In recent years, we have witnessed an increase in the number of proceedings before the High Court in Belgrade regarding copyright infringements committed in daily newspapers and, perhaps more often, electronic editions of the media.
The rights of authors are regulated primarily by the Law on Copyright and Related Rights, and further obligations of journalists, editors and publishers by the Law on Public Information and Media and the Code of Journalists of Serbia. While lawyers who specialize in the implementation of these regulations are well aware of the rights and obligations of the participants, the question arises as to how well journalists, especially those belonging to the younger generations, are familiar with the relevant laws and their obligations arising from these regulations. Precisely for the above reason, in this article, we will present the most common mistakes of journalists and editors when publicly communicating articles that may represent the basis for court proceedings.
1. Non-labeling or incorrect marking of the author
An author is a natural person who is the original holder of rights to the author’s work. A single work can be created by the involvement of several authors whom we call co-authors. In addition to copyright, our legislation also knows related rights, such as the rights of interpreters, producers of phonograms (sound recordings), rights of film producers, etc.
The author and the interpreter have the right to have their name, pseudonym or sign marked on a copy of the work when it is communicated publicly. This means that every time a photograph or video recording of an interpretation is publicly communicated (including embedding into the frames of a journalist’s text), the journalist must indicate the author or interpreter of that content.
Journalists often label the medium from which the content was taken, instead of pointing out the author next to a copy of the work, mistakenly believing that in this way they fulfilled their obligation. On the contrary, a journalist is obliged to indicate the natural person who is the original creator of the work, i.e. interpretation. In addition, a journalist is obliged to indicate the media from which the content was downloaded, and according to the new Law on Information and Media, he is obliged to post a link to the original media publication.
2. Unauthorized shortening (alteration) of protected content
A journalist must not in any way make changes to someone else’s protected content that is being communicated. Such changes include shortening (cropping) other people’s photos, changing tonalities and colors, adding elements and effects through someone else’s protected content, etc. These changes may be made only with the express permission of the author. In any case, if such approval exists, it is good to obtain it in writing.
3. Unauthorized reproduction of protected content
The author has the exclusive right to allow or prohibit another to record and copy his work in whole or in part, by any means, in any form, in any permanent or temporary, indirect or direct manner.
The work is reproduced in particular, by graphic procedures, photocopying and other photographic procedures that achieve the same result, by sound or visual recording, by building a piece of architecture, by placing the work in electronic form in the memory of the computer.
The interpreter has the exclusive right to prohibit or allow another to record his or her unrecorded interpretation and to copy such recordings of interpretation, in any form and in any way.
It follows from the foregoing that any form of public communication (through newspapers, embedding into an article, video framing) could be considered and in domestic practice, it is considered to be a copy of the copyrighted work, i.e. interpretation, which is punishable if it is realized without the permission of the right holders. Journalists and publishers must not unauthorizedly copy-protected content.
4. Unauthorized public communication
The author has the right to prohibit the public communication of the author’s work to another, while the interpreter has the right to prohibit public communication of the interpretation unless it has already been broadcast.
Unauthorized public communication is also considered to be an unauthorized making of an author’s work available on the Internet. Confusion occurs when journalists mistakenly believe that a certain author’s work is part of an ongoing event (e.g. because it shows the moment of the event), and they believe that within their obligation to inform the public about current events and within the limits of the author’s powers, they have the right to publicly disclose such work within the framework of a journalistic article, which is not the case.
These violations of the rights of authors and interpreters entail the objective responsibility of the publisher (liability regardless of guilt) and the subjective responsibility of journalists and editors (guilt-based liability). Court proceedings for such violations are among the potentially most expensive proceedings and most often result in significant costs for publishers.
If you want to know how to prevent such actions, subscribe to our newsletter to be informed about the educational texts we publish on our website.
