[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |

[pic] | KOMISIJA EVROPSKIH SKUPNOSTI |

Brussels, 16.7.2008

Bruselj, 16.7.2008

COM(2008) 466 final

COM(2008) 466 konč.

GREEN PAPER

ZELENA KNJIGA

Copyright in the Knowledge Economy

Avtorske pravice v gospodarstvu znanja

GREEN PAPER

ZELENA KNJIGA

Copyright in the Knowledge Economy

Avtorske pravice v gospodarstvu znanja

TABLE OF CONTENTS

KAZALO

1. Introduction 3

1. Uvod 3

1.1. The purpose of the Green Paper 3

1.1. Namen zelene knjige 3

1.2. The scope of the Green Paper 3

1.2. Vsebina Zelene knjige 3

2. General Issues 4

2. Splošna vprašanja 4

3. Exceptions: Specific Issues 6

3. Izjeme: posebna vprašanja 6

3.1. Exceptions for libraries and archives 7

3.1. Izjeme za knjižnice in arhive 6

3.1.1. Digitisation (preservation) 7

3.1.1. Digitalizacija (ohranjanje) 7

3.1.2. The making available of digitised works 10

3.1.2. Dajanje digitaliziranih del na voljo 9

3.1.3. Orphan works 10

3.1.3. Avtorsko zaščitena dela neznanih avtorjev 9

3.2. The exception for the benefit of people with a disability 13

3.2. Izjema v korist invalidnih oseb 11

3.3. Dissemination of works for teaching and research purposes 16

3.3. Razširjanje del za namene pouka in raziskovanja 14

3.4. User-created content 19

3.4. Vsebine, ki jih ustvarjajo uporabniki 17

4. Call For Comments 20

4. Povabilo k predložitvi pripomb 18

1. INTRODUCTION

1. Uvod

1.1. The purpose of the Green Paper

1.1. Namen zelene knjige

The purpose of the Green Paper is to foster a debate on how knowledge for research, science and education can best be disseminated in the online environment. The Green Paper aims to set out a number of issues connected with the role of copyright in the "knowledge economy"[1] and intends to launch a consultation on these issues.

Namen te zelene knjige je spodbuditi razpravo o tem, kako bi lahko znanje za raziskave, znanost in izobraževanje čim bolje razširjali v spletnem okolju. Cilj Zelene knjige je predstaviti številna vprašanja, povezana z vlogo avtorskih pravic v „gospodarstvu znanja“[1], in odpreti posvetovanje o teh vprašanjih.

The Green Paper is essentially in two parts. The first part deals with general issues regarding exceptions to exclusive rights introduced in the main piece of European copyright legislation - Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society ("the Directive")[2]. The other piece of copyright legislation that is relevant for the knowledge economy, Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases[3], has been analysed in a separate report[4]. Nevertheless, some aspects of this directive, such as exceptions and limitations, will be addressed in this report as well.

Zelena knjiga je sestavljena iz dveh glavnih delov. Prvi del obravnava splošna vprašanja glede izjem pri izključnih pravicah, uvedenih s temeljnim evropskim pravnim aktom o avtorskih pravicah – Direktivo 2001/29/ES o usklajevanju določenih vidikov avtorske in sorodnih pravic v informacijski družbi (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Direktiva)[2]. Drugi pravni akt o avtorskih pravicah, pomemben za gospodarstvo znanja, Direktiva 96/9/ES o pravnem varstvu baz podatkov[3], je bil analiziran v ločenem poročilu[4]. Kljub temu bodo nekateri vidiki te direktive, kot so izjeme in omejitve, obravnavani tudi v tem poročilu.

The second part deals with specific issues related to the exceptions and limitations which are most relevant for the dissemination of knowledge and whether these exceptions should evolve in the era of digital dissemination.

Drugi del Zelene knjige obravnava posebna vprašanja v zvezi z izjemami in omejitvami, ki so za razširjanje znanja najbolj pomembne, ter ocenjuje, ali bi bilo v dobi digitalnega razširjanja znanja treba te izjeme razširiti.

The Green Paper will address all issues in a balanced manner taking into account the perspective of publishers, libraries, educational establishments, museums, archives, researchers, people with a disability and the public at large.

Vsa navedena vprašanja so v Zeleni knjigi obravnavana uravnoteženo ob upoštevanju stališč založb, knjižnic, izobraževalnih ustanov, muzejev, arhivov, raziskovalcev, invalidnih oseb in širše javnosti.

1.2. The scope of the Green Paper

1.2. Vsebina Zelene knjige

In its review of the Single Market[5] the Commission highlighted the need to promote free movement of knowledge and innovation as the "Fifth Freedom" in the single market. The Green Paper will focus on how research, science and educational materials are disseminated to the public and whether knowledge is freely circulating in the internal market. But the Green Paper is not limited to scientific and educational material. Material not falling within these parameters but which has value in enhancing knowledge is also within the scope of this Green Paper.

V pregledu enotnega trga[5] je Komisija poudarila potrebo po spodbujanju prostega pretoka znanja in inovacij kot „pete svobode“ na enotnem trgu. Zelena knjiga se bo osredotočila na vprašanje, kako se raziskovalno, znanstveno in izobraževalno gradivo razširja javnosti in ali znanje na notranjem trgu prosto kroži. Vendar Zelena knjiga ne obravnava zgolj znanstvenega in izobraževalnega gradiva. Gradivo, ki ne sodi v navedeni okvir, vendar je pomembno za povečevanje znanja, je prav tako predmet Zelene knjige.

The "public" addressed in this Green Paper comprises scientists, researchers, students and also disabled people or the general public who want to advance their knowledge and educational levels by using the Internet. Wider dissemination of knowledge contributes to more inclusive and cohesive societies, fostering equality of opportunities in line with the priorities of the forthcoming renewed Social Agenda.

„Javnost“, na katero je naslovljena ta zelena knjiga, zajema znanstvenike, raziskovalce in študente, pa tudi invalidne osebe in širšo javnost, ki si z uporabo interneta želijo širiti svoje znanje in izboljšati raven izobrazbe. Širše razširjanje znanja prispeva k razvoju bolj vključujočih in kohezivnih družb, ki spodbujajo enake možnosti v skladu s prednostnimi cilji prenovljene socialne agende.

A high level of copyright protection is crucial for intellectual creation. Copyright ensures the maintenance and development of creativity in the interests of authors, producers, consumers and the public at large. A rigorous and effective system for the protection of copyright and related rights is necessary to provide authors and producers with a reward for their creative efforts and to encourage producers and publishers to invest in creative works (see recitals 10 and 11 of the Directive). The publishing sector makes an important contribution to European economy[6]. Copyright is also a policy in line with the imperative to foster progress and innovation. The Commission solicits the views of researchers on new ways of delivering digital content. These new modes of delivery should allow consumers and researchers to access protected content in full respect of copyright.

Visoka raven zaščite avtorskih pravic je za intelektualno ustvarjanje bistvenega pomena. Avtorske pravice zagotavljajo ohranjanje in razvoj ustvarjalnosti v interesu avtorjev, producentov, potrošnikov in širše javnosti. Potreben je dosleden in učinkovit sistem za zaščito avtorskih in sorodnih pravic, ki avtorje in izvajalce nagrajuje za njihovo ustvarjalno delo, producente in založnike pa spodbuja k financiranju ustvarjalnih del (glej uvodni izjavi 10 in 11 Direktive). Založništvo je pomemben del evropskega gospodarstva[6]. Politika varstva avtorskih pravic je tudi v skladu z nujnostjo spodbujanja napredka in inovacij. Komisija zbira mnenja raziskovalcev o novih načinih dostave digitalnih vsebin, ki naj bi potrošnikom in raziskovalcem omogočili dostop do zaščitenih vsebin ob polnem spoštovanju avtorskih pravic.

Existing copyright laws have traditionally attempted to strike a balance between ensuring a reward for past creation and investment and the future dissemination of knowledge products by introducing a list of exceptions and limitations to allow for certain, specific activities that pertain to scientific research, the activities of libraries and to disabled people. In this respect, the Directive has introduced an exhaustive list of exceptions and limitations. These exceptions are not mandatory for Member States however, and even if exceptions are adopted at the national level, Member States have often formulated exceptions narrower than those permitted in the Directive.

Obstoječi zakoni o avtorskih pravicah so ponavadi skušali doseči ravnotežje med zagotavljanjem nagrade za preteklo ustvarjanje in financiranjem prihodnjega razširjanja proizvodov znanja, in sicer tako, da so uvedli seznam izjem in omejitev, ki so omogočale določene dejavnosti v zvezi z znanstvenim raziskovanjem, dejavnostmi knjižnic in invalidnimi osebami. Direktiva tako vsebuje končni seznam izjem in omejitev. Vendar pa te izjeme za države članice niso obvezne, in tudi če so na nacionalni ravni sprejete, jih države članice pogosto opredelijo ožje kot Direktiva.

2. GENERAL ISSUES

2. Splošna vprašanja

The Directive has harmonised the right of reproduction, the right of communication to the public, the right of making available to the public and the distribution right. The basic principle underlying the harmonisation effort was to provide the rightholders with a high level of protection; hence the scope of exclusive rights was very broadly defined. Some stakeholders question whether the introduction of exclusive rights translates into a fair share of income for all the categories of rights holders. Authors (such as composers, film directors, and journalists) and, in particular, performers argue that they have not earned any significant revenue from the exercise of the new "making available" right in relation to the online exploitation of their works.

Direktiva je uskladila pravico reproduciranja, pravico priobčitve javnosti, pravico dajanja na voljo javnosti in pravico distribuiranja. Temeljno načelo pri prizadevanju za uskladitev je bilo zagotoviti imetnikom pravic visoko raven varstva, zato je bil obseg izključnih pravic opredeljen zelo široko. Nekatere zainteresirane strani dvomijo, da uvedba izključnih pravic zagotavlja pravičen delež dohodka vsem kategorijam imetnikov pravic. Avtorji (npr. skladatelji, filmski režiserji in novinarji) in zlasti izvajalci menijo, da jim uveljavljanje nove pravice „dajanja na voljo“ pri spletni uporabi njihovih del ni prineslo omembe vrednih dohodkov.

Apart from adapting the exclusive rights to the online environment, the Directive introduced an exhaustive list of exceptions to copyright protection, although there was no international obligation to do so. The primary reason for having such a list of exceptions appears to be to limit Member States' ability to introduce new exceptions or extend the scope of the existing ones beyond what is allowed under the Directive. Gradually, in the legislative process, Member States introduced the current list of one mandatory exception and 20 optional exceptions.

Direktiva je prilagodila izključne pravice spletnemu okolju, poleg tega pa je uvedla tudi končni seznam izjem pri avtorskih pravicah, čeprav za to ni obstajala mednarodna obveznost. Glavni razlog za uvedbo takega seznama je najverjetneje v tem, da se omejijo možnosti držav članic za uvedbo novih izjem ali razširitev obsega obstoječih izjem prek okvira, dovoljenega v Direktivi. V zakonodajnem procesu so države članice postopoma uvedle sedanji seznam, ki obsega eno obvezno in 20 neobveznih izjem.

The conditions of application of the exceptions are drafted in rather general language. Arguably, the approach chosen by the drafters has left Member States a great deal of flexibility in implementing the exceptions contained in the Directive. Apart from the exception on transient copying, national legislation can be more restrictive than the Directive as to the scope of exceptions. The list of exceptions as contained in the Directive has achieved a certain degree of harmonisation: creating an exhaustive list of exceptions does not allow Member States to maintain or introduce exceptions which are not listed.

Pogoji za uporabo izjem so opredeljeni dokaj splošno. Pripravljavci so tako dali državam članicam precej proste roke pri izvajanju izjem, navedenih v Direktivi. Razen pri izjemi, ki se nanaša na začasno reproduciranje, je lahko nacionalna zakonodaja pri obsegu izjem bolj omejujoča kot Direktiva. S seznamom izjem, navedenih v Direktivi, je bila dosežena določena stopnja uskladitve, saj države članice ne smejo uvesti ali ohraniti izjem, ki niso zajete v seznamu.

In addition, Article 5(5) of the Directive provides that the exceptions and limitations permitted by the Directive are to be applied in certain special cases, which do not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work or other subject matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder. This provision is known as the "three- step test".

Poleg tega člen 5(5) Direktive določa, da se izjeme in omejitve, ki jih dovoljuje Direktiva, uporabljajo le v določenih posebnih primerih, ki niso v nasprotju z normalnim izkoriščanjem dela ali drugega predmeta in ne vplivajo pretirano na legitimne interese imetnika pravic. Ta določba je znana kot „preskus v treh korakih“.

The formulation of Article 5(5) reflects the Community's international obligations in the area of copyright and related rights. The three-step test is set out in similar terms in Article 9(2) of the Berne Convention[7] and, most importantly, Article 13 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights ("the TRIPS Agreement")[8], to which Community is a party[9]. The three-step test is therefore part of the international copyright framework which the Community and its Member States are bound to respect. It has become a benchmark for all copyright limitations[10].

Besedilo člena 5(5) odraža mednarodne obveznosti Skupnosti na področju avtorskih in sorodnih pravic. Preskus v treh korakih je na podoben način opredeljen v členu 9(2) Bernske konvencije[7] in, kar je še pomembneje, v členu 13 Sporazuma o trgovinskih vidikih pravic intelektualne lastnine („Sporazum TRIPS“)[8], katerega podpisnica je Skupnost[9]. Preskus v treh korakih je zato del mednarodnega okvira avtorskega prava, ki ga morajo Skupnost in njene države članice spoštovati. Preskus je postal merilo za vse omejitve avtorskih pravic[10].

Questions:

Vprašanja:

1. Should there be encouragement or guidelines for contractual arrangements between right holders and users for the implementation of copyright exceptions

1. Ali bi bilo treba spodbujati pogodbene dogovore med imetniki in uporabniki pravic glede izvajanja izjem pri avtorskih pravicah oziroma zagotoviti smernice za sklepanje takih dogovorov?

2. Should there be encouragement, guidelines or model licenses for contractual arrangements between right holders and users on other aspects not covered by copyright exceptions?

2. Ali bi bilo treba spodbujati pogodbene dogovore med imetniki in uporabniki pravic glede drugih vidikov, ki niso zajeti v izjemah avtorskih pravic, oziroma zagotoviti smernice ali vzorčne licence za sklepanje takih dogovorov?

3. Is an approach based on a list of non-mandatory exceptions adequate in the light of evolving Internet technologies and the prevalent economic and social expectations?

3. Ali je glede na razvijajoče se internetne tehnologije ter prevladujoča pričakovanja gospodarstva in družbe pristop, ki temelji na neobveznih izjemah, ustrezen?

4. Should certain categories of exceptions be made mandatory to ensure more legal certainty and better protection of beneficiaries of exceptions?

4. Ali bi morale biti nekatere kategorije izjem obvezne, da bi zagotovili večjo pravno varnost in boljše varstvo upravičencev do teh izjem?

5. If so, which ones?

5. Če je odgovor pritrdilen, katere so te kategorije?

3. EXCEPTIONS: SPECIFIC ISSUES

3. IZJEME: POSEBNA VPRAšANJA

The Green Paper focuses on the exceptions to copyright which are most relevant for the dissemination of knowledge, namely:

Zelena knjiga obravnava predvsem tiste izjeme pri avtorskih pravicah, ki so najbolj pomembne za razširjanje znanja, in sicer:

- The exception for the benefit of libraries and archives;

- izjemo v korist knjižnic in arhivov,

- The exception allowing dissemination of works for teaching and research purposes;

- izjemo, ki dovoljuje razširjanje del za namene pouka in raziskovanja,

- The exception for the benefit of people with a disability;

- izjemo v korist invalidnih oseb,

- A possible exception for user-created content.

- možno izjemo za vsebine, ki jih ustvarjajo uporabniki.

3.1. Exceptions for libraries and archives

3.1. Izjeme za knjižnice in arhive

As regards the libraries and other similar establishments, two core issues have arisen: the production of digital copies of materials held in the libraries' collections and the electronic delivery of these copies to users. Digitisation of books, audiovisual material and other content can serve a twofold purpose – preservation of content for future generations and making it available for end users online.

Pri knjižnicah in drugih podobnih ustanovah sta pomembni predvsem dve področji: izdelava digitalnih kopij gradiva, ki se hrani v knjižničnih zbirkah, in elektronska dostava teh kopij uporabnikom. Digitalizacija knjig, avdiovizualnega gradiva in drugih vsebin ima lahko dvojni namen – ohranjanje vsebin za prihodnje generacije in njihovo zagotavljanje končnim uporabnikom prek spleta.

Under the current legal framework , libraries or archives do not enjoy a blanket exception from the right of reproduction. Reproductions are only allowed in specific cases, which arguably would cover certain acts necessary for the preservation of works contained in the libraries' catalogues. On the other hand, the library exception and national rules implementing it are not always clear on issues such as "format-shifting" or the number of copies that can be made under this exception. Detailed regulations in this respect result from legislative policy decisions undertaken at the national level. Some Member States have restrictive rules with respect to reproductions that can be made by libraries.

V skladu z veljavnim pravnim okvirom za knjižnice in arhive ne velja splošna izjema glede pravice reproduciranja. Reproduciranje je dovoljeno le v posebnih primerih, ki naj bi vključevali določena dejanja, potrebna za ohranjanje del, zbranih v knjižničnih katalogih. Vendar izjema za knjižnice in nacionalni predpisi, s katerimi se izvaja, niso vedno jasni glede vprašanj, kot so spremembe formata ali število kopij, ki jih je v skladu s to izjemo dovoljeno narediti. Podrobni predpisi o navedenih vprašanjih so rezultat zakonodajnega odločanja na nacionalni ravni. Nekatere države imajo restriktivna pravila glede reproduciranja v knjižnicah.

In recent years libraries and other public interest establishments have become increasingly interested not only in preserving (digitising) works but also in making their collections accessible online. If that were to take place, libraries argue, researchers would no longer have to go to the premises of libraries or archives but would easily be able to find and retrieve the required information on the Internet. Also, publishers state that they are digitising their own catalogues with a view to setting up interactive online databases where this material can be easily retrieved from the user's desktop[11]. These services require payment of a subscription fee.

V zadnjih letih se povečuje zanimanje knjižnic in drugih ustanov javnega interesa za ohranjanje (digitalizacijo) del in njihovo dajanje na voljo na spletu. Knjižnice to usmeritev utemeljujejo z argumentom, da raziskovalcem tako ne bi bilo več treba hoditi v prostore knjižnic ali arhivov, temveč bi zlahka našli in pridobili želene informacije na internetu. Tudi založbe digitalizirajo svoje kataloge, da bodo lahko vzpostavile interaktivne spletne zbirke podatkov, s katerih si bodo uporabniki lahko preprosto prenesli gradivo na svoj računalnik [11]. Za te storitve je treba plačati naročnino.

Under current copyright legislation, publicly accessible libraries, educational establishments, archives and museums benefit from two exceptions in the Copyright Directive:

V skladu z veljavno zakonodajo o avtorskih pravicah sta za javne knjižnice, izobraževalne ustanove, arhive in muzeje v Direktivi predvideni dve izjemi:

- an exception to the reproduction right for specific acts of reproduction for non-commercial purposes (Art. 5(2)(c) of the Directive) and

- izjema glede pravice reproduciranja za posebna dejanja reproduciranja, ki niso namenjena za komercialno uporabo (člen 5(2)(c) Direktive) in

- a narrowly formulated exception to the communication to the public right and the making available right for the purpose of research or private study by means of dedicated terminals located on the premises of such establishments (Art. 5(3)(n) of the Directive).

- ozko opredeljena izjema glede pravice priobčitve javnosti in pravice dajanja na voljo v raziskovalne namene ali za zasebni študij na temu namenjenih terminalih, ki se nahajajo v prostorih takih ustanov (člen 5(3)(n) Direktive).

3.1.1. Digitisation (preservation)

3.1.1. Digitalizacija (ohranjanje)

The exception from the reproduction right is limited to "specific acts of reproduction". Article 5(2)(c) thus stands out as the only exception explicitly referring to the first limb of the "three-step test", as codified in Article 5(5) of the Directive, which requires that exceptions be confined to "certain special cases". Accordingly, and as recital 40 of the Directive points out, this exception should be limited to certain special cases and not cover uses made in the context of online deliveries of protected works or phonograms.

Izjema glede pravice reproduciranja je omejena na „posebna dejanja reproduciranja“. Člen 5(2)(c) tako določa edino izjemo, ki se izrecno nanaša na prvi del „preskusa v treh korakih“, določenega v členu 5(5) Direktive, v skladu s katerim so izjeme omejene na „določene posebne primere“. V skladu z navedenim in kot določa uvodna izjava 40 Direktive, bi morala biti ta izjema omejena na nekatere posebne primere in ne bi smela zajemati uporabe v kontekstu spletne dostave zaščitenih del ali fonogramov.

The careful wording of this exception would thus imply that it does not provide libraries or other beneficiaries with a blanket exception from the right of reproduction. Reproductions are only allowed in specific cases, which arguably would cover certain acts necessary for the preservation of works contained in the libraries' catalogues. On the other hand, this exception does not contain clear rules on issues such as "format-shifting" or the number of copies that can be made under this exception. Detailed regulations in this respect result from legislative policy decisions undertaken at the national level.

Previdna formulacija te izjeme knjižnicam ali drugim upravičencem ne zagotavlja splošne izjeme glede pravice reproduciranja. Reproduciranje je dovoljeno le v posebnih primerih, ki naj bi vključevali določena dejanja, potrebna za ohranjanje del, zbranih v knjižničnih katalogih. Hkrati opredelitev izjeme ne določa jasnih pravil glede vprašanj, kot so spremembe formata ali število kopij, ki jih je v skladu s to izjemo dovoljeno narediti. Podrobni predpisi o navedenih vprašanjih so rezultat zakonodajnega odločanja na nacionalni ravni.

Some Member States have restrictive rules as to the reproductions that can be made by libraries. The UK government is currently conducting a consultation[12] with a view to amending Section 42 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (CDPA) which allows libraries or archives to make a single copy of a literary, dramatic or musical work held in their permanent collection for the purpose of preservation and replacement. The government proposes to expand the exception so as to allow for copying and format shifting of sound recordings, films and broadcasts and to allow for more than a single copy where successive copying may be required to preserve permanent collections in an accessible format.

Nekatere države članice imajo restriktivna pravila glede reproduciranja v knjižnicah. Vlada Združenega kraljestva trenutno opravlja posvetovanje[12] o spremembah oddelka 42 zakona o avtorskih pravicah, modelih in patentih (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act), ki knjižnicam in arhivom dovoljuje izdelati le po eno kopijo literarnih, dramskih ali glasbenih del v njihovih stalnih zbirkah zaradi ohranjanja in nadomeščanja. Vlada predlaga, da bi to izjemo razširili, tako da bi bilo dovoljeno razmnoževati ali spreminjati format zvočnih posnetkov, filmov in oddaj ter izdelati več kot eno kopijo, kadar je to potrebno zaradi ohranjanja stalnih zbirk v dostopnem formatu.

As regards preservation of works, it is libraries, archives and museums that preserve works in a durable format. But to an increasing extent, private entities, such as search engines, are also involved in large scale digitisation efforts. As an example, the Google Book Search project was launched in 2005 with the aim of making the content of books searchable on the Internet[13]. Google concludes agreements with European libraries which cover digitisation of public domain works[14]. Publishers are also experimenting with free online access to parts or even full texts of books and are developing tools enabling users to browse the content of books[15].

Dela v trajnem formatu hranijo knjižnice, arhivi in muzeji. Vendar so tudi zasebna podjetja, kot so internetni iskalniki, vse bolj vključena v velike digitalizacijske projekte. Leta 2005 je bil uveden projekt Google Book Search, ki naj bi omogočil iskanje knjižnih vsebin na internetu[13]. Sporazumi med Googlom in evropskimi knjižnicami se nanašajo na digitalizacijo javno dostopnih del[14]. Tudi založbe eksperimentirajo s prostim spletnim dostopom do delov ali celo celotnih besedil knjig in razvijajo orodja, ki uporabnikom omogočajo iskanje po vsebini knjig[15].

It must be stressed that activities of private entities, such as search engines, cannot benefit from the exception contained in Article 5(2)(c) which is limited to publicly accessible libraries, educational establishments museums or archives and only covers acts which are not for direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage. Digitisation involves the reproduction right[16] because changing the format of a work from analogue to digital requires a reproduction of the work. For example, a book has to be scanned before it can be digitised. If this scanning is undertaken by entities and in circumstances not covered in Article 5(2)(c), rightholders have to give prior permission for such a reproduction to take place. Similarly, making a digitised work available online requires the prior consent of the rightholder(s).

Poudariti je treba, da za dejavnosti zasebnih subjektov, kakršni so spletni iskalniki, ne velja izjema iz člena 5(2)(c), ki je omejena na javne knjižnice, izobraževalne ustanove, muzeje in arhive in zajema le dejanja, ki ne prinašajo neposredne ali posredne ekonomske ali komercialne koristi. Digitalizacija vključuje pravico reproduciranja[16], ker sprememba formata iz analognega v digitalnega zahteva reprodukcijo dela. Knjige je na primer treba skenirati, preden se jih lahko digitalizira. Če skeniranje opravljajo podjetja ali če poteka v okoliščinah, ki niso zajete v členu 5(2)(c), morajo imetniki pravic predhodno dovoliti tako reproduciranje. Tudi za dajanje digitaliziranega dela na voljo na spletu je potrebno predhodno privoljenje imetnikov pravic.

The scanning of works held in libraries for the purpose of making their content searchable on the Internet is commonly distinguished from linking, deep linking, interlinking or indexing which are activities that relate to works that are already available online. For example, with respect to hyperlinks (an electronic connection to a file placed on the Internet), the German Supreme Court held that works are not reproduced by linking or deep-linking (a link that leads the Internet user to another webpage within a website)[17]. In the American case of Perfect 10 v. Google and Amazon [18], the court held that in-linking to the full-size image on another website, which does not require a reproduction of the original images, doesn't infringe the reproduction right. While some courts deem thumbnails, i.e. reproductions of small images to facilitate links to other websites on the Internet, to infringe the exclusive right of reproduction[19], the Erfurt Regional Court[20] held that using thumbnails to establish links would not give rise to copyright liability if the work had been posted on the Internet by the rightholder or with his consent[21].

Skeniranje knjižničnih del z namenom, da se omogoči spletno iskanje po njihovi vsebini, običajno ločimo od povezovanja, globinskega povezovanja, medsebojnega povezovanja in indeksiranja dokumentov; navedene dejavnosti se uporabljajo za dela, ki so že dostopna na spletu. V zvezi s hiperpovezavami (elektronska povezava na datoteko na internetu) je tako nemško zvezno vrhovno sodišče odločilo, da vzpostavljanje povezav ali globinskih povezav (povezava, ki uporabnika interneta pripelje na drugo spletno stran znotraj spletne strani) ni reproduciranje[17]. V ameriški zadevi Perfect 10 proti Googlu in Amazonu [18] je sodišče odločilo, da povezava na sliko v originalni velikosti na drugi spletni strani, ki ne zahteva reprodukcije originalne slike, ne posega v pravico reproduciranja. Medtem ko so nekatera sodišča mnenja, da predogledne sličice, tj. reprodukcije slik v malem formatu, ki omogočajo povezave na druge spletne strani, posegajo v izključno pravico reproduciranja[19], je Regionalno sodišče v Erfurtu[20] odločilo, da uporaba predoglednih sličic za vzpostavljanje povezav ne posega v avtorske pravice, če jih je na spletu objavil imetnik pravic sam ali so bile objavljene z njegovim privoljenjem[21].

It is often argued however that the Google Book Search project goes further than the search engine at issue in the German Supreme Court's Paperboy [22] or the Perfect 10 cases. The search engine in the Paperboy case established links to websites which contained protected works that were made available online with the rightholders consent. The Paperboy service relied on works made available by others and would no longer be able to create a link to a work that had been withdrawn by the rightholder. The service also did not entail the caching of the work as the link would no longer function once the original was withdrawn.

Vendar se pogosto pojavlja stališče, da projekt Google Book Search presega okvire spletnega iskalnika, ki je bil predmet zadev Paperboy [22] in Perfect 10 na nemškem zveznem vrhovnem sodišču. Spletni iskalnik v zadevi Paperboy je vzpostavljal povezave na spletne strani, na katerih so bila dostopna zaščitena dela, ki so bila na spletu objavljena s privoljenjem imetnika pravic. Storitev, ki jo je ponujal Paperboy, je omogočala povezave na dela, ki so jih dali na voljo drugi. Če bi imetnik pravic umaknil delo s spleta, povezave ne bi bilo več mogoče vzpostaviti. Storitev tudi ni omogočala shranjevanja v predpomnilniku, saj povezava ne bi več delovala, ko bi bil original odstranjen.

3.1.2. The making available of digitised works

3.1.2. Dajanje digitaliziranih del na voljo

Under current copyright legislation, publicly accessible libraries, educational establishments or museums and archives benefit from a narrowly formulated exception to the right of communication to the public or to making available to the public works or other subject matter, if this is done for the purpose of research or private study by means of dedicated terminals located on the premises of such establishments (Art. 5(3)(n) of the Directive).

V skladu z veljavno zakonodajo o avtorskih pravicah velja za javne knjižnice, izobraževalne ustanove, muzeje in arhive ozko opredeljena izjema glede pravice priobčitve javnosti in dajanja na voljo javnosti del ali predmetov sorodnih pravic, kadar gre za uporabo v raziskovalne namene ali za zasebni študij na temu namenjenih terminalih, ki se nahajajo v prostorih takih ustanov (člen 5(3)(n) Direktive).

This exception would arguably not cover the electronic delivery of documents to end users at a distance. As regards electronic delivery of materials to end users, recital 40 of the Directive states that the exception for libraries and archives should not cover "uses made in the context of online delivery of protected works or other subject matter".

Ta izjema verjetno ne bi zajela elektronske dostave dokumentov končnim uporabnikom na daljavo. Glede elektronske dostave gradiva končnim uporabnikom uvodna izjava 40 Direktive določa, da naj izjema za knjižnice in arhive ne zajema uporabe v kontekstu spletne dostave zaščitenih del ali predmetov sorodnih pravic.

3.1.3. Orphan works

3.1.3. Avtorsko zaščitena dela neznanih avtorjev

An issue which came to the fore in large scale digitisation projects is the so-called orphan works phenomenon. Orphan works are works which are still in copyright but whose owners cannot be identified or located. There is a significant demand for the dissemination of works or sound recordings of an educational, historical or cultural value at a relatively low cost to a wide audience online. It is often claimed that such projects are held up due to the lack of a satisfactory solution to the orphan works issue. Protected works can become orphaned if data on the author and/or other relevant rightholder(s) (such as publishers or film producers) is missing or outdated. This is often the case with works which are no longer exploited commercially.

Pri velikih digitalizacijskih projektih se je pojavilo vprašanje t.i. osirotelih del. To so dela, ki so še vedno avtorsko zaščitena, vendar njihovih avtorjev ni mogoče najti oziroma identificirati. Obstaja veliko povpraševanje po spletnem razširjanju del ali zvočnih posnetkov z izobraževalno, zgodovinsko ali kulturno vrednostjo širokemu krogu uporabnikov po razmeroma nizkih cenah. Pogosto je slišati argument, da se s takimi projekti odlaša, ker vprašanje osirotelih del ni ustrezno rešeno. Zaščitena dela lahko osirotijo, če podatkov o avtorju in/ali drugih pomembnih imetnikih pravic (kot so založbe ali filmski producenti) ni ali so zastareli. To se pogosto zgodi z deli, ki se tržno ne izkoriščajo več.

Apart from books, thousands of orphan works such as photographs and audiovisual works are currently held in libraries, museums or archives. The lack of data on their ownership can constitute an obstacle to making such works available online to the public and can impede digital restoration efforts. This is particularly the case with orphan films.

Poleg osirotelih knjig danes knjižnice, muzeji in arhivi hranijo na tisoče drugih osirotelih del, kot so fotografije in avdiovizualni posnetki. Pomanjkanje podatkov o njihovem lastništvu lahko predstavlja oviro pri dajanju takih del na voljo javnosti prek spleta in onemogoča njihovo digitalno obnovo. To še zlasti velja za osirotele filme.

The issue of orphan works is mainly a rights clearance issue i.e. how to ensure that users who make orphan works available are not liable for copyright infringement when the rightholder reappears and asserts his rights over the work. Apart from liability concerns, the cost and time needed to locate or identify the rightholders, especially in the case of works of multiple authorship, can prove to be too great to justify the effort. This appears to be especially true for rights in sound recordings and audiovisual works that are currently kept in broadcasters archives. Copyright clearance of orphan works can constitute an obstacle to the dissemination of valuable content and can be seen as hampering follow-on creativity. However, the extent to which orphan works actually impede uses of works is not clear. There is a scarcity of the necessary economic data which would allow the problem to be quantified on the pan-European level.

Vprašanje osirotelih del je povezano predvsem z vprašanjem, kako v primeru, da se imetnik pravic ponovno pojavi in želi uveljavljati avtorske pravice do dela, zagotoviti, da uporabnik, ki je dal osirotelo delo na voljo, ne bo odgovoren za kršitev avtorskih pravic. Poleg vprašanja odgovornosti se zlasti pri delih z več avtorji lahko izkaže tudi, da bi bili stroški in čas, potrebni za iskanje ali ugotavljanje identitete imetnikov pravic, preveliki, da bi upravičili potreben napor. Kot kaže, to še zlasti velja za zvočne posnetke in avdiovizualna dela, ki se danes hranijo v arhivih radijskih in televizijskih hiš. Neugotovljeno lastništvo avtorstva osirotelih del lahko preprečuje razširjanje koristnih vsebin ter ovira nadaljnjo ustvarjalnost, ki bi izvirala iz takih del. Vendar ni jasno, v kolikšni meri nerešene avtorske pravice osirotelih del dejansko omejujejo uporabo teh del. Ekonomski podatki, ki bi bili potrebni za oceno tega problema na vseevropski ravni, so pomanjkljivi.

The orphan works issue is currently being considered both at the national[23] and at the EU level. The US[24] and Canada[25] have also taken initiatives regarding orphan works. While approaches to this issue differ, the proposed solutions are mostly based on a common principle; a user has to perform a reasonable search in order to try to identify or locate the rightholder(s).

Vprašanje osirotelih del je trenutno predmet razprave na nacionalni ravni[23] in na ravni EU. Tudi ZDA[24] in Kanada[25] sta sprejeli pobude glede osirotelih del. Čeprav se pristopi k temu vprašanju razlikujejo, predlagane rešitve večinoma temeljijo na skupnem načelu, da se mora uporabnik ustrezno potruditi, da bi identificiral oziroma našel imetnike pravic.

The Commission adopted a recommendation[26] in 2006 encouraging the Member States to create mechanisms to facilitate the use of orphan works and to promote the availability of lists of known orphan works. A High Level Expert Group on Digital Libraries was established bringing together stakeholders concerned by orphan works. The Group adopted a "Final Report on Digital Preservation, Orphan Works and Out-of-Print Works" and a "Memorandum of Understanding on orphan works" was signed by representatives of libraries, archives and rightholders[27]. The memorandum contains a set of guidelines on diligent search for rightholders and general principles concerning databases of orphan works and rights clearance mechanisms. Detailed solutions are to be developed at the national level.

Komisija je leta 2006 sprejela priporočilo[26], v katerem spodbuja države članice, naj uvedejo mehanizme, ki bi omogočili uporabo osirotelih del, ter spodbujajo dostopnost seznamov znanih osirotelih del. Ustanovljena je bila skupina strokovnjakov za digitalne knjižnice na visoki ravni, katere člani so zainteresirane strani, ki jih to vprašanje zadeva. Skupina je sprejela „končno poročilo o digitalnem ohranjanju, osirotelih delih in razprodanih delih“, predstavniki knjižnic, arhivov in imetnikov pravic pa so podpisali „memorandum o soglasju o osirotelih delih“[27]. Memorandum vsebuje vrsto smernic za prizadevno iskanje imetnikov pravic ter splošna načela glede zbirk podatkov osirotelih del in mehanizmov za ugotavljanje avtorstva. Podrobne rešitve naj bi razvili na nacionalni ravni.

The majority of the Member States have not yet developed a regulatory approach with respect to the orphan works issue. The potential cross-border nature of this issue seems to require a harmonised approach.

Večina držav članic vprašanja osirotelih del še ni uredila s predpisi. Zaradi možnega čezmejnega značaja tega vprašanja bo verjetno potreben usklajen pristop.

Questions:

Vprašanja:

6. Should the exception for libraries and archives remain unchanged because publishers themselves will develop online access to their catalogues?

6. Ali bi morala izjema za knjižnice in arhive ostati nespremenjena, ker bodo založbe same razvile spletni dostop do svojih katalogov?

7. In order to increase access to works, should publicly accessible libraries, educational establishments, museums and archives enter into licensing schemes with the publishers? Are there examples of successful licensing schemes for online access to library collections?

7. Ali bi morali javne knjižnice, izobraževalne ustanove, muzeji in arhivi sklepati licenčne sporazume z založbami, da bi izboljšali dostop do del? Ali obstajajo primeri uspešnih licenčnih sporazumov za spletni dostop do knjižničnih zbirk?

8. Should the scope of the exception for publicly accessible libraries, educational establishments, museums and archives be clarified with respect to:

8. Ali bi bilo treba natančneje opredeliti področje uporabe izjeme za javne knjižnice, izobraževalne ustanove, muzeje in arhive v zvezi s:

9. Format shifting;

9. spremembami formata;

10. The number of copies that can be made under the exception;

10. številom kopij, ki jih je v skladu z izjemo dovoljeno narediti;

11. The scanning of entire collections held by libraries;

11. skeniranjem celotnih knjižničnih zbirk.

12. Should the law be clarified with respect to whether the scanning of works held in libraries for the purpose of making their content searchable on the Internet goes beyond the scope of current exceptions to copyright?

12. Ali bi bilo treba v zakonodaji bolj jasno opredeliti, ali skeniranje knjižničnih del z namenom, da se omogoči spletno iskanje po njihovi vsebini, presega okvir veljavnih izjem na področju avtorskih pravic?

13. Is a further Community statutory instrument required to deal with the problem of orphan works, which goes beyond the Commission Recommendation 2006/585/EC of 24 August 2006?

13. Ali je za rešitev vprašanja osirotelih del potreben dodaten zakonski instrument Skupnosti, ki bi presegal okvir Priporočila Komisije 2006/585/ES z dne 24. avgusta 2006?

14. If so, should this be done by amending the 2001 Directive on Copyright in the information society or through a stand-alone instrument?

14. Če je tako, ali bi bilo tak instrument treba uvesti s spremembami Direktive o avtorskih pravicah v informacijski družbi iz leta 2001 ali s samostojnim dokumentom?

15. How should the cross-border aspects of the orphan works issue be tackled to ensure EU-wide recognition of the solutions adopted in different Member States?

15. Kako bi bilo treba urediti čezmejne vidike osirotelih del, da bi zagotovili upoštevanje rešitev, sprejetih v različnih državah članicah, po celotni EU?

3.2. The exception for the benefit of people with a disability

3.2. Izjema v korist invalidnih oseb

People with a disability should have an opportunity to benefit from the knowledge economy. To this end they not only need physical access to premises of educational establishments or libraries but also the possibility of accessing works in formats that are adapted to their needs (e.g. Braille, large print, audio-books and accessible electronic books).

Invalidne osebe bi morale imeti možnost, da izkoristijo prednosti gospodarstva znanja. Zato ne potrebujejo le fizičnega dostopa do prostorov izobraževalnih ustanov ali knjižnic, temveč tudi možnost dostopanja do del v formatih, prilagojenih njihovim potrebam (npr. Braillova pisava, velik tisk, avdio knjige in dostopne elektronske knjige).

The Directive contains an exception to the reproduction right and the communication to the public right for the benefit of people with a disability. All Member States have implemented this exception, however, in some national laws it is restricted to certain categories of disabled persons (e.g, the exception only covers the visually impaired). Some Member States require payment of compensation to the rightholders for the use of works under the exception.

Direktiva vključuje izjemo glede pravice reproduciranja in pravice priobčitve javnosti v korist invalidnih oseb. To izjemo so uvedle vse države članice, vendar je v nekaterih nacionalnih zakonih omejena na določene kategorije invalidnih oseb (npr. izjema, ki zajema le slabovidne osebe). V nekaterih državah članicah je treba imetnikom pravic plačati nadomestilo za uporabo del na podlagi te izjeme.

A common concern for disabled people is the costs, in terms of time and money, involved in making accessible copies of books which are only available in paper format or in a digital format which is not easily convertible to Braille. Rightholders believe that appropriate protection against piracy and misuse needs to be guaranteed, especially when it concerns the delivery of digital formats, which can be easily reproduced and instantly disseminated over the Internet.

Stroški (čas in denar), potrebni za izdelavo dostopnih kopij knjig, ki so na voljo le v papirnem ali digitalnem formatu in jih ni preprosto pretvoriti v Braillovo pisavo, so skupen problem vseh, ki jih to vprašanje zadeva. Imetniki pravic menijo, da je treba zagotoviti ustrezno zaščito pred piratstvom in zlorabami, zlasti pri dostavljanju del v digitalnem formatu, ki omogoča enostavno razmnoževanje in hitro razširjanje po spletu.

Article 5(3)(b) of the Directive allows for non-commercial uses directly related to the disability and to the extent required by the disability. Recital 43 of the Directive stresses that Member States should adopt all necessary measures to facilitate access to works by persons suffering from a disability which constitutes an obstacle to the use of the works and to pay particular attention to accessible formats. The exception for the benefit of people with a disability is among the public interest exceptions where the Member States are encouraged to take appropriate measures, in the absence of voluntary measures taken by rightholders, to ensure that beneficiaries have access to works protected by technological measures.

Člen 5(3)(b) Direktive predvideva nekomercialno uporabo, neposredno povezano z invalidnostjo, v obsegu, ki ga zahteva invalidnost. Uvodna izjava 43 Direktive poudarja, da morajo države članice sprejeti vse potrebne ukrepe za olajšanje dostopa do del za invalidne osebe, ki jih invalidnost ovira pri uporabi del, in da morajo posvetiti posebno pozornost dostopnim formatom. Izjema v korist invalidnih oseb je ena od izjem javnega interesa, pri kateri se države članice spodbuja, da ob odsotnosti prostovoljnih ukrepov imetnikov pravic sprejmejo ustrezne ukrepe, s katerimi upravičencem zagotavljajo dostop do del, ki so zaščitena s tehničnimi ukrepi.

All Member States have implemented this exception, however, in some national laws it is restricted to certain categories of disabled persons (e.g. in the UK[28] and Bulgaria it only applies to the visually impaired, in Latvia[29], Lithuania and Greece[30] it applies to visually and hearing impaired persons). In Lithuania, the exception is further limited to educational and scientific research purposes[31]. In Greece, the exception only covers reproductions and does not extend to communication of the works.

To izjemo so uveljavile vse države članice, vendar je v nekaterih nacionalnih zakonih omejena na določene kategorije invalidnih oseb (npr. v Združenem kraljestvu[28] in Bolgariji velja le za slabovidne, v Latviji[29], Litvi in Grčiji[30] pa za slabovidne in slušno prizadete. V Litvi je izjema dodatno omejena na uporabo v izobraževalne in znanstvenoraziskovalne namene[31]. V Grčiji se izjema nanaša le na reproduciranje in ne vključuje priobčitve del.

According to recital 36 of the Directive, Member States may provide for fair compensation when applying the optional provisions on exceptions. Some Member States, such as Germany, Austria and the Netherlands, require payment of compensation to the rightholders for the use of works under the exception. Given the cost of converting works to accessible formats and the limited resources available, the question arises as to whether beneficiaries of the exception should be required to pay compensation to the rightholders or whether they should be exempt from such an obligation.

V skladu z uvodno izjavo 36 Direktive lahko države članice predvidijo pravično nadomestilo tudi, kadar uporabljajo neobvezne določbe o izjemah. V nekaterih državah članicah, na primer v Nemčiji, Avstriji in na Nizozemskem, je treba na podlagi te izjeme imetnikom pravic plačati nadomestilo za uporabo del. Glede na stroške pretvarjanja del v dostopne formate in glede na omejena razpoložljiva sredstva se postavlja vprašanje, ali bi morali upravičenci do te izjeme plačati nadomestilo imetnikom pravic ali pa bi morali biti izvzeti iz te obveznosti.

According to a WIPO study[32], a common concern is the expense and time needed to make accessible copies from books which are only available in paper format or in a digital format which is not easily convertible to Braille. The Directive does not require rightholders to make a work available in a particular format. The issue is how to supply relevant organisations with a non-protected digital copy for creating accessible formats in a way that addresses publishers' concerns about security and the protection of their copyright in the works.

Študija organizacije WIPO[32] je pokazala, da so stroški in čas, potrebni za izdelavo dostopnih kopij knjig, ki so na voljo le v papirnem ali digitalnem formatu in jih ni preprosto pretvoriti v Braillovo pisavo, skupen problem vseh, ki jih to vprašanje zadeva. V skladu z Direktivo imetniki pravic niso dolžni dati svojih del na voljo v določenem formatu. Zato se postavlja vprašanje, kako ustreznim organizacijam zagotoviti nezaščitene digitalne kopije za izdelavo dostopnih formatov na način, ki bo založbam zagotavljal varnost in zaščito njihovih avtorskih pravic v takih delih.

There are examples of successful cooperation between publishers and organisations representing the visually impaired. In Denmark, e-books or audio-books produced by the Danish Library for the Blind are equipped with a unique ID which allows control of the use and of the work and the tracing of possible infringers. In France, agreements are in place between a not-for-profit agency BrailleNet and publishers for delivery of digital copies of works which are stored on a specialised secure server accessible only by certified organisations.

Obstajajo primeri uspešnega sodelovanja med založbami in organizacijami slabovidnih oseb. Na Danskem so elektronske in avdio knjige, ki jih Danska knjižnica pripravlja za slepe, opremljene s posebno identifikacijsko oznako, ki omogoča nadzor uporabe dela in sledenje možnih kršiteljev. V Franciji so uveljavljeni sporazumi med neprofitno agencijo BrailleNet in založbami o dostavi digitalnih kopij del, ki se hranijo na specializiranem varnem strežniku, dostopnem le pooblaščenim organizacijam.

Rightholders believe that appropriate protection against piracy and misuse needs to be guaranteed, especially when it concerns the delivery of digital formats, which can be easily reproduced and instantly disseminated over the Internet. A feasible approach appears to be a system of trusted intermediaries, such as specialised libraries or organisations representing the disabled people, which can negotiate with rightholders and enter into agreements. Such agreements provide for different kinds of restrictions and assurances to the rightholders which are meant to prevent abuse.

Imetniki pravic menijo, da je treba zagotoviti ustrezno zaščito pred piratstvom in zlorabami, zlasti pri dostavljanju del v digitalnem formatu, ki omogoča enostavno razmnoževanje in hitro razširjanje po spletu. Sistem zanesljivih posrednikov, kot so specializirane knjižnice ali organizacije invalidov, ki se lahko pogajajo z imetniki pravic in z njimi sklepajo sporazume, se kaže kot izvedljiva rešitev. Taki sporazumi vključujejo različne omejitve in jamstva za imetnike pravic, namenjene preprečevanju zlorab.

A related concern is that the exception for people with a disability is not specifically provided in Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases[33]. Article 6(2) of this Directive provides for exceptions for teaching or scientific research, and private use reproductions, but has no exception for disabled people. This raises the concern that the exception for people with a disability in Article 5(3)(b) of Directive 2001/29 could be undermined by invoking database protection on the basis that a particular literary work is simultaneously protected as a database. As pointed out in the Commission staff working paper of 19 July 2004, this situation might arise when the literary work, such as an encyclopaedia, is protected as a work and as a database simultaneously.

S tem je povezano tudi vprašanje, ki se zastavlja ob dejstvu, da izjema za invalidne osebe ni posebej predvidena v Direktivi 96/9/ES o pravnem varstvu baz podatkov[33]. Člen 6(2) te direktive predvideva izjeme za namene pouka ali znanstvenega raziskovanja in reprodukcije v zasebne namene, ne vključuje pa izjeme za invalidne osebe. Ob tem se pojavlja problem, da bi bilo izjemo za invalidne osebe iz člena 5(3)(b) Direktive 2001/29 mogoče izpodbijati s sklicevanjem na varstvo zbirk podatkov z argumentom, da je neko literarno delo hkrati zaščiteno kot zbirka podatkov. Kot je bilo poudarjeno v delovnem dokumentu Komisije z dne 19. julija 2004, ta situacija lahko nastane, kadar je literarno delo (npr. enciklopedija) hkrati zaščiteno kot delo in kot zbirka podatkov.

Questions:

Vprašanja:

16. Should people with a disability enter into licensing schemes with the publishers in order to increase their access to works? If so, what types of licensing would be most suitable? Are there already licensing schemes in place to increase access to works for the disabled people?

16. Ali bi morale invalidne osebe sklepati licenčne sporazume z založbami, da bi izboljšale svoj dostop do del? Če je tako, kakšne oblike licenčnih sporazumov bi bile najprimernejše? Ali se kje že uporabljajo licenčni sporazumi za izboljšanje dostopa do del za invalidne osebe?

17. Should there be mandatory provisions that works are made available to people with a disability in a particular format?

17. Ali bi morala obstajati zakonska obveznost dajanja del na voljo invalidnim osebam v posebnem formatu?

18. Should there be a clarification that the current exception benefiting people with a disability applies to disabilities other than visual and hearing disabilities?

18. Ali bi bilo treba jasneje opredeliti, da se veljavna izjema v korist invalidnih oseb ne nanaša zgolj na slabovidne in slušno prizadete osebe?

19. If so, which other disabilities should be included as relevant for online dissemination of knowledge?

19. Če je tako, katere druge oblike invalidnosti bi bilo treba zajeti v izjemo glede spletnega razširjanja znanja?

20. Should national laws clarify that beneficiaries of the exception for people with a disability should not be required to pay remuneration for using a work in order to convert it into an accessible format?

20. Ali bi bilo treba v nacionalnih zakonih izrecno določiti, da upravičenci do izjeme za invalidne osebe ne bi smeli biti dolžni plačevati nadomestila za uporabo del za njihovo pretvorbo v dostopen format?

21. Should Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases have a specific exception in favour of people with a disability that would apply to both original and sui generis databases?

21. Ali bi morala Direktiva 96/9/ES o pravnem varstvu baz podatkov vključevati posebno izjemo v korist invalidnih oseb, ki bi se uporabljala tako za izvirne zbirke podatkov kot za zbirke podatkov sui generis?

3.3. Dissemination of works for teaching and research purposes

3.3. Razširjanje del za namene pouka in raziskovanja

Both teachers and students increasingly rely on digital technology to access or disseminate teaching materials. The use of network-based learning accounts at present for a significant part of regular curricular activities. While dissemination of study materials through online networks can have a beneficial effect on the quality of European education and research, it may also carry a risk of copyright infringement where the digitization and/or making available of copies of research and study materials are covered by copyright.

Učitelji in študentje za dostop do študijskega gradiva in njegovo razširjanje vse bolj uporabljajo digitalno tehnologijo. Spletno podprto učenje danes predstavlja pomemben del dejavnosti rednega učnega načrta. Razširjanje študijskega gradiva prek spletnih omrežij sicer lahko koristi kakovosti evropskega izobraževanja in raziskovanja, vendar hkrati prinaša tudi tveganje kršitev avtorskih pravic, kadar sta digitalizacija in/ali dajanje na voljo kopij raziskovalnega in študijskega gradiva zaščitena z avtorskimi pravicami.

The public interest exception for teaching and research purposes was designed to reconcile the legitimate interests of the rightholders with the wider goal of access to knowledge. The Copyright Directive allows Member States to provide for exceptions or limitations to the rights of reproduction and communication to the public when a work is used "for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching or scientific research, as long as the source, including the author's name, is indicated, unless this turns out to be impossible." This exception has often been implemented in a narrow sense and distance or Internet-based learning at home is not covered. Also, the exception often only covers copying excerpts of the research material rather than the entire work. Sometimes Member States have opted for a teaching exception, while having no exception for research.

Izjema javnega interesa za namene poučevanja in raziskovanja je bila uvedena zaradi uskladitve legitimnega interesa imetnikov pravic s širšim ciljem dostopa do znanja. Direktiva o avtorskih pravicah državam članicam omogoča, da predvidijo izjeme ali omejitve pravic reproduciranja in priobčitve javnosti, kadar se delo uporablja „izključno v namen ilustracije pri pouku ali znanstvenem raziskovanju, kadar se navede vir vključno z avtorjevim imenom, razen če se to izkaže za nemogoče". Ta izjema se pogosto izvaja v ožjem smislu in ne zajema učenja na daljavo ali učenja prek interneta od doma. Poleg tega izjema pogosto velja le za kopiranje odlomkov raziskovalnega gradiva, ne pa celotnih del. Nekatere države članice so uvedle izjemo za pouk, ne pa tudi izjeme za raziskovanje.

At the time of the adoption of the Directive, both traditional classroom instruction and modern e-learning methods were taken into consideration. Recital 42 thus states that Article 5(3)(a) may also apply to distance education. However, this is not further reflected in the wording of Article 5(3)(a) itself, as it contains neither the definition of the concepts of 'teaching', 'scientific research' or 'illustration' nor any further clarification as to the scope of the exception. Recital 42 refers to the non-commercial nature of teaching and scientific research as the determining criterion for the application of the exception, irrespective of the organizational structure and the means of funding of the institution where these activities are undertaken. The Directive has thus given to the Member States a large amount of freedom in implementation, allowing them to determine the boundaries of permissible use under the exception.

Ob sprejetju Direktive so bili upoštevani klasično poučevanje v razredu in sodobne metode e-učenja. Uvodna izjava 42 tako določa, da se člen 5(3)(a) lahko uporablja tudi za učenje na daljavo. Vendar pa to ni upoštevano v samem besedilu člena 5(3)(a), saj ta ne vsebuje niti opredelitev pojmov „pouk“, „znanstveno raziskovanje“ in „ilustracija“ niti nadaljnjih pojasnil glede področja uporabe navedene izjeme. Uvodna izjava 42 se nanaša na nekomercialni značaj pouka in znanstvenega raziskovanja, ki je odločilno merilo za uporabo te izjeme, ne glede na organizacijsko strukturo in način financiranja ustanove, v kateri take dejavnosti potekajo. Direktiva je tako dala državam članicam veliko svobode pri njenem izvajanju, saj so lahko same določile meje dovoljene uporabe v okviru izjeme.

The use of works for purposes of illustration for teaching and scientific research is dealt with differently by the Member States. In some countries, such as Denmark, Finland, Sweden and France (until January 2009), the use of works for purposes of illustration for teaching and research is subject to the conclusion of extended collective agreements between the collecting societies and educational establishments. Despite the advantages of a system of extended collective licensing (the institutions can negotiate the contracts which are best adapted to their needs), this form of licensing presents the risk that no agreement or a rather restrictive agreement will be reached, thus creating legal uncertainty for educational establishments[34].

Uporaba del za namene ponazoritve pri pouku ali znanstvenem raziskovanju je po državah članicah urejena različno. V nekaterih državah, denimo na Danskem, Finskem, Švedskem in v Franciji (do januarja 2009) se lahko dela uporabljajo za ponazoritev pri pouku in raziskovanju le pod pogojem, da so med kolektivnimi organizacijami in izobraževalnimi ustanovami sklenjeni razširjeni kolektivni sporazumi. Kljub prednostim sistema razširjenih kolektivnih licenc (ustanove lahko s pogajanjem dosežejo dogovore, ki najbolj ustrezajo njihovim potrebam) ta oblika licenciranja vključuje tveganje, da dogovor sploh ne bo dosežen ali da bo precej omejen, kar ustvarja pravno negotovost za izobraževalne ustanove[34].

In the Member States where the exception for teaching and research is reflected in the national law, the relevant provisions differ to a significant extent. While some countries extend the exception to the rights of communication and making available to the public (e.g. Belgium, Luxembourg, Malta, and France (as of January 2009)), others restrict it to the right of reproduction (Greece, Slovenia) or allow communication to the public only on the condition that it cannot be received outside the premises of the educational institution (UK). Germany, on the other hand, makes a distinction between teaching and research activities; for the former, it allows the use of protected works only for teaching in the classroom and by intranet where it is limited to a group of students attending a particular course. The approach towards research is less restrictive as the making available of works is permitted "for purposes of own research" and "to a limited number of participants"[35].

V državah članicah, kjer je izjema za pouk in raziskovanje vključena v nacionalno zakonodajo, se zadevne določbe precej razlikujejo. Medtem ko je v nekaterih državah izjema razširjena na pravico priobčitve in dajanja na voljo javnosti (npr. v Belgiji, Luksemburgu, na Malti in v Franciji (od januarja 2009)), je v drugih omejena na pravico reproduciranja (Grčija, Slovenija) ali pa dovoljuje priobčitev javnosti le pod pogojem, da se ta ne opravlja zunaj prostorov izobraževalne ustanove (Združeno kraljestvo). Na drugi strani pa Nemčija razlikuje med dejavnostmi poučevanja in raziskovanja; pri prvih je uporaba zaščitenih del dovoljena le za pouk v razredu in po intranetu, kjer je omejena na skupino udeležencev pouka. Pri raziskovalnih dejavnostih Nemčija uporablja manj restriktiven pristop, saj je dajanje del na voljo dovoljeno „za namene lastnega raziskovanja“ in „za omejeno število udeležencev“[35].

As regards the mode of copying, most Member States do not make any distinction between analogue and digital copies, and both of them are therefore covered by the exception. However, the wording of the Hungarian copyright act restricts the scope of the exception to analogue reproductions only. Also, in Denmark, there has been no agreement on digital copying between the collective rights managers and educational institutions. Universities and schools have been granted a license covering only the making of paper copies of excerpts of works. The only extended collective license which includes such activities as scanning, printing, sending by e-mail, downloading and storage has been issued with regard to the use of works on the Internet in so-called teacher training colleges.

Glede načina razmnoževanja večina držav ne dela razlike med analognim in digitalnim razmnoževanjem; oba načina sta zajeta v izjemi. Madžarski zakon o avtorskih pravicah pa omejuje področje uporabe izjeme zgolj na analogne reprodukcije. Na Danskem med kolektivnimi upravljavci pravic in izobraževalnimi ustanovami ne obstaja dogovor o digitalnem razmnoževanju. Univerze in šole imajo dovoljenje le za razmnoževanje odlomkov del na papirju. Edina razširjena kolektivna licenca, ki vključuje dejavnosti, kot so skeniranje, tiskanje, pošiljanje po elektronski pošti, prenašanje s spleta in shranjevanje, je bila izdana za uporabo del na spletu na pedagoških fakultetah.

Different treatment of the same act in different Member States may lead to legal uncertainty with regard to what is permitted under the exception, especially when teaching and research are carried out within a transnational framework. An increasing number of students and researchers prefer to have access to relevant learning resources not only in a traditional classroom environment, but also using online networks, without any constraints of time or geography. Provisions only allowing reprographic copying of works or requiring students to be physically present on the premises of the educational institutions do not allow these establishments to exploit the potential of the new technologies and engage in distance learning programs. As the Gowers Review points out: "this means that distance learners are at a disadvantage compared with those based on campus and thus these constraints disproportionately impact on students with disabilities who may work from remote locations. (…) The relevant copyright exception should be extended to allow passages from works to be made available to students by email or virtual learning environments."[36]

Različno obravnavanje istega akta po državah članicah lahko vodi v pravno negotovost glede vprašanja, kaj je v okviru izjeme dovoljeno, zlasti kadar se pouk ali raziskovalna dejavnost izvaja v čezmejnem okviru. Vse več študentov in raziskovalcev daje prednost dostopu do ustreznih učnih virov ne le na klasičen način v razredu, temveč tudi prek spletnih omrežij brez časovnih ali geografskih omejitev. Določbe, ki dovoljujejo zgolj reprografsko razmnoževanje del ali zahtevajo, da morajo biti študentje fizično prisotni v prostorih izobraževalnih ustanov, tem ustanovam ne omogočajo izkoriščanja potenciala novih tehnologij in sodelovanja v programih učenja na daljavo. V britanskem poročilu Gowers Review je poudarjeno: „to pomeni, da so študentje na daljavo v slabšem položaju kot tisti, ki študirajo na fakultetah, zato te omejitve nesorazmerno vplivajo na invalidne študente, ki morda študirajo na daljavo. (…) Zadevno izjemo pri avtorskih pravicah bi bilo treba razširiti tako, da bi omogočala pošiljanje odlomkov del študentom po elektronski pošti ali njihovo dajanje na voljo v virtualnem učnem okolju.“[36]

Another divergence between the Member States concerns the length of the excerpts from works which can be reproduced or made available for teaching and research purposes. Thus, the exception could cover the whole work (Malta), journal articles and short excerpts of works (Belgium, Germany or France) or short excerpts of works only, no distinction being made between different types (and lengths) of works (Luxembourg). Concerning the last example, works such as journal articles can be considered in practical terms as being excluded from the scope of the exception as there is normally little interest in using only a short fragment of a journal article for teaching and scientific research.

Tudi dolžina odlomkov del, ki jih je dovoljeno reproducirati ali dajati na voljo za namene pouka in raziskovanja, se po državah članicah razlikuje. Izjema tako lahko velja za celotna dela (Malta), članke strokovnih revij in kratke odlomke del (Belgija, Nemčija in Francija) ali zgolj kratke odlomke del, ne glede na njihovo vrsto (in dolžino) (Luksemburg). Pri zadnjem primeru je mogoče reči, da za članke strokovnih revij izjema dejansko ne velja, saj uporaba kratkih odlomkov strokovnih člankov za namene pouka in raziskovanja običajno ni zanimiva.

With regard to the institutions that could benefit from the exception for teaching and scientific research, the Member States have also adopted different solutions. While the German Copyright Act refers to "schools, universities, post-secondary institutions and non-commercial career-training institutions", other countries like the UK use the generic term "educational establishments" without any further details, whereas the French Intellectual Property Code does not give any indication as to the institutions to which the exception applies and follows the wording of Article 5(3)(a): "illustration for teaching and research". In Spain and in Greece the exemption only covers teaching, thus excluding research activities.

Države članice so sprejele tudi različne rešitve glede ustanov, ki lahko uveljavljajo izjemo za namene pouka in raziskovanja. V nemškem zakonu o avtorskih pravicah so navedene „šole, univerze, višje strokovne šole in nekomercialne ustanove za poklicno usposabljanje“. Druge države, kot na primer Združeno kraljestvo, uporabljajo splošni izraz „izobraževalne ustanove“ brez natančnejše opredelitve. Francoski zakon o intelektualni lastnini sploh ne omenja ustanov, za katere se uporablja izjema, temveč zgolj povzema formulacijo člena 5(3)(a): „ilustracija pri pouku in raziskovanju“. V Španiji in Grčiji pa izjema velja le za pouk, izključuje pa raziskovalne dejavnosti.

Apart from a certain degree of legal uncertainty due to limited harmonization, the above-mentioned differences can constitute a problem when students enroll for courses in other countries, within the framework of distance learning, or when teachers and researchers carry out their activities in several institutions located in different countries. Depending on the country, identical acts could be legal or illegal. The causes of this problem lie in the different ways in which Member States have implemented the exception into their national laws. Therefore, there have been calls to introduce a mandatory exception for teaching and scientific research, with a clearly defined scope in the Directive. For example, the Gowers Review recommends that the educational exception "should be defined by category of use and activity and not by media or location''. [37]

Poleg tega, da ustvarjajo določeno raven pravne negotovosti zaradi omejene usklajenosti, lahko zgoraj omejene razlike predstavljajo problem, kadar se študentje vpisujejo v programe v drugih državah v okviru učenja na daljavo ali kadar učitelji in raziskovalci izvajajo svoje dejavnosti v več ustanovah, ki se nahajajo v različnih državah. Enaka dejanja so lahko v neki državi zakonita, v drugi nezakonita. Ta problem izvira iz različnih načinov prenosa te izjeme v nacionalno zakonodajo po državah članicah. Zato je bilo že večkrat predlagano, da bi bilo smiselno uvesti obvezno izjemo za pouk in znanstveno raziskovanje, katere področje uporabe bi moralo biti jasno opredeljeno v Direktivi. Tako denimo Gowers Review priporoča, da bi morala biti izjema za izobraževanje določena glede na kategorijo uporabe in dejavnosti, ne pa glede na medij oziroma lokacijo[37].

However, making the exception mandatory and further clarifying its scope does not imply its extension, because the interests of the rightholders must be taken into consideration. For instance, with regard to the exemption to communication to the public for purposes of illustration for teaching and research, the Gowers Review states that "it will be necessary to ensure that access to such (learning and research) material should not be generally available to the public"[38] but only to a restricted audience of students and researchers. In this vein, Recital 44 of the Copyright Directive states that "the provision of such exceptions or limitations by Member States should, in particular, duly reflect the increased economic impact that such exceptions or limitations may have in the context of the new electronic environment. Therefore, the scope of certain exceptions or limitations may have to be even more limited when it comes to certain new uses of copyright works and other subject-matter." The proper balance needs to be struck between ensuring an adequate level of protection of exclusive rights and at the same time enhancing the competitiveness of European education and research.

To, da bi izjema postala obvezna in bi bilo njeno področje uporabe natančneje opredeljeno, pa še ne pomeni, da bi bila tudi razširjena, saj je treba upoštevati interese imetnikov pravic. V zvezi z izjemo glede priobčitve javnosti za namene ponazoritve pri pouku in raziskovanju je v poročilu Gowers Review poudarjeno, da bo treba zagotoviti, da takšno (učno in raziskovalno) gradivo ne bo splošno dostopno javnosti[38], temveč le omejenemu krogu študentov in raziskovalcev. Podobno uvodna izjava 44 Direktive o avtorskih pravicah določa, da naj „določanje takšnih izjem ali omejitev s strani držav članic še posebej ustrezno odraža povečan ekonomski vpliv, ki ga lahko imajo takšne izjeme ali omejitve v kontekstu novega elektronskega okolja. Torej je mogoče, da je obseg določenih izjem ali omejitev še bolj omejen, kadar gre za določene nove rabe varovanih del in predmetov sorodnih pravic.“ Treba je najti pravo ravnotežje med zagotavljanjem ustrezne ravni zaščite za izključne pravice ter spodbujanjem večje konkurenčnosti evropskega izobraževanja in raziskav.

Questions:

Vprašanja:

22. Should the scientific and research community enter into licensing schemes with publishers in order to increase access to works for teaching or research purposes? Are there examples of successful licensing schemes enabling online use of works for teaching or research purposes?

22. Ali bi morala znanstvena in raziskovalna skupnost sklepati licenčne sporazume z založbami, da bi izboljšala dostop do del za namene pouka ali raziskovanja? Ali obstajajo primeri uspešnih licenčnih sporazumov, ki omogočajo spletno uporabo del za namene poučevanja in raziskovanja?

23. Should the teaching and research exception be clarified so as to accommodate modern forms of distance learning?

23. Ali bi bilo treba izjemo za pouk in raziskovanje natančneje opredeliti, tako da bi vključevala tudi sodobne načine učenja na daljavo?

24. Should there be a clarification that the teaching and research exception covers not only material used in classrooms or educational facilities, but also use of works at home for study?

24. Ali bi bilo treba jasneje opredeliti, da izjema za pouk in raziskovanje ne velja le za gradivo, ki se uporablja v razredu ali izobraževalnih ustanovah, temveč tudi za uporabo del za študij doma?

25. Should there be mandatory minimum rules as to the length of the excerpts from works which can be reproduced or made available for teaching and research purposes?

25. Ali bi bilo treba uvesti minimalne obvezne predpise glede dolžine odlomkov del, ki jih je dovoljeno reproducirati ali dajati na voljo za namene pouka in raziskovanja?

26. Should there be a mandatory minimum requirement that the exception covers both teaching and research?

26. Ali bi bilo treba uvesti minimalno obvezno zahtevo, da mora izjema veljati za pouk in za raziskovanje?

3.4. User-created content

3.4. Vsebine, ki jih ustvarjajo uporabniki

Consumers are not only users but are increasingly becoming creators of content. Convergence is leading to the development of new applications building on the capacity of ICT to involve users in content creation and distribution. Web 2.0 applications such as blogs, podcasts, wiki, or video sharing, enable users easily to create and share text, videos or pictures, and to play a more active and collaborative role in content creation and knowledge dissemination. However, there is a significant difference between user-created content and existing content that is simply uploaded by users and is typically protected by copyright. In an OECD study, user-created content was defined as "content made publicly available over the Internet, which reflects a certain amount of creative effort, and which is created outside of professional routines and practices"[39].

Potrošniki niso zgolj uporabniki, temveč so vse pogosteje tudi ustvarjalci vsebin. Konvergenca vodi v razvoj novih načinov uporabe, ki izkoriščajo možnost IKT, da se v ustvarjanje in razširjanje vsebin vključijo tudi uporabniki. Spletne tehnologije druge generacije (Web 2.0), npr. blogi, podcasti, hitre strani (wikiji) in video sharing, uporabnikom omogočajo enostavno ustvarjanje besedil, videov ali slik in njihovo dajanje na voljo drugim. Uporabniki so tako bolj dejavno in v večji meri vključeni v ustvarjanje vsebin in razširjanje znanja. Vendar obstaja pomembna razlika med vsebinami, ki jih ustvarijo uporabniki, in že obstoječimi vsebinami, ki jih uporabniki le naložijo na splet in ki so običajno avtorsko zaščitene. V študiji OECD so vsebine, ki jih ustvarjajo uporabniki, opredeljene kot vsebine, ki so javno dostopne na internetu, ki kažejo določeno raven ustvarjalnega napora in ki nastajajo na neprofesionalen način“[39].

The Directive does not currently contain an exception which would allow the use of existing copyright protected content for creating new or derivative works. The obligation to clear rights before any transformative content can be made available can be perceived as a barrier to innovation in that it blocks new, potentially valuable works from being disseminated. However, before any exception for transformative works can be introduced, one would need to carefully determine the conditions under which a transformative use would be allowed, so as not to conflict with the economic interests of the rightsholders of the original work.

Direktiva zaenkrat ne vključuje nobene izjeme, ki bi omogočala uporabo obstoječih avtorsko zaščitenih vsebin za ustvarjanje novih ali izpeljanih del. Obveznost, da je treba razčistiti vprašanje avtorstva, preden se lahko da na voljo kakršna koli priredba avtorskega dela, je mogoče razumeti kot oviro inovacijam, saj onemogoča razširjanje novih, potencialno koristnih del. Vendar bi bilo treba pred uvedbo morebitne izjeme za prirejena dela skrbno določiti pogoje, pod katerimi bi bila uporaba prirejenih del dovoljena, da ne bi prišlo do navzkrižja z ekonomskimi interesi imetnikov pravic izvirnega dela.

There have been calls for the acceptance of an exception for transformative, user-created content. In particular, the Gowers Review recommended that an exception be created for "creative, transformative or derivative works"[40], within the parameters of the Berne Convention three-step test. The Review acknowledges that this would be contrary to the Directive and accordingly calls for its amendment. The objective of allowing such an exception would be to favour innovative uses of works and to stimulate the production of added value[41].

Pojavljajo se predlogi, da bi bilo smiselno sprejeti izjemo za prirejene vsebine, ki jih ustvarjajo uporabniki. Zlasti Gowers Review priporoča uvedbo izjeme za „ustvarjalna, prirejena in izpeljana dela“[40] v skladu s preskusom v treh korakih iz Bernske konvencije. Poročilo upošteva dejstvo, da bi bilo to v nasprotju z veljavno Direktivo, in zato poziva k spremembi Direktive. Cilj take izjeme bi bil podpirati inovativno uporabo del in spodbujati ustvarjanje dodane vrednosti[41].

Under the Berne convention, a transformative use would be prima facie covered by the reproduction right[42] and the right of adaptation. An exception to these rights would have to pass the three-step test. In particular, it would have to be more precise and refer to a specific policy justification or types of justified uses. It would also have to be limited to short takings (short passages, excluding particularly distinctive takings), therefore not infringing the right of adaptation[43].

V Bernski konvenciji je priredba na prvi pogled zajeta v pravici reproduciranja[42] in pravici do dovoljevanja priredb. Izjema pri teh pravicah bi morala prestati preskus v treh korakih. Predvsem bi morala biti natančneje opredeljena in bi se morala sklicevati na posebno utemeljitev politik ali na določene vrste utemeljene uporabe. Prav tako bi morala biti omejena na uporabo kratkih delov (kratkih odlomkov, z izjemo posebno značilnih odlomkov), da ne bi posegala v pravico do dovoljevanja priredb[43].

Under the Directive, certain exceptions potentially provide some measure of flexibility in relation to free uses of works. Other than the previously mentioned exceptions, article 5(3)(d) allows quotations "for purposes such as criticism or review". Criticism and review are therefore only examples of possible justifications for quotations. This implies that article 5 (3)(d) can be given a broad scope, although the quotation must be limited to "the extent required by the specific purpose", and in accordance with "fair practice". The "specific purpose" of the commentary need not be the analysis of the work itself. However, a degree of taking which is fair in a commentary on that particular work may become unfair practice if it is for the purpose of commenting on a wider issue. Another exception allowing some measure of flexibility is article 5(3)(k) of the Directive which exempts uses "for the purposes of caricature, parody or pastiche". Although these uses are not defined, they allow users to reuse elements of previous works for their own creative or transformative purpose.

V skladu z Direktivo nekatere izjeme potencialno omogočajo določeno fleksibilnost glede proste uporabe del. Razen prej omenjenih izjem člen 5(3)(d) predvideva izjemo za citate za namene, kot sta kritika ali ocena. Kritika in ocena sta torej zgolj primera situacij, v katerih je dovoljeno citiranje. To kaže, da je področje uporabe člena 5(3)(d) lahko široko, čeprav mora biti citat „v obsegu, ki ga zahteva poseben namen“ ter v skladu s „pošteno prakso“. Ob tem ni treba, da je „poseben namen“ komentarja sama analiza dela. Vendar lahko dolžina odlomka, ki v komentarju nekega dela velja za pošteno, lahko postane nepoštena, če se komentar nanaša na širše vprašanje. Druga izjema, ki pušča nekaj svobode glede področja uporabe, je izjema iz člena 5(3)(k) Direktive, ki dovoljuje uporabo „v namene karikature, parodije ali pastiša“. Čeprav ti načini uporabe niso opredeljeni, uporabnikom omogočajo ponovno uporabo delov obstoječih del za lastno ustvarjanje ali prirejanje.

Questions:

Vprašanja:

27. Should there be more precise rules regarding what acts end users can or cannot do when making use of materials protected by copyright?

27. Ali bi bilo treba določiti bolj natančna pravila glede tega, katera dejanja so ali niso dovoljena končnim uporabnikom, ki uporabljajo avtorsko zaščiteno gradivo?

28. Should an exception for user-created content be introduced into the Directive?

28. Ali bi bilo treba v Direktivo uvesti izjemo za vsebine, ki jih ustvarjajo uporabniki?

4. CALL FOR COMMENTS

4. POVABILO K PREDLOžITVI PRIPOMB

The combined operation of broad exclusive rights with specific and limited exceptions highlights the question of whether the exhaustive list of exceptions under the Directive achieves "a fair balance of rights and interests between […] the different categories of rightholders and users"[44].

Kombinacija široko opredeljenih izključnih pravic in omejenih izjem poraja vprašanje, ali končni seznam izjem iz Direktive zagotavlja „pravično ravnotežje pravic in interesov med […] različnimi kategorijami imetnikov pravic in uporabnikov“[44].

A forward looking analysis requires consideration of whether the balance provided by the Directive is still in line with the rapidly changing environment. Technologies and social and cultural practices are constantly challenging the balance achieved in the law, while new market players, such as search engines, seek to apply these changes to new business models. Such developments also have the potential to shift value between the different entities active in the online environment and affect the balance between those who own rights in digital content and those who provide technologies to navigate the Internet.

Analiza, usmerjena v prihodnost, mora oceniti, ali je ravnotežje, ki ga zagotavlja Direktiva, še v skladu s hitro spreminjajočimi se razmerami. Tehnologije ter družbene in kulturne prakse predstavljajo nenehen izziv za to pravno zagotovljeno ravnotežje, medtem ko novi akterji na trgu, kot so spletni iskalniki, skušajo vključevati te spremembe v nove poslovne modele. Tak razvoj lahko povzroča tudi prenos vrednosti med različnimi subjekti, ki delujejo v spletnem okolju, ter vpliva na ravnotežje med lastniki digitalnih vsebin in ponudniki tehnologij za internetno navigacijo.

It is in these circumstances that the present Green Paper seeks all stakeholders' views as to the technological and legal developments described above. The questions submitted are of an indicative nature only and stakeholders are free to submit comments on any other issues that are addressed or touched upon in this Green Paper.

V teh razmerah naprošamo vse zainteresirane strani, da predložijo svoje odgovore na tehnična in pravna vprašanja, navedena v tej zeleni knjigi. Vprašanja so zgolj orientacijska; zainteresirane strani lahko predložijo tudi pripombe o vseh drugih temah, ki so obravnavane ali le na kratko omenjene v tej zeleni knjigi.

Answers and comments, which may cover all or only a limited number of the above issues, should reach the following address by 30 November 2008.

Odgovori in pripombe, ki se lahko nanašajo na vsa ali le nekatera od zgoraj navedenih vprašanj, morajo biti poslana na spodnji naslov do 30. novembra 2008:

markt-d1@ec.europa.eu.

markt-d1@ec.europa.eu.

If stakeholders wish to submit confidential responses, they should indicate clearly which part of their submission is confidential and should not be published on the Commission's website. All other submissions, not clearly marked as confidential, may be published by the Commission.

Če želijo zainteresirane strani predložiti zaupne odgovore, naj v svojih prispevkih jasno označijo, kateri deli besedila so zaupni in se ne smejo objaviti na spletni strani Komisije. Vse druge prispevke, ki niso jasno označeni kot zaupni, Komisija lahko objavi.

[1] The term "knowledge economy" is commonly used to describe economic activity that relies not on "natural" resources (like land or minerals) but on intellectual resources such as know-how and expertise. A key concept of the knowledge economy is that knowledge and education (also referred to as "human capital") can be treated as a commercial asset or as educational and intellectual products and services that can be exported for a high value return. It is obvious that the knowledge economy is rather more important for those regions whose natural resources are scarce.

[1] Izraz „gospodarstvo znanja“ se običajno uporablja za opis gospodarskih dejavnosti, ki niso odvisne od „naravnih“ virov (npr. zemlje ali mineralov), temveč temeljijo na intelektualnih virih, kot so spretnosti in strokovna znanja. V skladu z enim od temeljnih konceptov gospodarstva znanja se lahko znanje in izobrazba (za katera se uporablja tudi izraz „človeški kapital“) obravnavata kot tržno blago oziroma kot izobraževalni in intelektualni proizvodi in storitve, ki jih je mogoče izvažati z visokim donosom. Gospodarstvo znanja ima seveda večji pomen v regijah, kjer so naravni viri redki.

[2] Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, OJ L 167, 22.6.2001, p. 10-19. In 2007 the Commission published a report assessing how Articles 5, 6 and 8 of the Directive have been transposed by the Member States and applied by the national courts, see the Report on the application of the Directive on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (2001/29/EC), available at http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/copyright-infso/copyright-infso_en.htm

[2] Direktiva 2001/29/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 22. maja 2001 o usklajevanju določenih vidikov avtorske in sorodnih pravic v informacijski družbi, UL L 167, 22.6.2001, str. 10–19. Komisija je leta 2007 objavila poročilo, v katerem ocenjuje, kako so države članice prenesle člene 5, 6 in 8 Direktive v nacionalno zakonodajo in kako jih uporabljajo nacionalna sodišča. Glej poročilo „Report on the application of the Directive on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (2001/29/EC)“, ki je dostopno na naslovu:http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/copyright-infso/copyright-infso_en.htm.

[3] Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, OJ L 77, 27.3.1996, p. 20-28.

[3] Direktiva 96/9/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 11. marca 1996 o pravnem varstvu baz podatkov (UL L 77, 27.3.1996, str. 20–28).

[4] http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/prot-databases/prot-databases_en.htm

[4] http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/prot-databases/prot-databases_en.htm.

[5] COM 2007 724 final of 20.11.2007 - A single market for 21st century Europe

[5] COM(2007) 724 konč. z dne 20.11.2007 – Enotni trg za Evropo 21. stoletja.

[6] According to a survey conducted by the Federation of European Publishers, annual sales revenue of book publishing amounted to 22.268 million euro in 2004. More than 620.000 new books or new editions were published in 2004 and approximately 123,000 people are employed full time in book publishing. See http://www.fep-fee.be/

[6] Raziskava Zveze evropskih založnikov je pokazala, da so letni prihodki od prodaje v knjižnem založništvu leta 2004 znašali 22 268 milijonov EUR. Leta 2004 je bilo izdanih več kot 620 000 novih knjig ali novih izdaj knjig, v knjižnem založništvu pa je polno zaposlenih približno 123 000 ljudi. Glej http://www.fep-fee.be/.

[7] Although the Community is not a party to the Berne Convention (and indeed could not be, since membership of the Berne Union is confined to States), it is required to comply with the Convention by virtue of Article 9 of the TRIPS Agreement.

[7] Čeprav Skupnost ni podpisnica Bernske konvencije (niti ne more biti, ker je članstvo v Bernski konvenciji omejeno na države), mora v skladu s členom 9 Sporazuma TRIPS upoštevati določbe Konvencije.

[8] That Agreement is found in Annex 1C to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation.

[8] Priloga 1C k Sporazumu o ustanovitvi Svetovne trgovinske organizacije.

[9] Article 13 of the TRIPS Agreement, entitled "Limitations and Exceptions", is the general exception clause applicable to exclusive rights of the holders of copyright. Article 13 of the TRIPS Agreement has been interpreted by a ruling of the Dispute Settlement Body of the WTO concerning Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act. The Panel held that the scope of any permissible exception under Article 13 should be narrow and should be limited to de minimis use. The three conditions, namely (1) certain special cases; (2) no conflict with the normal exploitation of the work; and (3) no unreasonable prejudice of the legitimate interests of the right holder are cumulative.

[9] Člen 13 Sporazuma TRIPS z naslovom „Omejitve in izjeme“ je splošna klavzula o izjemah, ki se uporablja za izključne pravice imetnikov avtorskih pravic. Organ Svetovne trgovinske organizacije za poravnavo sporov je v odločbi v zvezi z oddelkom 110(5) zakona Združenih držav o avtorskih pravicah podal razlago člena 13 Sporazuma TRIPS. Odbor je odločil, da morajo biti dovoljene izjeme na podlagi člena 13 ozko opredeljene in omejene na rabo de minimis. Izpolnjeni morajo biti vsi trije pogoji, tj. (1) izjema je omejena na nekatere posebne primere; (2) izjema ne nasprotuje normalnemu izkoriščanju dela in (3) izjema ne vpliva nerazumno na legitimne interese imetnika pravic.

[10] See the ruling of the Dispute Settlement Body of the WTO United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act , WT/DS160/R, of 15 June 2000.

[10] Glej odločbo Organa STO za reševanje sporov Združene države – oddelek 110(5) zakona Združenih držav o avtorskih pravicah , WT/DS160, z dne 15. junija 2000.

[11] For example, Elsevier, a publisher of 2200 journals has set up ScienceDirect, a service through which 10 million scientists and researchers are granted desktop access to a service offering 8.7 million journal articles. In 2004, Elsevier launched the "Scopus" database which covers 16,000 journals from all key publishers in the areas of scientific, technological and medical publishing. They also provide an online service called "MD Consult" which targets health care professionals by bringing together the leading medical resources.

[11] Tako je na primer založba Elsevier, ki izdaja 2 200 strokovnih revij, uvedla storitev ServiceDirect, ki 10 milijonom znanstvenikov in raziskovalcev omogoča dostop do 8,7 milijonov člankov prek lastnega računalnika. Leta 2004 je založba Elsevier vzpostavila zbirko podatkov „Scopus“, ki obsega 16 000 revij vseh pomembnih založb, ki izdajajo znanstvene, tehnične in medicinske publikacije. Zagotavljajo tudi spletno storitev „MD Consult“, ki je namenjena strokovnjakom s področja zdravstvenega varstva in vsebuje najpomembnejše vire s področja medicine.

[12] http://www.ipo.gov.uk/about/about-consult/about-formal/about-formal-current/consult-copyrightexceptions.htm

[12] http://www.ipo.gov.uk/about/about-consult/about-formal/about-formal-current/consult-copyrightexceptions.htm

[13] http://books.google.com

[13] http://books.google.com

[14] See the information provided by the Oxford Library: http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/librarian/CNIGoogle/CNIGoogle.htm

[14] Glej informacije na spletni strani oxfordske knjižnice:http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/librarian/CNIGoogle/CNIGoogle.htm.

[15] For example, HarperCollins has recently launched a number of such initiatives, namely: the "full access" programme (full texts of selected books are available for free for a limited time), a “Sneak Peek” programme (readers are able to view 20% of the content of many books two weeks before their publication) and the “Browse Inside” programme (readers can browse 20% of the content of books after their publication). These are available at www.HarperCollins.com .

[15] Tako je na primer založba HarperCollins pred kratkim uvedla več takih pobud, in sicer program „full access“ (celotna besedila izbranih knjig so določeno obdobje dostopna zastonj), program „Sneak Peek“ (bralci si lahko ogledajo 20 % vsebine številnih knjig dva tedna pred izidom) in program „Browse Inside“ (bralci lahko pregledajo 20 % vsebine knjig po njihovem izidu). Glej www.HarperCollins.com .

[16] See the agreed statement concerning Article 1(4) of the WCT: "The reproduction right, as set out in Article 9 of the Berne Convention, and the exceptions permitted thereunder, fully apply in the digital environment, in particular to the use of works in digital form. It is understood that the storage of a protected work in digital form in an electronic medium constitutes a reproduction within the meaning of Article 9 of the Berne Convention".

[16] Glej dogovorjeno izjavo glede člena 4(1) Pogodbe Svetovne organizacije za intelektualno lastnino (WIPO) o avtorskih pravicah: „Pravica reproduciranja, kakor je določena v členu 9 Bernske konvencije, ter tam dovoljene izjeme, se v celoti uporabljajo v digitalnem okolju, zlasti za uporabo del v digitalni obliki. Hranjenje zaščitenega dela v digitalni obliki na elektronskem nosilcu pomeni reprodukcijo v smislu člena 9 Bernske konvencije“.

[17] BGH, 17th July 2003, case I WR 259/00, Paperboy (case decided before the implementation of the Directive).

[17] Zvezno vrhovno sodišče Nemčije (BGH), 17. julij 2003, zadeva I WR 259/00, Paperboy (Sodišče je o zadevi odločilo pred začetkom izvajanja Direktive).

[18] Case 06-55405, 9th Cir., May 16, 2007.

[18] Zadeva 06-55405, 9th Cir, 16. maj 2007.

[19] Bielefeld Regional Court, 8 November 2005, JurPC Web-Dok. 106/2006 and Regional Court of Hamburg, 5 September 2003, JurPC Web-Dok 146/2004.

[19] Regionalno sodišče v Bielefeldu, 8. november 2005, JurPC Web-Dok. 106/2006 in Regionalno sodišče v Hamburgu, 5. september 2003, JurPC Web-Dok 146/2004.

[20] Erfurt Regional Court, 15 March 2007, 3 O 1108/05 - Bildersuche Suchmaschine Haftung.

[20] Regionalno sodišče v Erfurtu, 15. marec 2007, 3 O 1108/05 – Bildersuche Suchmaschine Haftung.

[21] Following a similar line of argument, search engines are not asking for prior permission from copyright owners to index content of web pages. Search engines argue that, if a content owner does not want the content of the web page to be indexed, he can encode the message in a text file called "robots.txt" in order to opt-out and block the search engine from copying content. If no such technology is applied, they believe that this is tantamount to an implied licence for a search engine to copy and index.

[21] Na podoben način tudi spletni iskalniki argumentirajo dejstvo, da pred indeksiranjem vsebine spletnih strani ne pridobijo dovoljenja lastnikov avtorskih pravic. Trdijo namreč, da lahko lastnik vsebine zakodira sporočilo v besedilno datoteko z imenom „robots.txt“, če ne želi, da se vsebina spletne strani indeksira, in tako prepreči iskalniku, da bi vsebino razmnoževal. Če lastnik vsebine ne uporabi te tehnologije, upravljavci spletnih iskalnikov menijo, da jim s tem posredno dovoli razmnoževati in indeksirati vsebino.

[22] BGH, 17th July 2003, case I WR 259/00, Paperboy.

[22] Zvezno vrhovno sodišče Nemčije (BGH), 17. julij 2003, zadeva I WR 259/00, Paperboy .

[23] E.g. in the UK "Gowers Review of Intellectual Property", there is a recommendation that the Commission amends Directive 2001/29/EC and introduces an exception for orphan works. Denmark and Hungary have developed solutions to orphan works (the Danish solution is based on extended collective licences and the Hungarian one on licences issued by a public body).

[23] „Gowers Review of Intellectual Property“ iz Združenega kraljestva na primer vsebuje priporočilo, naj Komisija spremeni Direktivo 2001/29/ES in uvede izjemo za osirotela dela. Danska in Madžarska sta razvili rešitve za osirotela dela (danska rešitev temelji na razširjenih kolektivnih licencah, madžarska pa na licencah, ki jih izda javni organ).

[24] The US Copyright Office published a report on orphan works in January 2006. Two bills were tabled on 24 April 2008 at the Senate and the House of Representatives (the "Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act" and the "Orphan Works Act of 2008", respectively). Both bills are proposals to amend title 17 of the US Code by adding a section on "limitations on remedies in cases involving orphan works".

[24] US Copyright Office je januarja 2006 objavil poročilo o osirotelih delih. 24. aprila 2008 sta bila v senatu in predstavniškem domu vložena dva zakonska osnutka („Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act“ in „Orphan Works Act of 2008“). Oba osnutka predlagata spremembo naslova 17 Kodeksa ZDA (US Code), in sicer tako, da bi dodali oddelek o izjemah in pravnih sredstvih, ki se nanašajo na osirotela dela.

[25] The Canadian solution is based on non-exclusive licences issued by the Copyright Board of Canada.

[25] Kanadska rešitev temelji na neizključnih licencah, ki jih izdaja kanadski Copyright Board.

[26] Commission Recommendation of 24 August 2006 on the digitisation and online accessibility of cultural content and digital preservation, 2006/585/EC, L 236/28.

[26] Priporočilo Komisije z dne 24. avgusta 2006 o digitalizaciji in spletni dostopnosti kulturnega gradiva in digitalnem arhiviranju, 2006/585/ES, L 236/28.

[27] http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/digital_libraries/hleg/hleg_meetings/index_en.htm

[27] http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/digital_libraries/hleg/hleg_meetings/index_en.htm

[28] Sections 31A-31F of the Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Act 2002.

[28] Oddelki 31A–31F zakona o avtorskih pravicah za slabovidne osebe (Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Act) iz leta 2002.

[29] Section 19 (1)(3) and section 22 of the 2004 Copyright Act.

[29] Oddelek 19(1)(3) in oddelek 22 zakona o avtorskih pravicah iz leta 2004.

[30] Article 28A of Law 2121/1993.

[30] Člen 28A zakona 2121/1993.

[31] Article 22 (1)(2) of the 2003 Copyright Act.

[31] Člen 22(1)(2) zakona o avtorskih pravicah iz leta 2003.

[32] Study on Copyright Limitations and Exceptions for the Visually Impaired prepared by J. Sullivan for the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (2006), p. 71-72.

[32] Študija o omejitvah in izjemah avtorskih pravic za slabovidne, ki jo je pripravil J. Sullivan za Stalni odbor za avtorske in sorodne pravice organizacije WIPO (2006), str. 71–72.

[33] Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, OJ L 77, 27.3.1996, p. 20-28.

[33] Direktiva 96/9/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 11. marca 1996 o pravnem varstvu baz podatkov (UL L 77, 27.3.1996, str. 20–28).

[34] This was the case in France, where five sector-specific agreements concerning the use of works for illustration in teaching and research activities were only concluded in 2005, following a joint declaration by the Ministry of National Education representing the educational institutions and the Ministry of Culture representing the rightholders. During the implementation process of the Directive, as a result of the intervention of educational establishments and in particular of universities, an exception governing the use of works for purposes of illustration for teaching and scientific research was for the first time introduced into the French Intellectual Property Code; this provision, replacing the previous contractual system will enter into force in January 2009.

[34] Tak je bil primer v Franciji, kjer je bilo šele leta 2005, po podpisu skupne deklaracije Ministrstva za nacionalno izobraževanje kot predstavnika izobraževalnih ustanov in Ministrstva za kulturo kot predstavnika imetnikov pravic, za posamezna področja sklenjenih pet sporazumov o uporabi del za ponazoritev pri pouku in raziskovalnih dejavnostih. V postopku prenosa Direktive v nacionalno zakonodajo je bila izjema, ki ureja uporabo del za namene ponazoritve pri pouku in znanstvenem raziskovanju, zaradi posredovanja izobraževalnih ustanov in zlasti univerz prvič vključena v francoski zakon o intelektualni lastnini; ta določba, ki je nadomestila prejšnji sistem pogodb, bo začela veljati januarja 2009.

[35] Section §52a of the UrhG (the German copyright act) also requires users to pay fair compensation to the rightholders for making a work available.

[35] Oddelek §52a nemškega zakona o avtorskih pravicah (UrhG) določa tudi, da morajo uporabniki plačati pravično nadomestilo imetniku pravic, ki je delo dal na voljo.

[36] Gowers Review of Intellectual Property 2006, para. 4.17 and 4.19

[36] Gowers Review of Intellectual Property 2006, odstavka 4.17 in 4.19.

[37] Gowers Review of Intellectual Property 2006, para. 4.15

[37] Gowers Review of Intellectual Property 2006, odstavek 4.15.

[38] Gowers Review of Intellectual Property 2006, para. 4.18

[38] Gowers Review of Intellectual Property 2006, odstavek 4.18.

[39] Participative Web and User-Created Content, OECD 2007, p. 9.

[39] Participative Web and User-Created Content, OECD 2007, str. 9.

[40] Recommendation 11.

[40] Priporočilo št. 11.

[41] The Review clearly referred to "transformative use" under US law and to the example of sampling in the Hip Hop music industry. However, in US law transformative use alone is not a defence to copyright infringement. Instead, it is one of the conditions required for a use to qualify for the fair use defence under section 107 U.S. Copyright Act.

[41] V poročilu je pojem priredbe („transformative use“) očitno uporabljen v smislu prava ZDA in se sklicuje na primer „semplanja“ v industriji hip hop glasbe. Vendar po pravu ZDA sama uporaba priredbe še ne ščiti pred kršitvijo avtorskih pravic, temveč je le eden od pogojev, ki jih je potrebno izpolnjevati za pravično uporabo v skladu z oddelkom 107 zakona ZDA o avtorskih pravicah.

[42] Article 9 Berne Convention.

[42] Člen 9 Konvencije.

[43] Berne Convention Article 12, Right of Adaptation, Arrangement and Other Alteration.

[43] Bernska konvencija, člen 12, Pravica do priredbe, obdelave ali druge obdelave.

[44] Recital 31.

[44] Uvodna izjava 31.