Romania has implemented the Reproductions by Libraries, Archives & Museums (Art. 5.2(c) InfoSoc) exception in Article 35, para 1, (d) and (e) of the Law No 8/1996 on copyright and related rights. The national exception is slightly more restrictive than the EU exception.
Implementation summary:
These exceptions allow for the reproduction within libraries, museums, film libraries, sound libraries, archives of public cultural or scientific institutions, which operate on a non-profit basis i) of short extracts from works for information and research; ii) of a complete work, for its replacement, in case of destruction, serious damage or loss of the single copy from the permanent collection of the respective library or archive (art.35.1.d); iii) specific reproductions made by publicly accessible libraries, educational institutions or museums or by archives, which are not made for the purpose of obtaining a commercial or economic advantage, directly or indirectly (art.35.1.e).
Implementation details:
Beneficiaries:
- libraries, museums, film libraries, sound libraries, archives of public cultural or scientific institutions
Purposes:
- information and research
Usage:
- reproduction
Subject Matter:
- works
- performances
- phonograms
- film fixations
- broadcasts
Compensation:
- no compensation required
Attribution:
- no attribution required
Other Conditions:
- reproduction must cover short extracts from works (for information and research)
- reproduction of an entire work is permitted only for its replacement, in case of destruction, serious damage or loss of the single copy from the permanent collection of the respective library or archive
Introduced/last updated: 14 June 2018
Remarks: According to some commentators, art.35.1.d is the implementation of art. 5.3.n of the InfoSoc Directive. However, its first hypothesis concerning uses for the purposes of information and research only covers reproduction of short excerpts and does not mention in any way providing access to the public. It is not entirely clear what the relationship between the second hypothesis of art. 35.1.d. and art.35.1.d. is. The latter is clearly a literal implementation of art.5.2.c of the InfoSoc Directive, while the former represents an extremely restrictive approach to reproduction for preservation purposes by cultural heritage institutions. There is no known judicial interpretation available.
According to art. 120, the provisions regarding the limits of exercising copyright also apply accordingly to related rights. Under art. 134 they apply by analogy to broadcasting organizations.
