Copyright in the Republic of Croatia in Light of the New Copyright and Related Rights Act
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18690/lexonomica.18.1.117-154.2026Keywords:
copyright, digital single market, Directive (EU) 2019/790 (DSM Directive), online platforms, publishers of press publicationsAbstract
The aim of this paper is to analyse the key changes introduced by the Croatian Copyright and Related Rights Act of 2021, particularly in the context of harmonisation with European Union law. Special attention is devoted to the historical development of copyright, the legal framework, and the digital environment, including the liability of online platforms, new rules governing the use of content, and the expansion of the rights of right holders. The paper also examines criticisms of the new Act, as well as the challenges and issues that have emerged in practice following its adoption. A range of scientific methods is employed, including inductive and deductive reasoning, methods of analysis and synthesis, abstraction and concretisation, generalisation and specialisation, classification, description, historical analysis, compilation, and comparative analysis. The paper concludes by confirming the initial hypothesis. It finds that the new Act represents an important step in the modernisation of the Croatian copyright system; however, its full effectiveness will depend on how its provisions are applied and interpreted in legal practice.
Povzetek članka v slovenskem jeziku (abstract in Slovene language):
Namen tega članka je analizirati ključne spremembe, ki jih je uvedel hrvaški Zakon o avtorskih in sorodnih pravicah iz leta 2021, zlasti v okviru usklajevanja s pravom Evropske unije. Posebna pozornost je namenjena zgodovinskemu razvoju avtorskih pravic, pravnemu okviru in digitalnemu okolju (vključno z odgovornostjo spletnih platform), novimi pravili, ki urejajo uporabo vsebin, ter razširitvijo upravičenj imetnikov pravic. V prispevku so obravnavane tudi kritike novega zakona ter izzivi in vprašanja, ki so se pojavila v praksi po njegovem sprejetju. Uporabljene so različne znanstvene metode, vključno z induktivnim in deduktivnim sklepanjem, metodami analize in sinteze, abstrahiranja in konkretizacije, generalizacije, klasifikacije, deskripcije, zgodovinske analize, kompilacije in primerjalne analize. Članek se zaključi s potrditvijo izhodiščne hipoteze. Ugotavljamo, da novi zakon predstavlja pomemben korak v modernizaciji hrvaškega sistema avtorskega prava; vendar bo njegova polna učinkovitost odvisna od tega, kako se bodo njegove določbe uporabljale in razlagale v pravni praksi.
Downloads
References
'Agreement on the Protection of Performers’ Digital Rights Presented’ (2025, December 12). Večernji list. Available at: https://www.vecernji.hr (accessed 15 February 2026).
Angelopoulos, C. (2017). Hyperlinks and copyright infringement: The CJEU’s judgment in Svensson and its implications. The Cambridge Law Journal, 76(2), pp. 32-35. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197317000228
Appeal for the Protection of the Digital Market of Croatian Music (2023, March 20). HDU. Available at: https://hdu.hr/2023/03/20/apel-o-zastiti-digitalnog-trzista-hrvatske-glazbe/ (accessed 11 January 2026).
Copyright in Employment Relationships (2021, June 23). Porobija & Špoljarić Law Firm. Available at: https://www.psod.hr/objave/autorska-prava-u-radnom-odnosu (accessed 17 January 2026).
Bogdanović, D. (2017) Copyright and Libraries in the Digital Age, BOSNIACA, 22, pp. 77–83.
Copinger, W. A. and Skone, J. (1971) On Copyright. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
Deutscher Bundestag (2021) Gesetz zur Anpassung des Urheberrechts an die Erfordernisse des digitalen Binnenmarktes (Drucksache 19/27426). Available at: https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/274/1927426.pdf (accessed 5 February 2026).
Debroux, M. (2024) ‘Google and the French Neighbouring Rights Saga: The French Competition Authority Pulls Out All the Stops to Force Google to Better Remunerate Press Publishers and Agencies’. Available at: https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/competition-blog/google-and-the-french-neighbouring-rights-saga-the-french-competition-authority-pulls-out-all-the-stops-to-force-google-to-better-remunerate-press-publishers-and-agencie (accessed 9 January 2026).
‘Contested Provisions of the New Copyright and Related Rights Act’ (2023, November 10). eZadar. Available at: https://ezadar.net.hr (accessed 15 January 2026).
‘Details of the Opposition to the New Copyright Act: “We Are Fighting for Freedom of Choice and the Rights of Performers and Phonogram Producers”’ (2022, January 6). tportal. Available at: https://www.tportal.hr/kultura/clanak/donosimo-detalje-o-pobuni-protiv-novog-zakona-o-autorskom-pravu (accessed 22 January 2026).
Duraković, M. J. (2009) ‘Overview of the Development of Copyright Law in the Republic of Croatia with Emphasis on Changes Conditioned by Harmonisation with the EU Acquis’, Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Splitu, 46(3), pp. 613–630.
‘DZNAP Sent a Letter to the European Commission – Request for Verification of Compliance of the Copyright Act with EU Legislation’ (n.d.). Available at: https://dznap.hr/dznap-poslao-pismo-europskoj-komisiji (accessed 7 February 2026).
Griffiths, J. (2019). European Union copyright law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights—Advocate General Szpunar’s Opinions in (C-469/17) Funke Medien, (C-476/17) Pelham GmbH and (C-516/17) Spiegel Online. ERA Forum, 20(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-019-00560-2
Groom J. (2017). The Pirate Bay: CJEU rules that operating a torrent file indexing site is a communication to the public. Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, 12(12), pp. 965–968. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpx17
Grubešić, M. (2023, May 2) ‘A Brief Review of the New Copyright and Related Rights Act’. Croatian Authors’ Agency. Available at: https://haa.hr (accessed 16 February 2026).
‘Guidelines on Exercising Performers’ Rights on the Internet under the New Act’ (2021, December 13). HUZIP. Available at: https://www.huzip.hr (accessed 3 February 2026).
‘HDS Welcomes the New Copyright and Related Rights Act’ (2021, November 16). tportal. Available at: https://www.tportal.hr (accessed 27 January 2026).
Henneberg, I. (1983) Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works of 1886. Zagreb: Informator.
Henneberg, I. (2001) Copyright (2nd ed.). Zagreb: Informator.
‘History of Protection’ (n.d.). State Intellectual Property Office. Available at: https://dziv.hr (accessed 16 November 2022).
Horvat, A. and Živković, D. (2009) Libraries and Copyright. Zagreb: Croatian University Press.
Hubmann, H. (1984) Urheber- und Verlagsrecht: Ein Studienbuch (5th ed.). Munich: Beck.
Matanovac Vučković, R. and Begić, I. (2020) ‘The Context of Regulating the Related Right of Press Publishers in Directive (EU) 2019/790’, Zagrebačka pravna revija, 9(3), pp. 190–207.
Mezei, P. (2021). CJEU clarifies that framing infringes copyright if technological protection measures are circumvented. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 16(6), 461–463. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpab076
‘New Copyright and Related Rights Act Published’ (n.d.). State Intellectual Property Office. Available at: https://dziv.hr (accessed 18 January 2026).
Knežević, V. (2017). Orphan work. Available at: https://viktorijaknezevic.com/2017/12/07/djelo-siroce/ (accessed 2 February 2026).
‘Proposal Submitted for Constitutional Review of the Copyright and Related Rights Act’ (n.d.). Available at: https://dznap.hr (accessed 27 January 2026).
Quintais, J. P., & Angelopoulos, C. (2022). Online platforms and copyright liability after YouTube/Cyando: Article 17 DSM Directive in light of CJEU jurisprudence. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 17(6–7), 533–546. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpad027
Rebić, A. (2003) ‘Gutenberg’s Bible’, Bogoslovska smotra, 73(1), pp. 225–232.
Rosati, E. (2019). CJEU rules that copyright protection for designs only requires sufficient originality: Cofemel (C-683/17). Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 14(12), pp. 931-932. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpz130
Rosati, E. (2021) Copyright in the Digital Single Market, Article-by-Article Commentary to the Provisions of Directive 2019/790. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stanković, D. (2024) ‘The Concept of “Copyright Work” in the Case Law of the Court of Justice of the EU’. Available at: https://www.iusinfo.hr (accessed 10 February 2026).
Velagić, Z. and Hocenski, I. (2014) ‘Authorship in Croatian Copyright Laws from 1846 to 2007’, Libellarium, 7(2), pp. 231–252. https://doi.org/10.15291/libellarium.v7i2.204
Visković, N. (2006) Theory of State and Law (2nd ed.). Zagreb: Birotehnika.
Vučković, R. M. (2021, October 29) ‘What Does the New Copyright and Related Rights Act Bring?’ New Informator. Available at: https://informator.hr (accessed 13 January 2026).
ZAPRAF (2022) Annual Report. Available at: https://zapraf.hr (accessed 18 January 2026).
Legislation
Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Single Market [2019] OJ L 130.
Constitution of the Republic of Croatia (1990) Official Gazette 56/90 et seq.
Copyright Act (1957) Official Gazette FNRJ 36/57.
Copyright Act (1978) Official Gazette SFRJ 19/78, 24/86, 21/90.
Copyright and Related Rights Act (2003) Official Gazette 167/2003 et seq.
Copyright and Related Rights Act (2021) Official Gazette 111/21.
Electronic Commerce Act (2003) Official Gazette 173/03 et seq.
Act on Amendments to the Copyright Act (1993) Official Gazette 58/93.
Act on Amendments to the Copyright Act (1999) Official Gazette 76/99.
Act on the Protection of Copyright (1946) Official Gazette FNRJ, No. 45/46.
Act on the Protection of Literary and Artistic Property (1846).
Case Law
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia, Decision U-I-48/2022 (2024).
Court of Justice of the European Union. (2014a). Case C-466/12, Nils Svensson and Others v Retriever Sverige AB. ECLI:EU:C:2014:76.
Court of Justice of the European Union. (2016). Case C-160/15, GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV. ECLI:EU:C:2016:644.
Court of Justice of the European Union. (2017). Case C-610/15, Stichting Brein v Ziggo BV and XS4ALL Internet BV. ECLI:EU:C:2017:456.
Court of Justice of the European Union. (2019a). Case C-516/17, Spiegel Online GmbH v Volker Beck. ECLI:EU:C:2019:625.
Court of Justice of the European Union. (2019b). Case C-469/17, Funke Medien NRW GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland. ECLI:EU:C:2019:623.
Court of Justice of the European Union. (2019c). Case C-476/17, Pelham GmbH and Others v Ralf Hütter and Florian Schneider-Esleben. ECLI:EU:C:2019:624.
Court of Justice of the European Union. (2019d). Case C-683/17, Cofemel – Sociedade de Vestuário SA v G-Star Raw CV. ECLI:EU:C:2019:721.
Court of Justice of the European Union. (2021). Joined Cases C-682/18 and C-683/18, YouTube LLC and Cyando AG. ECLI:EU:C:2021:503.
Court of Justice of the European Union. (2021b). Case C-392/19, VG Bild-Kunst v Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz. ECLI:EU:C:2021:181.
Court of Justice of the European Union. (2022). Case C-401/19, Republic of Poland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union. ECLI:EU:C:2022:297.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 University of Maribor, University Press
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
© Univerza v Mariboru, Pravna fakulteta, Univerzitetna založba
Prosti pristop