DR. MUJË BUÇPAPAJ: AUTHOR’S RIGHTS IN ALBANIA BETWEEN LEGAL NORMS AND PRACTICAL DISTORTION

FROM DR. MUJË BUÇPAPAJ

AUTHOR’S RIGHTS IN ALBANIA BETWEEN LEGAL NORMS AND PRACTICAL DISTORTION

Copyright Is Not a Legal Luxury but a Prerequisite for the Existence of National Culture

 

1. When the Law Fails to Protect the Creator

In every democratic society, copyright constitutes the foundation of the relationship between creators and the public. It is not merely an economic instrument but a moral right that guarantees the recognition of authorship, the integrity of the work, and fair remuneration for its use. In Albania, however, this right—an emblem of cultural emancipation—has often been treated more as an administrative formality than as a fundamental guarantee of creative freedom.

Albania established the foundations of copyright protection as early as the Monarchy of King Zog. During the socialist period, however, the legal framework remained weak. Following the 1990s transition from communism to a market economy, Albania began efforts to build a legal structure recognizing intellectual property in line with international standards.

The first Copyright Law, No. 7564 of 19 May 1992, was drafted under the influence of European legislation and the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886). This represented an important step toward recognizing the creator’s rights. Nevertheless, the 1992 law remained fragmentary, lacking implementation mechanisms and the institutional infrastructure that such a system requires.

Between 2005 and 2016, Albania undertook a harmonization process with the acquis communautaire of the European Union, culminating in Law No. 35/2016 “On Copyright and Related Rights.” At the time, it was considered the most advanced in the region; yet, in practice, its results have been disappointing. As evidenced by the investigative program Vetting on News24 and the reports of the State Supreme Audit Institution (KLSH), collective management of copyright in Albania has become a non-transparent, monopolistic system marked by a lack of accountability.

 

2. The Legal and Institutional Framework: From Principle to Implementation

Law No. 35/2016 establishes a clear distinction between copyright and related rights (performers, producers, broadcasters, etc.) and introduces a specific mechanism—collective management—for collecting and distributing revenues derived from the public use of works.

According to Article 133, a Collective Management Agency (CMA) is licensed by the Ministry of Culture to represent the interests of a group of authors and to collect tariffs from users (radio, television, venues, streaming platforms, etc.). Article 135 further outlines the licensing criteria, including the requirement of cooperation with international sister agencies—an element that, in practice, has created serious obstacles to competition and market entry for new actors.

In 2016, the One-Stop Office for Copyright (SUADA) was established as a coordinating mechanism between users and CMAs, intended to ensure unified payments and transparency in fund collection. However, according to the reports of the State Supreme Audit Institution, SUADA has failed to establish the planned regional network and suffers from chronic underfunding and lack of technical capacity. Consequently, oversight of the market for copyrighted works remains almost impossible.

 

3. Collective Management: From Transparency to Distortion

In theory, collective management is one of the most equitable mechanisms in the creative economy, ensuring that every author—regardless of fame or market power—receives fair compensation for the use of their work. In Albania, however, this mechanism has become a “grey zone” characterized by financial opacity and weak institutional control.

The 2024 report of the State Supreme Audit Institution on the activity of Albautor—the largest collective management agency in the country—highlights several serious violations:

• Administrative expenses exceeding the legal ceiling of 30%, reaching 37% of total remuneration;
• A portion of collected funds not distributed or deposited into the Special Fund of the Ministry of Culture, as required by Article 151;
• Delayed payments to authors, often after the end of the fiscal year;
• Financial statements and activity reports not published in accordance with the transparency obligations of Article 147.

These findings constitute not only administrative breaches but also direct violations of authors’ economic rights, guaranteed under Article 57 of the Constitution of the Republic of Albania and the WIPO Copyright Treaty (1996).

 

4. Market Monopolization and Barriers to Fair Competition

One of the most serious issues arising from the current law is the de facto monopolization of the collective management market. According to Article 135(1), to obtain a license, an organization must have reciprocal representation agreements with international agencies. In a small market such as Albania’s, this requirement has become a structural barrier to entry, as international partnerships are typically granted only to pre-existing agencies.

This configuration has produced a rigid situation: Albautor controls the majority of the market for musical and literary works, while AKDIE, FMAA, and FABER manage smaller segments without real financial resources or monitoring capacity. This mismatch between legal responsibilities and actual capabilities has shifted the system’s essence from competition to institutional monopoly, often operating without genuine oversight.

 

5. Lack of Transparency and Public Accountability

Under Article 148 of Law No. 35/2016, each collective management agency is legally required to publish its annual financial report, distribution methodology, and the list of beneficiary authors. However, these obligations are either only partially implemented or entirely ignored.

Instances such as the refusal of the Albautor Director to provide information to News24 represent not only legal violations but also indicators of a culture of opacity and lack of accountability, contrary to the principles of good governance. These agencies frequently invoke “confidentiality” to conceal information that is, by its nature, public—such as revenue totals, distribution percentages, and beneficiary lists. This practice fosters uncertainty among authors and suspicion of fund mismanagement.

 

6. Unauthorized Use and Violation of Moral Rights

Another critical dimension concerns the infringement of authors’ moral rights—the right of authorship, the right to integrity, and protection against distorted use of their works. Cases reported by artists such as Zef Çoba (“Xhamadani vija-vija”) and Naim Gjoshi (“Mora fjalë”) demonstrate repeated unauthorized public uses of works, often for commercial purposes, without any real compensation to the authors.

Although the law provides for civil and criminal sanctions, enforcement mechanisms are virtually nonexistent. In the absence of a specialized intellectual property court, such cases linger for years in ordinary courts, and authors—lacking financial means—often abandon legal pursuit. Thus, the law exists only on paper, while a culture of disregard for intellectual property prevails.

 

7. The Role of the State: From Inaction to Institutional Responsibility

Responsibility for this situation cannot rest solely with collective management agencies. The Ministry of Culture, as the supervisory authority, has the legal duty to verify license compliance and impose sanctions for repeated violations. Yet, over the past twelve years, no license revocation, significant fine, or full public audit report has been recorded.

Similarly, the National Council for Copyright—which should serve as an arbiter between authors, users, and agencies—has remained a nominal structure without executive power or real influence. Since 2017, no comprehensive tariff agreement has been adopted, leaving remuneration processes in a normative vacuum detrimental to both authors and users.

 

8. European Alignment and Emerging Challenges

Within the framework of European integration, Albania has taken partial steps toward harmonizing its legislation with Directive 2014/26/EU on collective management of copyright and the multi-territorial licensing of musical works for online use. However, practical implementation of this directive’s standards—particularly regarding transparency, good governance, and protection of organization members—remains lacking.

Moreover, Albania has yet to ratify the Marrakesh Treaty (2013), ensuring access to works for persons with visual impairments, or the Beijing Treaty (2012) on Audiovisual Performers’ Rights. These omissions demonstrate that Albania has not yet internalized the culture of copyright protection as an integral part of public policy on culture and knowledge.

 

9. The Need for Deep Reform: Toward a Sustainable Model

To ensure a fair and effective copyright system, several urgent measures must be undertaken:

1. Revision of Law No. 35/2016 to remove barriers to competition and strengthen financial transparency mechanisms;
2. Creation of a public electronic register where each agency publishes financial data and distribution reports;
3. Empowerment of the National Council for Copyright and inclusion of independent author representatives in decision-making;
4. Development of a digital monitoring system for works’ use (through watermarking, audio tracking, etc.);
5. Implementation of a new cultural policy that recognizes authors as both moral and economic actors of society—not as occasional recipients of subsidies.

 

10. Conclusion: The Dignity of the Author as the Foundation of National Culture

Copyright is not a legal luxury but a prerequisite for the existence of national culture. A society that fails to protect its creators, in effect, denies itself. For many years, this issue has been relegated to a technical debate about tariffs and licenses. Yet at its core, the question is moral: does Albania value creativity as its own collective property?

The cases of Naim Gjoshi, Zef Çoba, and hundreds of other authors who receive symbolic compensation for works performed daily before the public testify to a deep institutional distortion. It is time for the authorities, creators’ associations, and civil society to demand a “vetting” of the copyright system—not for vengeance, but for justice.

Only when the artist’s labor is protected by law does culture become a shared national asset, not a commodity that evaporates in the hands of bureaucracy.

 

Author’s Note:
Dr. Mujë Buçpapaj is an internationally recognized poet, publisher of the cultural and literary weekly Nacional, and former Director of the Albanian Office for Copyright and Related Rights (2012–2014).

 

References

1. Constitution of the Republic of Albania, Article 57 – Right to Intellectual Property.
2. Law No. 7564, dated 19.05.1992, “On Copyright and Related Rights.”
3. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, 1886, WIPO.
4. Law No. 35/2016, “On Copyright and Related Rights,” Republic of Albania.
5. Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market, OJ L 84, 20.3.2014.
6. State Supreme Audit Institution (KLSH), Report on Collective Management of Copyrights, 2024.
7. KLSH, ibid., market monopolization review.
8. Reports and interviews with Albanian music and literary authors, News24 and Top Channel, 2022–2024.
9. Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled, 2013.
10. Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances, 2012.