Watching illegal live content on TV was still widespread in Germany in 2022 and has increased in recent years, according to a new study consulting and research group Goldmedia compiled for industry association VAUNET.

A total of 5.9 million people regularly watched illegal live TV streams in Germany in 2022, according to the study. In most cases, live TV piracy replaces the use of legal TV services. The main live TV genres watched illegally are drama, sports and documentaries.

As a result, the media companies affected by piracy lose annual revenues totalling €1.1 billion, according to the study. The overall loss of revenue when upstream and downstream stages of the value chain are taken into account amounts to €1.8 billion annually. In return, the state loses taxes and social security contributions totalling around €390 million every year.

“The results of the study clearly show that the illegal consumption of live TV signals remains a mass phenomenon with serious economic and social consequences. Once again, we therefore appeal to the government and regulators: Live content needs live protection on the internet. We see no clear sign of support from Brussels or the German government, and demand changes be made promptly,” said Frank Giersberg, Managing Director of VAUNET.

According to the study, the amount of illegal use has increased since 2018. In 2022, 72% of those streaming live TV illegally did so at least once a week, up from 54% in 2018. The largest group is men aged between 24 and 33. However, use of illegal live TV streams was observed among the entire population between 24 and 63, the share of older users rising particularly strong in comparison to 2018. On average, those watching illegal linear TV streams in 2022 did so for an average of around 73 minutes per day.

The devices most commonly used were smartphones, PCs and laptops, along with apps and software installed on streaming sticks and boxes. Compared to 2018, access to illegal live content using apps and software has increased rapidly. Over half of those watching illegal streams in 2022 did so in one of these ways (2018: 36%).

An English-language summary of the Television Piracy Study 2022/2023 can be downloaded as a PDF here.

  1. Source:


In the context of the work of the European Data Protection Board (EDPB), national Data Protection Authorities (DPA) presented their positions concerning the practice of cookie banners. While there does not seem to be a common European approach on all matters, all bodies agree that the wording ‘continue without accepting’ or ‘refuse’ does not constitute a valid alternative to granting consent, when it is the only other option and in the absence of sufficient visual support to draw the user to this choice. These positions do not prejudge DPAs’ decisions on each complaint regarding each websites.

Source: egta regulatory insider


CULT MEPs drafted their amendments to the European Parliament’s own initiative AVMSD implementation report. Among other interesting suggestions, amendments 43, 44 and 52 express the need for more regulatory symmetry between TV channels and VOD services, and video-sharing platforms when it comes to rules pertaining to advertising, while amendment 147 includes a call to the European Commission to act upon influencer marketing. The vote in this committee will not take place before the month of March 2023.

Source: egta regulatory insider


On 21 December 2022, Amendment to Act No. 121/2000 Coll., on Copyright and Related Rights and on Amendments to Certain Acts, as amended (the “Copyright Act” and the “Amendment”) was published in the Collection of Laws. The Amendment implements Directive (EU) 2019/789 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules on the exercise of copyright and related rights applicable to certain online transmissions of broadcasting organisations and retransmissions of television and radio programmes (the “OSC Directive”) and Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (the “DSM Directive”).

The Amendment reflects the wording of the first amendment to the Copyright Act prepared by the Ministry of Culture in November 2020. While the OSC and DSM Directives have already been partially implemented in our current legislation, the remaining new rules will be incorporated by the Amendment. Apart from major innovations, such as new types of statutory licences or stricter rules and liability for online platform providers, the Amendment also brings some controversies and vague solutions to some copyright issues and situations.

The following article specifies how the protection of the rights of publishers of press publications is being extended, what the new stricter rules and responsibilities for providers of certain online platforms are, or what new statutory licences should be taken into consideration.

Use of copyright-protected content to share content online

One of the significant changes is the tightening of rules for providers of online content sharing services. The providers have additional obligations and conditions to govern their liability for unauthorised communication of work to the public, i.e. liability for content illegally uploaded by users to their servers. These are providers of certain online platforms used to store and publish a wide range of content where the provider arranges and promotes such user-uploaded content for profit (such as Ulož.to and similar servers). These providers (as defined in the amended wording of Section 46 of the Copyright Act) will have to make their best efforts to obtain the relevant licence for the protected content, and also to immediately prevent access to the work or remove it from their websites upon reasonable notice from the author of the content, and to make their best efforts to prevent its re-upload. Simply put, the provider must not only delete the content reported in this way but also ensure that it is not re-uploaded in the future. The Amendment further specifies these obligations and determines the factors that will be taken into account when assessing whether or not a provider has complied with their obligations.

Minor providers offering these services for less than 3 years and having an annual turnover of less than EUR 10,000,000 are not subject to these new obligations in full: they will not have to deal with preventing the re-uploading of the work in the future but will only have to delete it after notification.

Greater protection of publishers’ rights

Another significant novelty, and a closely monitored change, is the establishment of new rights of publishers of press publications, representing the implementation of somewhat problematic Article 15 of the DSM Directive into the provisions of Section 87b of the Copyright Act. Pursuant to this Section, online service providers are obliged to maintain a fair, equitable and non-discriminatory approach towards the publisher of the press publication when negotiating the granting of the authorisation to exercise the right to use the press publication and to pay a reasonable remuneration to the publisher for the granting of the authorisation to exercise the right to use the press publication.

The existing legislation has encouraged unfair behaviour and practices on the part of large providers, especially multinational companies such as Google, Facebook or Apple, that could in fact legally parasitize the copyright-protected content of media houses and publishers. For example, providers displayed previews of protected publications on their servers, accompanied by advertising from which they benefited but without providing any remuneration to the publishers of the content. This practice will no longer be possible from the effective date of the Amendment, and providers will have to agree with copyright holders (or a collective manager) on the legal treatment of the remuneration and the licence under which they will publish even previews of protected content. Copyright protection under the Amendment will last for two years from the date on which the relevant publication is published.

It is no secret that the operators of large digital platforms are generally unwilling to negotiate licensing agreements, trying to circumvent the rights of publishers in every possible way. An example from abroad, namely France – one of the first Member States to impose this new obligation on providers – may serve as an illustration. Google tried to get around this obligation by giving the publisher a choice: either it would license Google to publish the articles for free, or Google would not offer the publisher’s articles in its search at all. The Antitrust Authority found this to be an abuse of dominance and ordered Google to agree a remuneration with the publishers. Nevertheless, the outcome of the agreement between Google and the publishers’ representatives was not exactly favourable for the publishers, according to many opinions.

Problematic concepts

The Amendment (unfortunately copying the DSM Directive in this respect) contains rather problematic and vague wording. Under Section 87b (8) of the amended Copyright Act (see above) “the right to use a press publication shall not apply to the use of single words or very short extracts from a press publication and to the insertion of hyperlinks”. Unfortunately, neither the Amendment nor the DSM Directive specify what constitutes “a short extract”. According to the Explanatory Memorandum, this concept will be interpreted on a case-by-case basis, in line with the ethos of the DSM Directive, which seems rather problematic, especially in the context of potential litigation before the court, and not conducive to the legal certainty that all legislative efforts should aim for. In this respect, the DSM Directive has not fulfilled its purpose of unifying the legislation of the Member States, more or less delegating to them the responsibility to ensure at least a minimum level of legal certainty for the right holders and service providers as well as for the users. Unfortunately, unlike France or Germany, Czech legislation has not responded to this issue, failing to provide any specification of the vague terminology.

Another rather fundamental deficiency of the Amendment is the so-called extended collective management (provisions of Section 97e et seq. of the amended Copyright Act), which will operate in an opt-out mode where the collective manager will represent all right holders unless they explicitly opt out. The above shortcomings open up a very wide scope of issues for potential litigation.

New statutory licences

On the other hand, there are several benefits that the Amendment brings, comprising a number of new statutory licences allowing, inter alia, easier access to otherwise copyright-protected content for educational and cultural purposes:

Licences for automated text or data analysis – data mining

Automated analysis of texts or data occurs during data mining (the process of extracting data from a digital master). This process subsequently provides information about the interrelationships and correlations within the data. This information is usually further used not only for scientific but especially for commercial purposes. These analyses are also conducted for copyright-protected works (because it is an automated activity). The Amendment is intended to strengthen legal certainty for authors and copyright holders, as well as for miners, who until now have been operating in a “legal fog” without clear definitions and boundaries. The new licence to reproduce a work for the purpose of automated analysis of texts or data provided for in Section 39c of the Copyright Act aims to clearly define these boundaries and to strengthen legal certainty for all stakeholders.

The Amendment also stipulates special licences for scientific institutions, e.g. universities conducting scientific research as part of their activities, certain legal entities that meet the statutory conditions, and cultural heritage institutions (specified in more detail in Section 39d of the amended Copyright Act). If they make a reproduction of the work specifically for text and data mining for the purposes of scientific research, these institutions will not interfere with copyright under the circumstances.

Licence for the use of a work not available on the market

According to the conditions set out in the amended provision of Section 37b of the Copyright Act, an institution of cultural heritage (such as a museum, archive, etc.) will be able to communicate to the public or reproduce a work unavailable on the market that is in the institution’s collection for non-commercial purposes without infringing copyright. The institution will have to provide the name of the author, if known, as well as the title of the work and the source. The author of the work will be able to object to such disclosure or reproduction (even in advance).

Licence for digital learning

Another improvement is the possibility for schools and other educational institutions to use works that are otherwise protected by copyright for illustrative purposes in teaching free of charge under the conditions set out in the amended provision of Section 31a of the Copyright Act. This should not apply to works that are primarily intended for educational purposes and to sheet music or musical and musical-dramatic works.

Licence for pastiche

The Amendment also modified the provision of Section 38g of the Copyright Act (licence for caricature and parody), according to which the copyright will not be interfered with by those who use the work for the purposes of pastiche, i.e. an artistic work that creatively imitates the style or elements of the work, or the work of another artist or artists.

Like any exception to copyright protection, the new statutory licence for pastiches is subject to the test specified in Section 29 of the Copyright Act (i.e. even in this case there must be no conflict with the normal use of the work or unreasonable prejudice to the legitimate interests of the author).

Ancillary online broadcaster services

The Copyright Act newly regulates the so-called ancillary online services of the broadcaster (see Section 21a of the Copyright Act). These services will include simultaneous (parallel) broadcasting, catch-up viewing options and other supplementary broadcasting materials, such as trailers or reviews of the broadcast show. The country of origin principle will apply between broadcasters and copyright holders (or the collective manager, as these services are covered by the newly introduced extended collective management – see above); unless otherwise agreed, the use of the work will be deemed to take place in the territory of the EU/EEA Member State in which the broadcaster’s headquarters are located.


The DSM Directive and the subsequent Amendment to the Copyright Act were adopted to extend and strengthen the rights of copyright holders, to limit the exploitation of loopholes by large internet companies, and to improve the accessibility of copyright-protected works for meritorious purposes such as education and scientific work. One of the primary objectives was to provide better and fairer legal treatment of the issue of remuneration and protection of authors’ and publishers’ rights in the online environment. Innovative institutes and procedures are being introduced in an effort to straighten out the current internet environment and make it more predictable and fair, as it is an area that is constantly expanding in both its content and its reach, and in general, the agenda relating to the internet and internet platforms is becoming more and more complicated.

However, the Amendment was rather unfortunate in addressing some of the newly introduced institutes and concepts, failing to provide sufficiently clear definitions and frameworks of obligations; as such, in addition to the warm welcome from, for example, publishers, the Amendment raises quite justified concerns, especially from internet service providers. It remains to be seen how these controversies (in particular insufficient, vague or even absent definitions) will be addressed in practice. However, we can optimistically summarise that the changes introduced in this form and the move towards a comprehensive and coherent EU-wide copyright protection system are a step in the right direction.


Mgr. Tereza Dvořáková,

JUDr. Tadeáš Petr,

PEYTON legal advokátní kancelář s.r.o.

Futurama Business Park
Sokolovská 668/136d
186 00 Praha 8 – Karlín

Tel.: +420 227 629 700



Prima will bet on the prediction of election results this year, too, the invitation for Andrej Babiš still stands. CNN Prima News also wants to use the projection of the election results before the final count in this year’s presidential elections. Its editor-in-chief Pavel Štrunc considers it a factor that makes the broadcast more attractive and distinguishes it from the competition.

Just like in the 2021 parliamentary elections, CNN Prima News wants to use predictions of the election results in this year’s presidential elections to provide viewers with determinative information before the competition. In an interview, CNN Prima News editor-in-chief Pavel Štrunc explains why this move is important for the Prima Group.

So far, CNN Prima News has broadcast the first of the main presidential debates, inviting six presidential candidates who are in fourth to ninth place in terms of preference. The debate was also broadcast on the main TV Prima channel. It will repeat the same model for the second of the debates, which is scheduled for Wednesday 11 January. It is reserved for the three leading candidates, but apparently only two of them will make it. Andrej Babiš has so far only confirmed his participation in the debate on TV Nova. „Our invitation to Andrej Babiš still stands. But if he does not come, I believe that the debate between the two candidates will be very interesting,“ Pavel Štrunc estimates. He considers mastering a TV debate to be a key media skill that can indicate a lot to voters. „Standing in front of a live audience in the light of ramps is not easy. Today, voters have a number of options where they can bump into candidates, but the televised debate is still the most important test,“ he adds.

CNN’s Prima News and Prima aired the first of the presidential candidates’ debates on Wednesday, January 4. It pitted the candidates who are now polling in fourth to ninth place. Right at the beginning, one of the candidates, Pavel Fischer, complained that the division of the candidates into two groups creates two categories of candidates. How did you select the candidates for the debates?

We are strictly based on data and we stick to public opinion polls. They clearly show a lead for the top three candidates and then the next group of candidates comes out of that. That’s why we decided to give space in our first debate to all candidates outside the leading three. As a commercial broadcaster, we could have easily invited only three candidates to the first debate, which we did not do. We gave space to all of them, both in prime time on CNN Prima News and on the main Prima channel. All the candidates knew the concept of our broadcast long in advance and no one opposed it.

Were you prepared to bring other candidates into the debate if there were more than nine candidates in total?

We were really responsible, we were waiting for the Supreme Administrative Court to decide and we were ready to have these candidates in the studio. If it turned out that the differences in the candidates’ preferences were smaller than what the current data shows, we would address that in cooperation with STEM analysts. We were prepared to take the court’s decision into account on the day of the debate. Similarly, we are currently prepared for the possibility that Andrej Babiš may appear on Wednesday’s Superdebate.

So your concept of the election broadcast is based on research from the STEM and Stem/Mark agencies?

We have election models primarily from these two agencies. The sample of respondents exceeds two thousand, which is an above-average number. Even one of the surveys had over two and a half thousand respondents. It was not cheap to get these surveys, but we wanted to invest in them so that we could rely on the data. In addition, we take into account results from other agencies.

What did the first debate show you? Is there anything you would like to change in the second debate, which will be broadcast on Wednesday 11 January and to which the leading three are invited according to their current preferences?

We’re happy with the results of the first debate, it’s the first presidential election for CNN Prima News. In the 2018 presidential election, the Prima debate was only broadcast before the second round, and on the main channel, because at that time CNN Prima News was not yet broadcasting. We haven’t had a presidential election to that extent yet. On the other hand, we have already had experience from the parliamentary and local elections, which we did differently, and I dare say that we passed this test as well. When we broadcast our first debate on Wednesday 4 January, we had a lot of competition from other TV stations in the form of the film Bábovky, and especially in the semi-final match between the Czech junior hockey team and Sweden. The total viewership on both channels of over half a million viewers is decent from our point of view and perhaps more importantly, the viewership grew during the debate.

We were prepared to take the court’s decision into account on the day of the debate. Similarly, we are currently prepared for the possibility that Andrej Babiš may appear on Wednesday’s Superdebate.

Will you change the dramaturgy for the second debate?

We will not change anything, the dramaturgy and production will remain the same. However, there will definitely be more space for the presidential candidates to react to each other so that it is really a debate and not just a series of monologues. Again, we are trying to be data-driven, and that’s why the connection with STEM is important to us, not only for the electoral models, but also for describing the social trends that we open the debate with. That’s why a part of the programme is based on the presentation of data and facts and we want to stick to that.

Based on Andrej Babiš’s statement last week, it looks like he will not be joining your debate. Do you think you will welcome a pair or a trio of candidates in the studio this week?

Our invitation to Andrej Babiš still stands. I consider the debate between the three candidates to be sufficiently dignified, data-driven and interesting. If Andrej Babiš does not arrive, I also see the debate between the two candidates as very worthwhile. It is a contest for the highest constitutional post. After all, President Zeman has also spoken about the importance of the presidential television debates. I also hear from colleagues who have come to us from the print or online media that the reaction in live television broadcasts is the most demanding test of the candidates. It would be a shame, in my view, if viewers were deprived of that experience.

If there are only two candidates in the studio, it could be a test before the second round, where a pair of candidates also clash.

I don’t want to completely reveal the second round, because we’re going to have something extra for the second round that will give the audience a hint of how the candidates are able to respond. I’m not going to give it away just yet, but I can say that it’s definitely not going to be a test of school encyclopedic knowledge.

Why do you see televised debates as the most important of media outlets?

It is a live broadcast with a large audience in front of the screens and also in front of a live audience in the studio. It’s different from the various interviews on the internet, social media, although I’m a big fan of them too and rate some of these formats as great. However, in terms of the demands that are placed on the candidates during the interviews, the televised debate is the highest because the candidates have to withstand a lot of pressure within a couple of seconds.

In terms of the demands that are made on the candidates in the interviews, the televised debate is the best because the candidates have to withstand a lot of pressure within a couple of seconds.

How do you select the studio audience? For some candidates, their supporters were more vocal in the first debate. Doesn’t that affect the overall dramaturgy and tone of the debate?

The number of seats in the studio is strictly divided between the candidates and their supporters. Each candidate can bring a certain number of supporters, so it is all about the candidates’ cooperation with them. We are prepared to ask the audience to quieten down if necessary, but there was no reason to do so in the first debate.

This year Prima is also giving the audience the opportunity to express their sympathy by sending in their votes for the candidates. How many voters took part in the first debate?

It was about 25,000 voters, and it is important to add that each voter must first register and then can vote. They only have the option of one vote, just like in the case of texting. It is strictly controlled. If we left the voting open without registration, the interest would be many times greater, but we do not want to remove the registration requirement.

What do you expect the viewership to be? Could it be more than double compared to the first debate? The main candidates will compete this time…

The important thing has been said, the main candidates, who have not met each other much in debates so far, will compete. That is why I believe that the ratings will be very good. I don’t want to make any more predictions.

Will Wednesday’s result be affected by the Czech Television debate, which was broadcast on Sunday 8 January?

I believe that it will only increase interest in our next pre-election debate, especially in the two main candidates. There is still a lot of time before Saturday, when the polls close, and the candidates are becoming more and more defined against each other. I’m glad we have the opportunity to be as up-to-date as possible in the debate.

The big debates on CNN Prima News and TV Prima are accompanied by a studio audience. Have you considered changing that approach for the presidential election?

It is a characteristic feature for us to have viewers as close to our broadcast as possible, so we want to invite them to our studio. We haven’t considered changing that.

But this time the audience did not ask questions in the studio. Will that remain the case for future presidential debates?

Normally we give our audience that opportunity, but for the presidential election we decided that only our host Terezie Tománková would ask questions.

You are the only TV station that works with predicting the election results in your broadcasts. You said you want to use them in this year’s presidential election as well…

Our cooperation with STEM and Stem/Mark is working well and the predictions we published in the parliamentary election came out perfectly. When about 60% of the votes were counted and ANO was still in the lead, STEM and Stem/Mark analysts were already pointing to an upward trend for ANO and saying that it would win the election. We would like to repeat something like this in the presidential election. Predictions are based on data and we take it responsibly. It opens up more possibilities for our election coverage. The moment we know which candidate will advance or become president, we can adjust our broadcasts accordingly.

I wouldn’t compare this year’s presidential broadcast to 2018. On Prima today, the debates are prepared by a completely different team and the concept of the broadcast is also different.

Isn’t the use of predictions risky?

We take a lot of inspiration from the American CNN, where they work with the phenomenon of !swing states” (states with balanced support for both candidates, ed.). The state in which a candidate wins can be used to infer whether he or she will become president. In cooperation with STEM, we have also selected cities and regions that, if a candidate dominates, are very likely to become president. You might argue that we don’t have a 200-year tradition of presidential elections, but we have gone through a lot of data with a research agency, not only from presidential elections but also from parliamentary elections, to determine this. We will be broadcasting from the studio all day on Saturday, January 14 and Saturday, January 28, and our goal is to convey information to viewers as clearly and comprehensibly as possible, so we are not planning any outside broadcasts. Of course, we are trying to reach audiences across the entire television spectrum, including viewers of Czech Television. We are interested in every viewer and we believe we have something to offer them because we will show something different again. And that’s not a platitude.

Alongside the election result predictions, this year you will also use an interactive technological aid, known as the “Prima Pencil”, which the presenter uses to present the data and show it on a map.

We are trying to incorporate it more into our regular broadcasts as well, as it helps us to better illustrate the course of events and their context. The presenter Petr Suchoň will use this technology to convey information to the audience and his role will be the same as in the local elections. He will focus on interesting details and look into the history of elections in individual towns or villages. We will bring interviews and analysis from all the election staffs, supplemented by information from social networks.

During the last presidential election, CNN Prima News was not yet on the air, but the debate between Miloš Zeman and Jiří Drahoš before the second round of the election was watched by 2.3 million viewers on TV Prima’s main channel, making it the most watched programme in TV Prima’s history. Some commentators have described it as a “debate with a lot of shouting”, will it be different this year?

I wouldn’t compare this year’s presidential broadcast to 2018. On Prima today, the debates are prepared by a completely different team and the concept of the broadcast is also different.


PAVEL ŠTRUNC, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, CNN PRIMA NEWS: He has been the editor-in-chief of CNN Prima News since September 2020 and has worked for Prima TV news since 2012. He has also gained experience at ČT24 and Z1 news TV. He hosted his own show Štrunc! on the website.




The Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic has proposed an amendment to the Act on Advertising Regulation (Act No. 40/1995 Coll., as amended) to regulate the advertising of nicotine sachets. The main objective is to protect children and adolescents from the effects of the use of nicotine sachets, in particular by reducing their attractiveness by regulating the content and location of advertising. 

The amendment is also intended to level the playing field for the sale of nicotine-containing products intended for normal use. Since nicotine sachets are a relatively new product with addictive potential on the market, advertising of these products has not been regulated to date. The aim of the amendment is to introduce effective regulation of advertising, particularly with regard to the impact of advertising on children and adolescents.



Last year, czech TV stations delivered a comparable volume of advertising GRPs as the year before.

Domestic TV stations delivered a comparable number of GRPs in the advertising TV market in 2022 as in 2021 (-0.7%). Media Club and Nova Group remain the strongest business networks in terms of delivered GRPs, Atmedia achieved the highest year-on-year increases at the level of percentage units last year. This is shown by Nielsen Admopshere monitoring data.

Investments in TV advertising grew again last year, according to raw data from Ad Intel monitoring, and most TV stations dealt with the filling of advertising space. The monitored data for the year 2022 is not yet closed, but by the end of last November, i.e. for eleven months of the year, the year-on-year dynamics exceeded the level of 10%.

Nova and Prima stations delivered the most GRP last year, followed by Prima Max, Prima Krimi, Nova Cinema, Prima Cool and Nova Fun. In addition to the new stations where the year-on-year increase in GRP is essentially high (Prima Star, Prima Show and Nova Lady), the year-on-year increase in the volume of delivered GRPs was the most on CNN Prima News and Televizi Seznam.

Share of business networks in delivered GRPs in 2022

In terms of viewership, Czech Television is among the two strongest commercial entities. In its case, the volume of advertising is significantly limited by law, therefore its share in delivered GRPs is low.

Media Club (stations of the Prima, Barrandov, Óčko group and some thematic stations) became the strongest entity in all-day and evening viewership in the target group 15+ and in all-day viewership 15-69. Nova group stations were strongest in the 15-54 category (valid for all day and prime-time) and in prime-time 15-69. Given that Media Club also represents Atmedia stations, its share increases when calculating Atmedia’s share of the highest values in all-day and evening viewership in 15+ and 15-69. The Nova group is strongest in all-day and evening viewership 15-54.



Amendment to the Copyright Act introduces the “notice & stay down” principle for online content-sharing service providers.

On 5 January 2023, an amendment to the Copyright Act (Act No. 121/2000 Coll., on Copyright and Related Rights and on Amendments to Certain Acts, as amended) came into force. It was published in the Collection of Laws on 21 December 2022 under No. 429/2022. The amendment was prepared under the charges of the Ministry of Culture of the Czech Republic. It implemented the not yet adopted provisions of Directive (EU) 2019/789 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules on the exercise of copyright and related rights applicable to certain online transmissions of broadcasting organisations and retransmissions of television and radio programmes, and Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (the “DSM Directive”).

In addition to the Copyright Act, related legislation was amended, in particular the relevant provisions of the Civil Code (Act No. 89/2012 Coll., as amended). The new legislation therefore introduced into the Czech legal system a new EU regulation of copyright and rights related to copyright, which had not been included in the national legislation at all or only partially. The amendment thus introduced, among other things, new statutory licences, new obligations for online content-sharing service providers, licence fees for commercial use of articles, regulation of collective management and, last but not least, regulation of licences, including new reporting obligations.

The significant changes introduced by the amendment comprise the new obligations imposed on online content-sharing service providers in connection with the communication of works to the public (with exceptions stipulated by law for small providers), i.e. the transition from the “notice & take down” regime to the “notice & stay down” regime. In principle, prior to the amendment, platforms and repositories, i.e. online content-sharing service providers, were not liable for the presence of a copyright-protected work on their platforms and repositories without the author’s consent until the author brought the defect to their attention. After that, the work had to be removed in order for the provider to be exempt from liability.

However, this principle has fundamentally changed with the amendment, as these providers must now make their best efforts to obtain a licence for legally protected content. Similarly, providers are obliged to make the work inaccessible or remove it from their websites immediately after receiving a sufficiently substantiated notification from the author of the unauthorised communication of the work to the public. Only if they meet the obligation, they are not liable for unauthorised communication of the work to the public. The “notice & stay down” principle should thus strengthen the protection of the legitimate interests of copyright holders.