrazloženjima za uvođenje ove odredbe u samoj Direktivi navedena je potreba da se izdavačima prizna organizacijski i finansijski doprinos u proizvodnji ovih publikacija, kako bi se pre svega osigurala održivost ove profesije, a samim tim i proizvodnja pouzdanih informacija. Odredbama Direktive se ne negira veliki zna- čaj koji slobodan pristup informacija ima za javnu raspravu i očuvanja modernog demokratskog društva. Ipak, u obrazloženju je navedena činjenica da u postojećem društvu veliki broj učesnika tržišta gradi ceo biznis modela na eksploataciji informa- tivnih publikacija, te po tom osnovu ostvaruju ogromnu dobit, dok izdavači i autori ostaju bez ikakve naknade za korišćenje.

Upravo je odredba koja se tiče naknade za preuzimanje odnosno „pozajmljivanje“ internet publikacija na internetu podstakla dijalog između izdavača, akademika, političara i lica relevantnih za sektor interneta i građanski sektor uopšte. Ono što je očigledno jeste da je tradicionalna novinarska profesija ugrožena – svake godine novinari gube radna mesta kako na nacionalnom tako i na regionalnom nivou, autori i izdavači troše ogromnu količinu vremena i novca, prvo u istraživanju, a onda i u izradi kvalitetnih novinskih članaka, a svoj rad ne uspevaju adekvatno da naplate. Jedan od problema predstavlja tzv. sakupljači onlajn vesti koji su retko spremni da plate naknadu za korišćenje novinskih članaka, već se njihov biznis model zasniva na prikupljanju i saopštavanju na svojim internet stranicama vesti i medijskih izve- štavanja različitih medija i autora, te na taj način omogućavaju korisnicima, odnosno čitaocima da na jednom mestu imaju pristup različitim vestima. Ipak, na taj način negativno utiču na same medije i izdavače, odnosno istima nanose štetu budući da mediji na taj način gube korisnike koji se preusmeravaju na sajtove onlajn saku- pljača vesti. Sličan problem izdavačima, odnosno samim medijima prave i servisi za medijski monitoring jer ni oni uglavnom ne pristaju da plate naknadu za korišćenje novinskih i drugih sličnih članaka.

Takođe, drugi relevantan problem predstavljaju preference korisnika koji su sve manje spremni da plate i na taj način podrže kvalitetno novinarstvo, već se okreću informisanju putem društvenih mreža ili putem jeftinih tabloida kao direktne kon-

ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI 41 kurencije. Naime, iako je relevantna javnost podržala ideju da se uz prava korisnika na širok pristup kvalitetnim i blagovremenim informacijama, konačno postavi i inte- res lica koja takav sadržaj proizvode, ostalo je pitanje da li je ova odredba bila najbolji način da se to i uradi. Manjkavost odredbe na koju kritičari skreću pažnju odnosi se na mogućnost da upravo tablodi zloupotrebe ovo pravo i opredele naknadu za kori- šćenje svojih publikacija u minimalnom iznosu76, ili da je čak ne oprede uopšte, što bi dalje dovelo do još većih problema i rasprostranjenosti informacijskog poreme- ćaja. Ovakva situacija, pored toga što bi predstavljala problem za proizvođače infor- mativnih publikacija, takođe bi uticala i na javnost, jer bi omogućila tabloidima odre- đenih interesnih grupa da, kroz vesti koji sadrže manje proverene ili neproverene informacije i kroz tendeciozno izveštavanje u korist navedenih interesnih grupa, od čega već sada profitiraju, ostvare još veću vidljivost, te na taj način potpuno poti- snu proizvođače koji su opredelili adekvatnu naknadu za proizvodnju kvalitetnih i proverenih vesti, što bi ujedno predstavljalo i „poslednji ekser u kovčegu“ za istra- živačko novinarstvo koje ne bi imalo dovoljno sredstava da ostane u trci sa tabloi- dima.Takođe, prema kritičarima, druga opasnost po opstanak novinara i izdavača leži u apsolutnom monopolu koji Google platforma ima na tržištu. Naime, prema njihovom mišljenju, Google ima bar dva načina da zloupotrebi ovu odredbu Direk- tive. Prvo, može da odbije da plati naknadu za korišćenje publikacija određenih pro- izvođača ukoliko je smatra prevelikom, a kako upravo Google kontroliše i pozicioni- ranje na Google pretraživanju, ovo može da rezultira nedovoljnom vidljivošću ovih proizvođača, a samim tim i velikim finansijskim gubicima na osnovu iste odredbe koja je trebalo da im donese dobit. Upravo ovo se i desilo kada su neke zemlje poku- šale da uvrste slične odredbe na nacionalnom planu (primer Nemačke i izdavača Axel Springera koji je ograničio pristup Google pretraživaču svojim publikacijama zbog nemogućnosti adekvatnog licenciranja svog sadržaja, što je rezultiralo padom od čak 40% na Google searchu i velikim materijalnim gubicima, usled čega su bili prinuđeni da obustave ovo ograničenje77). Druga mogućnost zloupotrebe, kako od strane platforme Google, tako i od strane drugih komercijalnih platformi, leži u izu- zetku koji je apstraktno postavljen, a odnosi se na korišćenje „pojedinačnih reči i vrlo

76 https://juliareda.eu/2018/04/fake-news-link-tax/ 77 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-axel-sprngr/germanys-top-publisher-bows-to-google-in- news-licensing-row-idUSKBN0IP1YT20141105

42 ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI kratkih isečaka“ za koji se ne duguje naknada. Ukoliko zemlje u nacionalnim pro- pisima ne definišu dovoljno precizno ove pojmove ili ih postave preširoko, ostavlja- jući tako mogućnost za različita tumačenja, upravo ovaj izuzetak će pružiti ogroman prostor za izbegavanje plaćanja naknade za korišćenje publikacija.78

Kritičari Direktive u ovoj odredbi ne vide samo opasnost za izdavače vesti već i za korisnike, druge komercijalne platforme, kao i za same autore informativnih publi- kacija.79 Naime, za korisnike može da bude opasna činjenica da komercijalne plat- forme nisu dovoljno precizno definisane, te postoji mogućnost da ova odredba direktive „pogodi“ i blogove, ili Facebook stranice koje vode pojedinci a imaju veliki domašaj, odnosno brojnu publiku. Ova odredba može značiti kraj i za nove komer- cijalne platforme koje imaju želju da se bave medijskim monitoringom ili sakuplja- njem onlajn vesti jer će one teško biti u mogućnosti da pokriju troškove licenciranja kod izdavača, čime će Google imati još čvršću poziciju na tržištu i potpuni monopol kada sa tržišta budu potisnuti mali subjekti. Što se autora tiče, čak i ukoliko izdavači uspeju da ostvare neki udeo u dobiti komercijalne platforme, postavlja se pitanje koliki deo te naknade će na kraju pripasti samom autoru.80

Član 17:

Ova odredba odnosi se na pružaoce usluga deljenja sadržaja putem interneta, odno- sno na platforme koje u komercijalne svrhe pohranjuju sadržaj zaštićen autorskim pravom, a zatim dozvoljavaju svojim korisnicima da taj sadržaj učitaju i dele, dok ga oni organizuju i promovišu (npr. Facebook, Youtube, Vimeo i dr.).

Upravo njima Direktiva nameće obavezu da od autora čiji se sadržaj deli na njihovoj platformi pribave adekvatno odobrenje za radnje deljenja kako bi izbegle odgovor- nost. Ukoliko pak platforme ne pribave potrebno odobrenje od autora, predviđeno je da su odgovorne za svako neovlašćeno saopštavanje javnosti, uključujući stavlja- nje na raspolaganje javnosti dela zaštićenih autorskim i srodnim pravima na njima.

78 Suppra Note 68, str. 18. 79 https://www.ivir.nl/academics-against-press-publishers-right/ 80 Suppra Note. 68, str. 18

ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI 43 Pored pribavljanja odobrenja od autora (npr. licencom), platforme ovu odgovornost mogu da izbegnu samo ukoliko dokažu da su:

• preuzele sve u svojoj moći kako bi dobile odobrenje od autora;

• preuzele sve u svojoj moći, u skladu sa visokim sektorskim standardima pro- fesionalne pažnje, kako bi zaštićena dela učinile nedostupnim;

• nakon dobijenog obaveštenja od autora delovale bez odlaganja u cilju one- mogućavanja daljeg pristupa zaštićenom sadržaju, a zatim isti, takođe bez odlaganja, uklonile.

Iz ove odredbe izuzet je sadržaj koji predstavlja citat, kritiku, osvrt, kao i dela parodije, karikature ili pastiša. Izuzeti su i tzv. novi pružaoci usluga deljenja sadržaja putem interneta čije su usluge na raspolaganju kraće od 3 godine, sa godišnjim prometom manjim od 3 miliona i publikom koja ne premašuje 5 miliona lica u jednom mesecu.

Očigledno je da je ova odredba usmerena na smanjenje raskoraka u vrednosti dobiti koju od svojih dela ostvaruju autori s jedne strane i velike platforme s druge strane. Ono što se i u samoj Direktivi konstatuje jeste da su velike platforme kao Youtube napravile revoluciju u raznolikosti sadržaja i lakoći sa kojom danas može da se pri- stupi istom, što je od neprocenjivog značaja za internet kakav danas znamo. S druge strane, dok ove platforme indirektno ili direktno zarađuju ogromne količine novca na svojim biznis modelima, za današnje autore sadržaja postalo je veoma teško, pa i skoro nemoguće da utvrde da li se njihova dela koriste i pod kojim uslovima. Direk- tiva rešenje za ovaj problem vidi u razvoju tržišta za licenciranje između nosilaca autorskih i srodnih prava i platformi preko kojih se njihov sadržaj deli, čime bi se obezbedilo da pored platformi i autori prime odgovarajuću naknadu za korišćenje svojih dela.81

Upravo ova odredba naišla je na najintenzivniju kritiku relevantne javnosti. Pre svega, prema rečima kritičara, ova odredba bi predstavljala kraj interneta kakvog danas znamo i početak interneta kao sredstva za nadzor i kontrolu svojih korisnika, odno-

81 Suppra Note 67, recital 61

44 ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI sno ovakva odredba bi dovela do sužavanja internet slobode korisnika.82 Naime, ima- jući u vidu količinu sadržaja koji se svakodnevno kreće po velikim platformama, kao i broj korisnika na istim, kritičari ističu da je jedini način da se izbegne Direktivom uspostavljena odgovornost - uvođenje napredne tehnologije sposobne da prepozna i filtrira sadržaj zaštićen autorskim i srodnim pravima. S gledišta nevladinih organiza- cija ovakav monitoring sadržaja predstavlja u najmanju ruku povredu ljudskih prava korisnika.83 Što se tiče manjih platformi, upravo one će biti uništene ovom odred- bom, jer su one te koje neće imati sredstava da omoguće dovoljno naprednu tehno- logiju za filtriranje sadržaja, te neće biti u stanju da odgovore na zahteve Direktive, što znači da dalje neće moći da nastave sa vršenjem svoje delatnosti. S gledišta kori- snika i šire javnosti, ukoliko platforme ulože novac u novu tehnologiju, šta ih sprečava da istu ubuduće koriste i u druge svrhe, kao što je na primer filtriranje sadržaja koji daje kritički osvrt na neku vlast? Dalje, s gledišta samo tehnologije, koliko napredna ona mora da bude da ne bi filtrirala i dela parodije/karikature zajedno sa autorskim delom na koje se odnose? Prema rečima eksperata, verovatno bi na taj način i one bile blokiran zajedno sa nezakoniti sadržajem, uz eventualno pružanje mogućnosti imaocima prava nad tim sadržajem da ulože žalbu platformi, što dalje vodi do pita- nja na kom principu će funkcionisati i koliko će biti efikasni ti mehanizmi platforme. Dalje, kritičari teksta Direktive postavljaju pitanje da li će nedovoljno jasna definicija odredbi („uradili sve u svojoj moći” npr.) ići na štetu ili u prilog platformama u odre- đenim državama. Naime, ovako postavljena odredba koja će se dalje tumačiti od strane svake države i njenih sudova, dovešće do potpune pravne nesigurnosti svih zainteresovanih strana i neujednačenosti u praksi.84

Imajući u vidu da je propisana i obaveza organizovanja dijaloga o primeni člana 17 između zainteresovanih strana pred Komisijom EU, svetska javnost može samo da čeka rezultate ovih dijaloga kako bi se videle najbolje prakse u vezi sa ovom odred- bom i sve njene stvarne posledice.

ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI 45 Završni deo ovog poglavlja reguliše obavezu isplaćivanja pravične naknade pove- zane sa ugovorima o iskorišćavanju, sklopljenim sa autorima i izvođačima, a upravo to je pitanje u kom kritičari vide pravi raskorak u vrednosti u svetu autorskih prava. Ono što se mora predvideti u ugovorima jeste srazmerna i odgovarajuća naknada za autore/izvođače, transparentnost u vezi sa ovim ugovorima, mehanizmi za nji- hovo prilagođavanje nakon promenjenih okolnosti i postupak alternativnog rešava- nja sporova koji iz ovih ugovora poteknu, kao i pravo na opoziv.85

D. Buduća primena i prilagođavanje pravila Direktive

Pored implementacije pravila Direktive, važno pitanje za našeg Zakonodavca će biti i smernice za njenu primenu koje su neophodne kako bi rešenja bila primenljiva u praksi koja će svakako najbolje pokazati da li su obe odredbe uspele da ispune svoj cilj, odnosno da uspostave ravnotežu između svih učesnika na tržištu koji kori- ste dela zatštićena autorskim i srodnim pravima. Svakako, postojeći pravni okviri će se menjati, prilagođavati i usklađivati sa potrebama prakse sve dok se ne uspostavi adekvatan balans i zaštita interesa svih učesnika na ovom tržištu, a vreme će poka- zati na koji način je Direktiva doprinela tom procesu.

Jasno je da Direktiva nije usmerena na prosečnog korisnika, iako će i tako imati određenu dozu uticaja na istog, prvenstveno je usmerena ka kreiranju i unapređe- nju jedinstvenog digitalnog tržišta na nivou EU koje za konačan cilj ima podsticanje inovacija, kreativnosti i stvaranja novog sadržaja u digitalnom svetu. Treba napome- nuti da sloboda izražavanja prosečnog korisnika na ovaj način neće biti ugrožena jer će i dalje moći da svoje sadržaje predstavljaju putem društvenih mreža i hiperlin- kova koji vode prema različitim internet stranicama i objavama.

Donošenje jednog ovakvog akta koji regulište predmetnu materiju je bilo nužno, jer je neophodno da evropska regulativa ide u korak sa tehnološkim napretkom. Pre donošenja Direktive, postojeći akti koji su regulisali ovu materiju nisu bili dovoljno usmereni ka problemima nosilaca autorskog i srodnih prava, kao i izdavača infor-

85 http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/01/20/unwaivable-equitable-remuneration-rights-for- performers-disruption-or-balancing-of-interests/

46 ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI mativnih publikacija. Konačno, cilj ovakvog akta jeste i da, kroz uređenje digitalnog tržišta, obezbedi pravnu sigurnost nosiocima autorskog i srodnih prava, prosečnim korisnicima interneta, ali i pružaocima usluga pristupa sadržaju na internetu.

ANALIZA POSTOJEĆEG STANJA I PREDLOZI ZA UNAPREĐENJE SISTEMA KOLEKTIVNOG I INDIVIDUALNOG OSTVARIVANJA AUTORSKIH I SRODNIH PRAVA U REPUBLICI SRBIJI 47

Informations clés

Organisation Organisation pour la sécurité et la coopération en Europe (OSCE)

Type de document book

Date d'adoption 21 février 2022

Source OSCE