Investigative show Vetting

Failure with the 2022-2025 Copyright Strategy
In May 2022, the Council of Ministers' Decision on the National Intellectual Property Strategy would be approved, which according to the audit would be approved very late and would once again leave the legal powers between institutions in disarray.

The strategy itself approved by the Ministry of Finance and Economy reveals that Albania must align its copyright law with three European Union directives. The first is the directive “On certain permitted uses of works without copyright”, the second is the directive “On certain permitted uses of certain works and other subject-matter protected by copyright and related rights for the benefit of persons with print disabilities” and the third is the “Amendment of the Directive on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights”.

The findings of the Supreme State Audit Office reveal that the strategy has had shortcomings since its creation, maintaining the overlapping of legal powers, which maintain the state of chaos in this sector.

The audit finds that the Ministry of Culture has not established the Arbitration Board, which according to the law must be created to resolve disputes between copyright stakeholders. The Copyright Directorate (DDA) justifies its inaction by stating that the legal criteria make this body unenforceable, as the law requires 20 arbitrators with over 10 years of experience, but the SAI classifies the recommendation as accepted but not implemented.

The report highlights a functional crisis among institutions mandated with the control and protection of copyright.

Albautor does not evaluate artists based on viewership
The latest report from the Supreme State Audit Office highlights that since 2017 there has been no comprehensive agreement between users and collective management agencies. The negotiation process has consistently failed and there has been no official request to the National Council for Copyright (NCC) to review the fee methodology, while the legal framework does not provide any mechanism to resolve this impasse.

This is precisely one of the problems that the authors have raised with the "Vetting" editorial office for the "Albautor" agency, which is related to the fact of how these payments are evaluated.

"During all these practices that we have had with copyright, we have never been familiar with the criteria, laws or at least a form where my income came from. I think it would be good for every creator to be informed about the sources that have been provided by the creativity of one or the other, even if it were my own creativity, to have the benefits based on the use of these values", composer Zef Çoba told "Vetting".

According to lawyer Evien Dako, there are many cases of Albanian works that have high visibility and are exhibited in places where copyright should apply.

"For example, I take Zef Çobi and another author Naim Gjoshi as an example. Their songs are enough for you to see the days when the national team matches are broadcast. So, you automatically have a use for them, on every social network there is that song, on every radio you have those songs, you just have to count those days. So, how you will monitor is your duty," said lawyer Dako.

In communication with Director Muka of "Albautor", the latter states that it is the authors who decide on the rewards, while the financial assessment should be made through public visibility, i.e. based on the request.

Conversation between Erion Muka and the journalist

journalist: You collect income, artists have denounced the fact that they receive very, very little income and indicate that they receive somewhere around 10 thousand lek per year. How is this distribution done, can you explain this to us, please?

Erion Muka: Where does the income come from? It comes from the "Unique Desk", from the work of the "Unique Desk" of copyright.

journalist: How is income distributed among artists? What is your basis for evaluating whether you give some less and others more?

Erion Muka: The way in which the income of Albautorit is divided, which is between the artists, the artists themselves, the authors themselves have decided and decide through the decision of the assembly, which chooses the methodology on how they will distribute it. Specifically, the same practice has continued over the years, but specifically, at the moment I was appointed director, a decision was made, a meeting was held, an assembly with all the participating authors, where the vast majority were and we unanimously decided on the way in which we will distribute the income, a methodology. And this methodology was implemented by the finances of Albautorit. This has much bigger problems, that the famous artists have received a lower value and this has come about for several reasons. One reason is that most of them have to do with the functioning of the unique counter, and not directly with Albautorit. Subjects that must pay, such as televisions, have not made any payment, according to the law on copyright, for the public communication of works protected by copyright.

journalist: How did someone decide how much to reward, when income is based on copyright, on viewership?

Erion Muka: There is a way of choosing, at least monitoring, which includes either Youtube or, I don't know, something, some kind of monitoring that the authors themselves have. And that is the answer, and, that is, they decide it themselves. So, they decide the distribution themselves, but the fact that those authors have received 100 thousand old lek, a good author has received 100 thousand old lek...

journalist: Have all the artists decided, have they agreed?

Erion Muka: Po.

According to lawyer Çollaku, every Collective Management Agency must publish the list of works used in a calendar year on the organization's website.

It's amazing how authors decide who gets what and how much if their income depends on viewership. How can an author who has created something and is no longer sought after by the public receive the same financial appreciation as an author who is still in demand?

According to the artists, they receive ridiculous amounts of money while their music and songs continue to be listened to intensely by the Albanian public.

To find out more, "Vetting" spoke with Director Muka about how monitoring is carried out and why so little revenue is distributed, while Albautor exceeds expenses in violation of Law No. 35/2016 on copyright.

Conversation 2 between the journalist and Erion Muka

journalist: In the last two reports, 2023 and 2022, you know very well, since you know the law very well, these reports show that the expenditure ratio is 37% from the 30% that it should be.

Erion Muka: You are referring to the 2022-2023 reports, while AlbAutor's licensing was done in 2024 and was licensed for three years. So, any kind of report has nothing to do with AlbAutor's current license. What you are telling me is not true, as I have been clarified...

journalist: There are reports, Mr. Erion Muka, there are reports...

Erion Muka: These are reports that we will resolve. I will start the reports with the explanations, because they have been clarified before, even though I was not the director at the time, I have this information clarified. The ministry has also agreed that there was a problem and it is okay.

journalist: And please, the name of the Spanish company that you didn't tell us about the monitoring and the contract, if you can provide us with this information, since it is data related to...

Erion Muka: It's exactly confidential and that's it...

journalist: No, listen to me...

Erion Muka: Related to the protection of personal data.

journalist: No, Mr. Lawyer. You said that the monitoring is done by a Spanish company.

Erion Muka: ...

journalist: Please note that the name of the Spanish company is not related to personal data protection.

Erion Muka: You have addressed this matter to the commissioner and you will receive a response.

Journalist: LThe copyright law requires transparency from you as an NGO, as a non-profit organization, which you have not done.

Erion Muka: No, we did it.

journalist: You have it in the reports now, why do you object? Okay, object to the reports, okay, this is your position, I understand. You have transparency, you have it mandatory and secondly, the company, anyway since you mentioned the company, we will make a request for the company and we will take it to the commissioner because you have to publish the company that does the measurement.

Erion Muka: You will receive a response from the commissioner, so no problem, send it to the commissioner.

journalism: If you want, we can come and take you for an interview, if you want you can say...

Erion Muka: We pretty much touched on all the discussions, so I gave the explanations, you recorded me, maybe you can benefit us, you want to get the information and you will show it and I believe you will be okay.

Mr. Muka did not give any concrete answer as to why the agency had exceeded the spending limit in these years, while according to experts, agencies have spending limits.

Even Law No. 8788, dated 7.5.2001 “On Non-Profit Organizations” (as amended) obliges these organizations to be completely transparent, which Albautor has not done. Most importantly, the agency's website does not publish the list of works followed by year, where the scoring system is given as AKDIE has.

"The law imposes the obligation of financial transparency of agencies on their official websites to keep published the statute, their decision-making bodies, the distribution rules that the agency uses to distribute income and above all what is an obligation, transparency for the members of each agency, the lists of works used in a calendar year," stated expert Çollaku.