# Transposition of Copyright Directive into Croatian Copyright Law

## Article 3 --> Article 178

Scientific and cultural heritage institutions with lawful access are allowed unrestricted mining. For institutions of science, this can be done only on non-profit scientific basis and the access to the results cannot be provided on a privileged access basis to an enterpreneur that has a defining impact on that organisation:

There is a requirement of storing the copies of works created through data mining securely (Para 6) and the rightsholder can use technical measures to probe the security of networks and bases where the works are stored (Para 7). These measures must be proportional and limited, and cannot limit the exception set out under this article. Users are required to cooperate with the rightsholder to agree on best practices to implement secure storage and security probes (Para 8).

### TO DO:
* rejecting specific requirements around secure storage and third parties holding data.

BOGOTAJ:

Additional Comments:
• Art. 178 does not deal with situations, where Technical Protection Measures (TPM) prevent TDM – in such cases, access to materials should be enabled within 72 hours, or financial penalties should ensue for the rightsholders;
• Remote access to digitised analogue materials for TDM purposes should be expressly provided for;
• Art. 178 does not mention TDM of software – since software is a literary right under copyright in the InfoSoc Directive, TDM of software should be expressly allowed

## Article 4 --> Article 179

For purposes of data and information mining once can reproduce works, including databases, software and software adaptations, subject to author's and related rights, including extraction of a part of the content and reuse of the entire or large part of the content of a non-original database.

The content resulting from reproduction and extraction can be retained only for the period necessary to complete the mining (Para 2). The mined works have to be access legally, and only under condition that the rightsholders haven't expressedly and in appropriate manner limited such exploitation (Para 3). Appropriate manner of limiting mining include machine readable metadata, general terms of use for webpages and services, contractual terms or declarations made by rightsholders (Para 4). For works made available to public on the Internet, appropriate manner only are machine readable metadata and general terms of use (Para 5).

### TO DO:
* rejecting any specific limitations on being able to retain data
* reject only "terms of use" as appropriate manner of limiting mining. It always must come **together** with metadata, so a machine can know what to mine and what not. If burried in terms of use only, it will be like a trap.

BOGOTAJ:

Additional Comments:
• Art. 179 does not deal with situations, where Technical Protection Measures (TPM) prevent TDM – in such cases, access to materials should be enabled within 72 hours, or financial penalties should ensue for the rightsholders;
• Remote access to digitised analogue materials for TDM purposes should be expressly provided for;

## Article 5 --> Article 188-190

There is an overarching educational exception (Articles 188 & 189), but rightsholder can expressly limit the inclusion of their work into collections and they are entitled to remuneration through collective rights management (Article 188).

Article 5 of the Directive is implemented in Article 190

There is a general exception to reproduce and make public (segments of) works subject to author's and related rights for the purposes of digital use aimed a providing examples in educational process. This can be done on or off premises of the institution, or in a secure electronic environment, including for digital and cross-border education (Para 3). However, this exception is limited only to institutions of formal education, and in the case of further education (Para 7) to government bodies, public institutions and other entities that are authorised to conduct such activities.

### TO DO:
* there is a vague quantity limitation (Para 2: "u pravilu, u dijelovima ili u isječcima," -- as a rule, in segments or fragments,")
* advocate joint educational activities provided by multiple education providers
* educational activities provided by libraries, museums and archives, as well as informal and non-formal education providers
* uses that take place on informal learning platforms

BOGOTAJ:

Additional Comments:
• Art. 190/1 defines the secure electronic environment as one »which can be accessed only by pupils or students and teaching staff of that educational institution, provided that the source and name of the author or other right holder must be indicated, unless this proves impossible.« - the term »secure electronic environment« should include emails, messaging services, group chats or any other electronic communication networks and services used for teaching as well;
• Art. 190/1 relates to the acts of reproduction and communication to the public, including making available to the public, but does not cover the act of distribution - the distribution of physical copies of protected content should be included as well, taking into account that non-digital use might be needed to prepare or to complement the digital use;
• The exception in Art. 190 should stipulate that it applies also to individuals that support or complement the teachers’ activities (social workers, professionals that provide special needs support, professionals that provide extracurricular activities and support, and parents).

## Article 6 --> Article 182

Institutions of cultural heritage are defined in the mining-related Article 178, Para 3. They are allowed to reproduce works subject to author's and related rights that are part of their collections -- in any format and on any medium -- for the purposes of preservation. These are part of their collections either if owned by or contractually given for use, deposited, loaned in perpetuity.

### TO DO
* Ensuring that cultural heritage institutions are able to take preservation copies of works to which they have access on third-party servers,
* Including other internal uses by these institutions, and
* Allowing web harvesting.

## Article 7 --> Articles 178, 182, 190; Article 204;

There is a number of overrides for data and information mining (computer readable, contractual, general TOC, declarations of rightsholder). However, expressedly no contractual override for preservation in Article 182 (Para 3) and for digital or cross-border education in Article 190 (Para 6). No mention is made of technological override.

There is a separate article -- Article 204 -- defining reponsiblities of rightsholders regarding exceptions and limitations if they are using technical protection measures. Rightsholders or other entities that have applied TPMs have the reponsiblity to - either through special measures or arrangement - enable access to users and their associations. This does not apply to computer programmes (Para 2). If they don't comply, users can resort to filing a legal complaint (Para 3) or request a process of mediation by a Committee of Experts within the Croatian Intellectual Property Office as defined by Articles 229 and 230. TPMs are themselves protected under Article 267. These provisions do not apply to works made available to the public so that members of the public can access themselves (Para 6). Rightholders or entities applying TMPs have the duty to indicate on each copy of the work that a TMP was applied, its effects and their name and contact (Para 7).

### TO DO:
* put in place a rapid-response, transparent system to ensure that the beneficiaries of those exceptions can effectively and speedily use TPM-protected content --> does the reaction-period have to be defined, it's not defined for process of mediation
* grant users the right to circumvent TPM-protected content to the extent needed to make uses under any national copyright exceptions.

NSK: U članak je potrebno uvrstiti i dopuštenje za objavu rezultata dobivenih rudarenjem teksta i podataka čime se potiče znanstveno istraživanje i omogućuje diseminacija rezultata istraživanja.
Prijedlog dodatka: Istraživačkim organizacijama i institucijama kulturne baštine dopuštena je javna objava rezultata dobivenih rudarenjem teksta i podataka.

## Articles 8-11 --> Article 18; Article 180; Annex I, Articles 1-4

### Orphan works are defined in the Article 18

### Free use of orphan works is defined in the Article 180:

Cultral heritage institutions as defined in the Article 178, Para 3, educational institutions and public broadcasting institutions are allowed to reproduce orphan works (subject to author's and related rights) for puproses of digitisation, indexing, cataloguing, preseravation or restoration, as well making them available to the public. These actions are allowed to do only in line with their public mission, particularly preservation and dissemination of orphan works in their collections, and for purposes of making them available for cultural and educational purposes. These organisations are allowed to generate an income only with the purpose of recouping the cost of digitsation and making available of orphan works to the public (Para 2). If an author or co-author of orphan work shows up, they can revoke the orphan work status (as defined in Article 18, Para 5) and are entitled to rightful compensation from the organisation that had used the orphan work. The rightful compensation is commensurate to the category of work, the non-commercial nature of exploitation, and the public mission culture and education, and needs to be paid for the last three years of exploitation prior to revokation (Para 5). Request for a rightful remuneration can be made either by the author or the collective rights management organisation (Para 6).

### Resonable effort of search is defined in the Annex I, Articles 1-4

According to Annex I, Article 2, CHIs are required to undertake a reasonable effort to identify the author or co-author for each work. The effort has to be undertaken before the work is used, by searching through repositories relevant for each category of work, and if there is an indication that a search for rightsholder in other states, there is a requirement to conduct seach in those other states. Annex I, Article 3 lists sources extensively for books, periodicals, for various types of works included in books, periodicals or other works. CHIs required to keep logs of seaches -- with information document the results of searches, the use of orphan works, all changes in the orphan work status and their own contact -- and pass them with no delay on to the State Intellectual Property Office that will pass them on to European Intellectual Property Office.

### TO DO:
- so, it seems that there is no statutory license nor involvement of collective rights management organisations, but use of work is limited to largely non-commercial use and a right for rightful remuneration is instituted for the authors and coauthors who claim as theirs works that are deemed to be orphan;
- reasonable effort to determine orphan status is well-defined as the (categories of) metadata repositories are finite and listed explicitly

## Article 14 --> Article 11, Para 8

Article 11 defines works that do not fall under protection. This includes all reproductions of visual artworks for which the protection period has expired (Para 8), unless it is an original work of art of the original author of the visual artwork.

Article 195, defining Reproduction of Artworks in Public Spaces, does not allow for a 3D reproduction and dissemination. 3D reproduction is not mentioned anywhere else, meaning that 3D reproduction and dissemination for all works except those in public spaces.

### TO DO:
- I don't know whether the pre-established practice is that the visual artworks can be freely reproduced, but copyright enforcement is generally weak -- however, you would be likely asked to clear rights for a reproduction of a painting in a monograph
- clarify that the protection of non-original reproduction materials that may have arisen during the term of protection of the original work expire once the original work enters into the public domain.

Para 7: Mandatory licensing fee for making public of the Official Gazette

NSK: Odredbu treba brisati iz Zakona! Za korištenje djela koja su javno dobro i koja nikada nisu bila predmetom autorskog prava nikako i niti u kojem slučaju se ne bi trebala plaćati naknada! Djela koja su javno dobro koriste se u kreativne, obrazovne, znanstvene i druge svrhe i nikako se ne može opravdati odredba da se za njihovo korištenje plaća naknada s obzirom da se upravo time sprječava i otežava kreativnost i razvoj određenog područja.

Para 8:

(8) Kad je rok zaštite za autorsko djelo vizualnih umjetnosti istekao, nijedna tvorevina nastala umnožavanjem takvog djela nije prikladna za autorskopravnu zaštitu, osim ako je riječ reprodukciji koja je sama po sebi originalna intelektualna tvorevina njenog autora u smislu članka 7. stavka 1. ovoga Zakona.
NSK: Odredba se treba proširiti na način da se odnosi na sve vrste autorskih djela (Kad je rok zaštite za autorsko djelo istekao…), nema razloga da se izdvajaju samo vizualna djela. Prijedlog je sukladan i preporuci Europskog društva za autorsko pravo od 26. travnja 2020. o implementaciji članka 14. Direktive (EU) 2019/790 o autorskom pravu i srodnim pravima na jedinstvenom digitalnom tržištu.

## Article 15 --> Chapter 6, Articles 154 - 163

**New press publisher right**

Daily and other news that have the character of simple media information are not subject to protection, but have to be credited to the original publisher and journalist as is customary in the profession. (Article 11, Para 1, 4 & 5). However, the new press publisher right is defined in Chapter 6, starting with the article 154 defining press publications (exempting academic publications), press publishers and infromation society services.

Article 156 defines the press publisher right (right to reproduce, to distribute, to make public, to adapt).

Article 157 extends that to the context of internet re-use: all press publishers with a business address in the EU have an exclusive right to reproduction and making public of (a segment of) their publication, when information society service providers are making use of it. Exempt from this are end users, links or very short segments (consisting of only couple of words and no photos or videos) -- provided this does not limit the exclusive right set out in the Para 1, as a short segment can condense the whole publication or can be avert users from visiting the publication (Para 3). Both press publishers and jounralists and photographers are entitled to a remuneration levied on informations society service providers (and for journalists and photographers that cannot be considered as part of their pay).

Economic right of press publishers are limited to 50 years as publisher rights in general, but to 2 yeaers for rights defined in the Article 157. According to the Article 163, a number of other articles in the law apply to this new right, inlcuding that the rightsholders are according to Article 18, Para 3, are entitled to compensation. According to Articles 43-47 this is equivalent to sharing on internet platforms (exempting in Article 43 a.o. free internet encyclopaedia, scientific repositories and free software repositories), etc. According to Article 57 they cannot waive their right. However, Article 163 does not mention that exemptions and limitations articles apply to press publisher right.

Article 208 introduces collective rights management both for author's and related rights
3. prava nakladnika informativnih publikacija, za informativne publikacije u cijelosti ili u dijelu:
a. pravo priopćavanja javnosti iz članka 156. ovoga Zakona
b. pravo učiniti dostupnim javnosti iz članka 156. ovoga Zakona

4. prava nakladnika informativnih publikacija, za informativne publikacije u cijelosti ili u dijelu:

a. pravo umnožavanja iz članka 156. ovoga Zakona izdvajanjem iz informativnih publikacija grupiranjem po temama, kad to radi osoba različita od nakladnika informativnih publikacija, radi distribucije ili priopćavanja javnosti tako grupiranih dijelova informativnih publikacija te pravo distribucije, pravo priopćavanja javnosti uključujući činjenje dostupnim javnosti iz članka 156. ovoga Zakona tako grupiranih dijelova informativnih publikacija (press-clipping)

b. pravo iznajmljivanja iz članka 156. ovoga Zakona kad se primjerak informativne publikacije daje pripadnicima javnosti na korištenje na mjestima pristupačnim javnosti, sa ili bez naknade, uz ostvarivanje neposredne ili posredne gospodarske ili ekonomske koristi (npr. u ugostiteljskim objektima, hotelima i sličnim mjestima)

c. ostvarivanje naknade za javnu posudbu iz članka 156. ovoga Zakona

d. pravo prerade iz članka 156. ovoga Zakona koje se odnosi na:

◊ prilagođavanje,

◊ obradu te

◊ uvrštavanje informativne publikacije ili njenog dijela u druge vrste djela i sadržaja koje učitavaju korisnici usluga za dijeljenje sadržaja putem interneta,

◊ sve nabrojano pod uvjetom da davatelj usluge dijeljenja sadržaja ima odobrenje za priopćavanje javnosti činjenjem dostupnim javnosti ili davanjem pristupa javnosti djelima i drugim sadržajima koje su učitali korisnici na platformama za dijeljenje sadržaja putem interneta

e. pravo umnožavanja, distribuiranja, priopćavanja javnosti, uključujući činjenje dostupnim javnosti iz članka 156. ovoga Zakona, u korist institucija kulturne baštine, za nekomercijalne svrhe, informativnih publikacija koje su nedostupne na tržištu a koje su trajni dio zbirke institucije kulturne baštine

f. ostvarivanje naknade za privatno korištenje u svezi s pravom umnožavanja iz članka 156. ovoga Zakona

g. pravo umnožavanja i priopćavanja javnosti na bilo koji način, uključujući činjenje dostupnim javnosti, kad informativnu publikaciju i bilo koji njezin dio na internetu koristi pružatelj usluga informacijskog društva, iz članka 157. ovoga Zakona.

h. ostvarivanje naknade za umnožavanje za privatno korištenje u svezi s pravom umnožavanja iz članka 157. ovoga Zakona.

### TO DO:
- Adopt an open-ended definition of “very short extracts”, which supports a floor, not a ceiling, with regard to length/amount of content this will cover;
- Make all existing copyright exceptions and limitations applicable to the new right;
- Clarify that other exemptions only mentioned in recitals (facts, blogs) are not subject to the new right;
- Make it clear that press publishers are permitted to waive their new right.

C4C
1) Article 15: The text seems to introduce a mandatory collective rights management approach or compulsory licensing approach under Article 15. This goes against the idea that publishers could waive this new right (which I saw mentioned in the Art. 15 to-do list), and thus limits the potential for contractual freedom in the value chain.

NSK: U stavak 3. (Article 43) svakako je potrebno, uz obrazovne i znanstvene repozitorije, uvrstiti i repozitorije institucija kulturne baštine koje objavljuju sadržaje u neprofitne svrhe.
Prijedlog dopune: … kao što su neprofitne internetske enciklopedije, obrazovni i znanstveni repozitoriji te repozitoriji institucija kulturne baštine…

## Article 17 --> Articles 43-46

Article 43 defines that the right to make public work uploaded by userst to content sharing platforms is an exclusive right of the author and can be authorised and not (Para 1). It defines online content sharing service provider (Para 2) -- and defines to whom it doesn't apply (including not for profit online encyclopedia and academic repositories, open source software development platforms, online retail, cloud services for user's private us) (Para 3).

OCSSPs are required to obtain an authorisation from the author before the work is shared online -- either through a contract or other formal means (Para 4). Author has no obligation to enter such a contract nor authorise use (Para 6), and the author needs to justify a request to make unavailable or remove the work (Para 7). OCSSPs don't benefit from the limitation of liability under the E-Commerce Law, Article 18, Para 1.

Article 44 defines OCSSPs' liability for the copyrighted content uploaded by their users - they are liable, before the onset such use for illegally making public (as defined in Article 29) or making available to the public (as defined in Article 40) without authorisation unless they have a) made best efforts to obtain an authorisation, b) made best efforts to ensure the unavailability of works for which they have received relevant and necessary information from the authors (i.e. filtering), c) acted with expedience upon receiving a notice to take down the works and acted to prevent a future re-upload of those works.

Liability is defined by the principle of proportionality and additional conditions of the type, audience and scope of service and the type of work, and availity and the cost of effective and appropriate means (Para 2).

New OCSSPs, that are less than 3 years in operation in the EU and have yearly revenue under €10 million, are liable only for if they haven't made best efforts to obtain an authorisation and acted with expedience to take down works (Para 3). This doesn't apply if the previous calendar year they have had over 5 million individual users in a month (Para 4). If they are a follow-up service of a previous one or have undergone a name change, conditions in Para 3 and Para 4 don't apply. Nor does the liability apply, if the main purpose of a service provider is to enable or aid massive unauthorised use of works (piracy) (Pra 6). Service providers have to provide upon request information to authors on how they have set up the mechanisms to comply Para 1 (Para 7).

Aticle 45 stipulates that cooperation between an OCSSP and an author as defined by Article 44 cannot limit the availability of works uploaded by users if they are not infringing copyright or if they are used within exceptions and limitations (Para 1). Articles 43, 44 and 45 should not result in a general requirement of monitoring (Para 2). Articles 43 and 44 should not limit legitimate uses in line with exceptions and limitations nor identification of individual users, processing of their personal data - unless done in compliance with the E-Privacy Directive, the General Data Protection Regulation and the law regulating electronic communication (Para 3).

OSCCPs have to duly inform their users via their ToC on the legitimate uses of works under exceptions and limitations (Para 4) and the works created by users of OCSSPs for quotation, criticism, review or incidental use (as defined in Article 194), as well as for parody and caricature (as defined in Article 197) (Para 5). 

Article 46 requires OCSSPs to create effective and expedient means for users to lodge a complaint and other procedures to protect user in the cases when access is disabled or uploaded content removed (Para 1). Such compaints have to be addessed without delay and the decision disabling access or removing content must be subject to human review (Para 2). Users can initiate a process with the Expert Committee of the State Intellectual Property Office, an arbitrage process, and a court porcess, particularly when it comes to determining the extent of exceptions and limitations (Para 3).

### TO DO

Communia: "The new Copyright Directive, on the one hand, excludes certain for-profit content-sharing platforms from the above-mentioned liability protections, and, on the other hand, makes them liable for content uploaded by their users that infringes someone else’s copyright. As a result, they have two options: (a) they obtain authorizations from copyright owners to communicate such content or, if no authorization is granted, (b) they take a set of steps to be exempted from liability for such infringing content, such as actively searching for infringing content by filtering or other mechanism.

**The first option is the preferable option, from the users rights perspective, but it will only be effective if Member States do not rely on individual licensing to grant authorizations to platforms for every piece of content that is available on their services. The second option may require the use of automated filtering technology and, thus, result in widespread over-blocking of users’ uploads, interfering with uses made under copyright exceptions and with fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of expression and data protection.**"

C4C

2) Article 17: Article 208 appears to be introducing a separate right for the creation of derivative works that (a) requires additional rights clearance and (b) is subjected to mandatory collective rights management. Obviously, additional new rights, and licencing burdens, should always be avoided.

# Non-transposition articles:

## Article 105

NSK: Kako bi se izvršile obveze propisane Zakonom o znanstvenoj djelatnosti i visokom obrazovanju (čl. 83., st. 11.: Završne radove studija sveučilišta i fakulteti dužni su trajno objaviti na javnoj internetskoj bazi sveučilišne knjižnice u sastavu sveučilišta te kopirati u javnu internetsku bazu završnih radova Nacionalne i sveučilišne knjižnice), i uskladili zakonski propisi, u stavak 3. potrebno je propisati obvezu objave završnih radova, a ne otvoriti mogućnost. Stoga predlažemo zamjenu riječi mogu u moraju.

## Article 188

Para 1

NSK: Predlaže se brisanje dijela rečenice umnožavanje na papir ili sličan medij koji je u suprotnosti s odredbom iz stavka 2. istog članka i korištenjem u elektroničkom okružju.

## Article 208

Čl. 208 Kolektivno ostvarivanje autorskih prava
NSK: Iz stavka 2 brisati f. ostvarivanje naknade za priopćavanje javnosti narodnih knjiženih i umjetničkih tvorevina iz članka 11. stavka 7. ovoga Zakona s obzirom da se za korištenje javnog dobra nikako ne bi trebala plaćati naknada. Obrazloženje navedeno uz čl. 11., st. 7.