natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Zadevna direktiva je skladna s pogodbama Svetovne organizacije za intelektualno lastnino (WIPO) o avtorskih pravicah iz leta 1996.
The directive is a logical extension of the 1996 World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties.
Elementi za oceno izvajanja direktive 2001/29/ES
Basis on which to assess the application of Directive 2001/29 EC
Evropska komisija je v poročilu o izvajanju direktive 2001/29/ES o usklajevanju določenih vidikov avtorske in sorodnih pravic v informacijski družbi (SEC 2007/1556) preučila, kako so države članice direktivo prenesle in kako nacionalna sodišča uporabljajo njene člene 5 (izjeme in omejitve), 6 (obveznosti glede tehničnih ukrepov) in 8 (sankcije in pravna sredstva).
The Commission report on the application of Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (SEC 2007/1556) considers the transposition by the Member States and the application by the national judge of Articles 5 (exceptions and limitations), 6 (protection of technological measures and rights management information) and 8 (sanctions and remedies) of the directive.
Sistem izjem, njegova uporaba in praktični prenos
The arrangements for exceptions, their application and practical transposition
– – V členu 5 zadevne direktive je najprej določena obvezna izjema (odstavek 1), nato pa so navedene še izbirne izjeme, bodisi samo v zvezi s pravico reproduciranja (odstavek 2) bodisi v zvezi s pravico do reproduciranja ter pravico priobčitve in dajanja na voljo javnosti (odstavek 3), pri čemer se lahko izbirne izjeme razširijo tudi na pravico distribuiranja (odstavek 4).
– Article 5 of the directive sets out a compulsory exception (paragraph 1) and optional exceptions to the right of reproduction only (paragraph 2) and the rights of reproduction, communication to the public and making available to the public (paragraph 3), with these optional exceptions also able to be extended to the right of distribution (paragraph 4).
– Z odstavkom 5 je za izjeme in omejitve različnih izključnih pravic, določenih z zadevno direktivo, vzpostavljeno pravilo „trojnega preizkusa“, saj je v tem odstavku določeno, da se te izjeme in omejitve „ uporabijo 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 “.
– Paragraph 5 makes all the exceptions to, and limitations of, the various rights set out in the directive subject to the ‘triple test’ rule: that is to say that they may ‘only be applied in certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or other subject ‑matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder’ .
Omenjeni „trojni preizkus“ temelji na členu 9(2) bernske konvencije, ki zadeva pravico do reprodukcije književnih in umetniških del, ter členu 10 pogodb WIPO iz leta 1996.
This ‘triple test’ has its origins in Article 9.2 of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and Article 10 of the 1996 WIPO Treaties.
V členu 5(1) je predvidena izjema za začasna dejanja razmnoževanja, ki so prehodna ali spremljevalna ter so sestavni del tehnološkega procesa.
Article 5.1 provides for an exception in respect of temporary acts of reproduction which are transient or incidental and form an integral and essential part of a technological process .
V členu 2 direktive je zelo na široko potrjena pravica reproduciranja, vendar je v digitalnem okolju reprodukcij veliko in so pogosto kratkotrajne.
Article 2 of the directive sets out the right of reproduction in the broadest possible terms, but in the digital environment reproductions are numerous and often ephemeral.
Kar pa ne pomeni, da jih izključna pravica ne zadeva, zato se za reproduciranje, ki je potrebno zaradi nekaterih načinov komunikacije, uporablja izjema, ki je hkrati edina izjema, ki je v zadevni direktivi določena kot obvezna (člen 5(1)).
They are nevertheless covered by the exclusive right, which is the reason why reproduction such as that required by certain means of communication is deemed to be an exception, the only compulsory one in the directive (Article 5.1).
Nasprotno je belgijsko sodišče v sodbi z dne 13. februarja 2007 v zadevi Google proti Copiepresse odločilo, da sta kopija spletne strani, shranjena na Googlovem strežniku, in dejstvo, da je na voljo povezava, s katero je javnosti omogočen dostop do zadevne spletne strani, v nasprotju s pravico reproduciranja in pravico priobčitve javnosti.
With the Google-Copiepresse judgment of 13 February 2007, on the other hand, the Belgian judge ruled that a copy of a webpage memorised by the Google server and the existence of a link giving public access to the same webpage contravene the rights of reproduction and communication to the public.
Vse države članice razen Združenega kraljestva in Irske so z nekaterimi razlikami prenesle izjemo glede reprodukcij za zasebno uporabo, predvideno v členu 5(2)(b) .
All the Member States except the United Kingdom and Ireland have transposed, in a variety of different ways, the exception in respect of reproductions for private use set out in Article 5.2.b .
Izjema iz člena 5(2)(c) v zvezi s posebnimi dejanji reproduciranja, ki jih izvede knjižnica ali druga organizacija in niso storjena zaradi komercialne koristi, ni neomejena.
The exception provided for in Article 5.2.c in respect of specific acts of reproduction made by libraries or other bodies which are not for commercial advantage is not unlimited.
Omeji se na posebne primere, kot je na primer reprodukcija, potrebna za ohranitev del, vključenih v kataloge knjižnic.
It is restricted to specific cases such as reproduction that is necessary for the preservation of works contained in library catalogues.
To, da digitalne knjižnice na spletu objavijo delo, lahko za imetnika avtorske pravice predstavlja zelo veliko škodo.
It goes without saying that the phenomenon of works being put on line by digital libraries can be very damaging to copyright holders.
Izjemo za tisk, določeno s členom 5(3)(c), s katero naj bi bilo omogočeno poročanje o aktualnih dogodkih, so nekatere države članice razlagale zelo široko, medtem ko je belgijsko sodišče v sodbi v zadevi Copiepresse proti Googlu odločilo, da v to izjemo ne sodi reproduciranje delov člankov brez komentarja, ki ga je izvajalo podjetje Google.
The exception in respect of the press set out in Article 5.3.c in order to reflect current developments has been interpreted very broadly by some Member States, but in the Copiepresse v. Google judgment the Belgian judge took the view that Google’s reproduction without comment of parts of articles was not covered by this exception.
V isti sodbi je bilo odločeno, da se izjema glede citiranja z namenom kritike ali ocene iz člena 5(3)(d) ne uporablja za storitev Google.News.
The same judgement does not consider the exception in respect of quotations for purposes such as criticism or review provided for in Article 5.3.d to be applicable to the Google.News service.
V členu 6 direktive je določeno, da države članice predvidijo pravno varstvo
Article 6 of the Directive requires the Member States to provide adequate legal protection
zoper izogibanje kakršnemu koli dejanskemu varovalnemu tehničnemu ukrepu (ang. technological protection measures - TPM) in zoper razširjanje takega izogibanja.
against the circumvention of any effective technological measures (TPM technological protection measures) and against distribution of devices for such circumvention.
V Združenem kraljestvu je High Court of Justice v sodbi iz leta 2005 v zadevi Sony Computer Entertainment proti Ball odloèilo, da je treba zato, da bi doloèen varovalni tehnièni ukrep sodil v opredelitev iz èlena 6(3), ugotoviti, ali je bil zadevni ukrep izdelan posebej v ta namen („it is necessary to determine whether it is designed in the normal course of its operation to prevent unauthorised use of copyright work in a way which would amount to an infringement of copyright“).
In the United Kingdom, the 2005 High Court’s Sony Computer Entertainment v Ball judgment established that, for a technical protection measure (TPM) to be covered by the definition in Article 6.3 , it must be determined whether it was created specifically for the purpose ( ‘it is necessary to determine whether it is designed in the normal course of its operation to prevent unauthorised use of copyright work in a way which would amount to an infringement of copyright ’)
Nemška sodna praksa (sodba iz leta 2005 v zadevi Heise Online) je prepovedala ponujanje programske opreme za izogibanje varovalnim tehničnim ukrepom, kar velja tudi za povezave s spletnimi stranmi v tujini („offshore website“).
German case law, in the Heise Online judgment of 2005, established a ban on supplying software for the circumvention of any technical protection measure, even with links to an ‘offshore website’.
Pojem „dejanski tehnični ukrep“ so prenesle vse države članice razen Slovaške in Švedske.
The concept of an ‘effective technical measure’ has been transposed by all the Member States except Slovakia and Sweden.
V odstavku 4 člena 6 je določeno, da lahko države članice – v odsotnosti prostovoljnih ukrepov, ki jih sprejmejo imetniki pravic – sprejmejo primerne ukrepe za zagotovitev izjem pri varstvu varovalnih tehničnih ukrepov v korist upravičencev iz člena 5(2)(a), (b), (c) in (e) ter člena 5(3)(a), (b) ali (e).
Paragraph 4 of Article 6 provides that the Member States may take appropriate measures – in the absence of voluntary measures taken by rightholders – to ensure that rightholders make available to the beneficiary of an exception or limitation provided for in national law in accordance with Article 5(2)(a), (2)(c), (2)(d), (2)(e), (3)(a), (3)(b) or (3)(e) the means of benefiting from that exception or limitation.
Širok pojem „primerni ukrepi“ se v državah članicah uporablja različno: v Avstriji, na Češkem in Nizozemskem sploh ni prenesen, na Finskem in Danskem, v Estoniji in Grčiji ter na Madžarskem so bili sprejeti ukrepi mediacije in arbitraže, v Belgiji, Nemčiji in Španiji ter na Irskem je možna tožba pred sodiščem.
The rather broad concept of ‘appropriate measures’ is applied in different ways in the Member States: there is, for example, no transposition in Austria, the Czech Republic or the Netherlands, while there are mediation and arbitration measures in Finland, Denmark, Estonia, Greece and Hungary and the possibility of legal remedy in Belgium, Germany, Spain and Ireland.
V Franciji pa je za take primere predvidena upravna tožba.
France, finally, provides for remedy via the administrative route.
Sankcije ter varstvo imetnikov avtorskih in sorodnih pravic
Sanctions and the protection of copyright and related rights holders
V členu 8(3) direktive 2001/29 je določeno, da „[d]ržave članice zagotovijo, da imetniki pravic lahko zahtevajo sodno odredbo proti posrednikom, katerih storitve uporablja tretja stranka in s tem krši avtorske ali sorodne pravice“.
Article 8.3 of Directive 2001/29 provides that ‘Member States shall ensure that rightholders are in a position to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe a copyright or related right’ .
Ta člen so izrecno prenesle samo Avstrija, Grčija, Litva in Belgija, medtem ko je v drugih državah članicah zajet v obstoječi zakonodaji.
Only Austria, Greece, Lithuania and Belgium have explicitly transposed this provision, which is covered in the other Member States by existing law.
V zadnjih letih je bilo pred sodišči sproženih več postopkov proti ponudnikom internetnega dostopa in gostiteljem spletnih strani.
In recent years there have been a number of court actions against internet access providers and host servers.
Zelo občutljiv je sektor „vsak z vsakim“ (ang. peer-to-peer), tj. pojav spletnih strani in programske opreme, s katero si lahko spletni uporabniki med seboj neposredno ali prek skupne spletne strani izmenjujejo datoteke, ki vsebujejo reprodukcije del ali storitev, varovanih s pravicami, ne da bi pred tem pridobili soglasje imetnikov teh pravic (na primer centralizirani Napster ali decentralizirani Kazaa).
One very sensitive area is that of ‘peer-to-peer’, i.e. the phenomenon of websites and software whereby internet users share, either directly or via a shared site, files containing reproductions of protected works or services without the consent of the rightholders (Napster (centralised), Kazaa (decentralised)).
Dejavnost spletnih strani, ki presegajo pojav „peer-to-peer“ in ponujajo prenos varovanih del ali storitev brez potrebnih odobritev, je nezakonita in zanjo ni mogoče uporabiti nobene izjeme.
The activities of websites that are not part of the peer-to-peer phenomenon and which allow downloading of protected works or services without the necessary authorisation are illegal, and no exception can be applied to them.
Zato je treba dejavnost spletnih uporabnikov, ki drugim spletnim uporabnikom posredujejo datoteke, obravnavati kot nezakonito dejanje priobčitve javnosti, za katero ni mogoče uporabiti nobene izjeme.
So the activity of internet users who send files to their peers must be regarded as an illegal act of communication to the public without the possibility of exceptions being applied.
Glede dejavnosti prenosa datotek („download“) je mogoče dvomiti, da gre za dejavnost reproduciranja, za katero bi lahko veljala izjema za zasebno kopiranje (člen 5(2)(b)), ki ga izvede fizična oseba v zasebne namene, ki niso niti neposredno niti posredno komercialni, vendar je treba v tem primeru upoštevati tudi (ne)zakonitost vira.
As regards downloading, it is doubtful whether this activity constitutes an act of reproduction that could be covered by the exception relating to private copying (Article 5.2.b) carried out by a natural person for private use for ends that are neither directly nor indirectly commercial, although in this case the issue of whether the origin is legal or illegal must be borne in mind.
Na podlagi tega si imetniki pravic danes prizadevajo, da bi dosegli sporazume s ponudniki internetnega dostopa.
On the basis of these considerations, rightholders are currently focusing on reaching agreements with internet access providers.
Predlagajo oblikovanje postopkov za obveščanje o dejavnostih, ki so domnevno nezakonite, da bi lahko ponudniki dostopa v razumnih rokih sprejeli ustrezne ukrepe zoper spletne uporabnike in predložile vse njihove podatke za namen sodnega pregona.
They are proposing that procedures be put in place for the purpose of notifying suspected illegal activity so that access providers can, within an appropriate period, take the necessary measures vis-à-vis internet users and supply full details of the latter with a view to prosecution.
Vse to pa je lahko v nasprotju z varstvom osebnih podatkov.
But all of this could come into conflict with the principle of protecting personal data.
Iz sodbe Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti z dne 29. januarja 2008 v zadevi Telefonica namreč izhaja, da pravo Skupnosti v okviru civilnega postopka ne zavezuje držav članic k razkritju osebnih podatkov za zagotovitev učinkovitega varstva avtorske pravice.
According to the ECJ ‘Telefonica’ judgment of 29 January 2008, Community law does not require Member States to divulge these personal data in the context of civil proceedings in order effectively to protect copyright.
Sodišče pri tem poudarja tudi potrebo po uskladitvi varstva različnih temeljnih pravic, kakršna je pravica do spoštovanja zasebnega življenja, s pravico do varstva intelektualne lastnine in pravico do učinkovitega sodnega varstva.
The Court did, however, raise the question of the need to reconcile the fundamental rights to privacy, on the one hand, and intellectual property protection and effective recourse on the other.
Sodba Telefonica potrjuje pomen zaščite intelektualne lastnine in ponudnikov internetnega dostopa in drugih operaterjev, ki sodelujejo z imetniki pravic, ne ovira v boju proti piratstvu na internetu.
The ‘Telefonica’ judgment confirms the importance of protecting intellectual property rights and in no way prevents internet access providers and other online operators from collaborating with rightholders in the fight against internet piracy.
o poročilu Komisije o izvajanju Direktive 2001/29/ES o usklajevanju določenih vidikov avtorske in sorodnih pravic v informacijski družbi
on the Commission's report on the application of Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society
Odbor za industrijo, raziskave in energetiko poziva Odbor za pravne zadeve kot pristojni odbor, da v svoj predlog resolucije vključi naslednje pobude:
The Committee on Industry, Research and Energy calls on the Committee on Legal Affairs, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions in its motion for a resolution:
3. ponovno opozarja, da Direktiva 2001/29/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 22. maja 2001 o usklajevanju določenih vidikov avtorske in sorodnih pravic v informacijski družbi
Recalls that 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
10. predstavlja bistveni element zakonodaje Skupnosti glede zaščite intelektualne lastnine v digitalnih medijih, skladno s „Pogodbami Internet“ Svetovne organizacije za intelektualno lastnino; poleg tega opozarja, da je ta zakonodaja v praksi delovala dobro in pripomogla k spodbuditvi živahne skupnosti v Evropski uniji;
10. is a vital component of the Community legislation on the protection of intellectual property in the digital environment, in conformity with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) 'Internet treaties'; further recalls that this legislation has worked well in practice, helping to promote a vibrant community within the European Union;
7. od Komisije zahteva, da nadaljuje s strogim nadzorom uporabe direktive 2001/29/ES in rednim poročanjem Evropskemu Parlamentu in Svetu;
Asks the Commission to continue its rigorous monitoring of the application of Directive 2001/29/EC and to report regularly on the matter to Parliament and the Council;
9. poziva Komisijo, naj pri nadaljnjem ocenjevanju vidikov Direktive 2001/29/ES, vključno z omenjeno zeleno knjigo, upošteva resolucijo Parlamenta z dne 31. januarja 2008 o evropskem raziskovalnem območju: novih perspektivah
Calls on the Commission, when further assessing aspects of Directive 2001/29/EC, including the above mentioned green paper , to consider Parliament's resolution of 31 January 2008 on the European Research Area: New Perspectives
Sprejeta besedila, P6_TA(2008)0029 . , ki poudarja pomen spoštovanja intelektualne lastnine in izpostavlja, da so naložbe založnikov v infrastrukturo, funkcionalnost in v pobude za navzkrižne reference pripeljale do večjih izboljšav pri širjenju informacij in znanja.
Texts adopted, P6_TA(2008)0029 . which underlines the importance of respecting intellectual property and stresses that publishers’ investments in infrastructure, functionality and electronic cross-reference initiatives have resulted in major improvements in the dissemination of information and knowledge.
o poročilu Komisije o izvajanju Direktive 2001/29/ES o usklajevanju določenih vidikov avtorske in sorodnih pravic v informacijski družbi
on the report by the Commission on the application of Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society
5. poudarja, da tehnološki ukrepi ne smejo pretirano ali neupravičeno omejevati pravic potrošnikov, ki zakonito uporabljajo avtorsko zaščitene izdelke;
Observes that technological measures must not excessively or unjustifiably damage the rights of those lawfully consuming copyright-protected products;
8. ocenjuje, da se izjeme in omejitve v zvezi z avtorskimi in podobnimi pravicami najučinkoviteje zagotavljajo na nacionalni ravni, saj to omogoča sprejetje najprožnejših rešitev v hitro spremenljivi informacijski družbi;
Considers that exceptions to and limitations on copyright and related rights are most efficiently provided for on a national basis, as this ensures the most flexible solutions for the rapidly changing environment of the information society;
12. meni, da je treba uporabo direktivo postaviti v širši okvir in še posebej upoštevati določbe v zvezi z elektronskim poslovanjem iz Direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2000/31/ES z dne 8. junija 2000 o nekaterih pravnih vidikih storitev informacijske družbe, zlasti elektronskega poslovanja na notranjem trgu
12. considers that application of the Directive must take place within a broader framework, which should in particular take into account the provisions on electronic commerce set out in Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market
1. , Direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2004/48/ES z dne 29. aprila 2004 o uveljavljanju pravic intelektualne lastnine
1. , Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights
45. in določbe v zvezi z varovanjem podatkov iz Direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 95/46/ES z dne 24. oktobra 1995 o varstvu posameznikov pri obdelavi osebnih podatkov in o prostem pretoku takih podatkov
45. and the provisions on data protection set out in Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data
14. ocenjuje, da sta izobraževanje in osveščenost bistvenega pomena, in Komisijo poziva, da zagotovi preglednost in medobratovalnost sistemov upravljanja z digitalnimi pravicami.
Considers, on the one hand, that education and awareness-building are crucial, and, on the other hand, calls on the Commission to ensure the transparency and interoperability of digital rights management systems.
o predkomercialnih naročilih: spodbujanje inovacij za zagotavljanje visokokakovostnih trajnostnih javnih storitev v Evropi
on pre-commercial procurement: driving innovation to ensure sustainable high-quality public services in Europe
MNENJE Odbora za pravne zadeve ...........................................................................16
OPINION of the Committee on Legal Affairs ......................................................16
– ob upoštevanju sporočila Komisije z dne 14. decembra 2007 z naslovom „Predkomercialna naročila: spodbujanje inovacij za zagotavljanje visokokakovostnih trajnostnih javnih storitev v Evropi“ ( KOM(2007)0799 ) („sporočilo Komisije“),
– having regard to the communication from the Commission of 14 December 2007 entitled "Pre-commercial Procurement: Driving innovation to ensure sustainable high quality public services in Europe" ( COM(2007)0799 ) (the "Commission communication"),
– ob upoštevanju Direktive 2004/17/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 31. marca 2004 o usklajevanju postopkov za oddajo javnih naročil naročnikov v vodnem, energetskem in transportnem sektorju ter sektorju poštnih storitev
– having regard to Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of utilities contracts for entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors
– ob upoštevanju razlagalnega sporočila Komisije o uporabi zakonodaje Skupnosti o javnih naročilih in koncesijah institucionaliziranim javno-zasebnim partnerstvom (IJZP)
– having regard to the Commission interpretative communication on the application of Community law on Public Procurement and Concessions to institutionalised PPP (IPPP)
UL C 91, 12.4.2008, str.
OJ C 91, 12.4.2008, p.
– ob upoštevanju vseh veljavnih pravil o konkurenci glede državne pomoči in pravic intelektualne lastnine,
– having regard to all applicable competition rules regarding State Aid and intellectual property rights,