Some time ago, RTSH (the Albanian Public Broadcaster) announced that it had launched its YouTube channel called “RTSH Archive.” The purpose of creating this channel, according to announcements that are still being broadcast today on RTSH television stations, is to enable viewers to have free, anytime access to RTSH’s extensive archive through an easy-to-use platform (a “user-friendly” one, as Anglophones would say).

The goal is commendable. The public should have the opportunity to see, hear, and understand that even in difficult times, there were meaningful efforts to build a solid popular culture that remains a point of reference today.

The problem lies in how easily RTSH interprets the concept of an archive. Basic logic would suggest that an archive consists of materials produced exclusively by RTSH or materials whose rights have legally been transferred to RTSH, either in ownership or administration. However, from RTSH’s announcement, it appears this is not the case. The RTSH Archive includes materials that are neither produced by RTSH nor under its administration, specifically films and theater pieces for which RTSH has no legal right to grant itself permission to broadcast, let alone digitize and make available to the public via YouTube.

From a legal standpoint, RTSH has communicated works to the public, in other words, it has exercised a prerogative reserved for rights holders. The question that arises is whether RTSH has acted in accordance with the law or has appropriated these rights under the principle that seems to prevail among Albanian broadcasters (OSHMA): “just because I can.” This behavior is common among Albanian broadcasters, but when initiated and practiced by RTSH, the fault is doubled.

I. Where does the violation lie?

The violation is evident, even if not immediately obvious to both specialists and normal people, and they are not entirely to blame. Unfortunately, as we exit the third decade of the 21st century, our broadcasters, who present themselves as major players, continue to sustain themselves by misusing and infringing copyright, thereby contributing to the ongoing chaos that harms authors and culture in general. However, let us briefly explain where the violation lies.

First, it must be understood that any action taken regarding a work (musical, audiovisual, literary, etc., as defined in Article 8 of Law No. 35/2016 on copyright) requires that the person performing the action has the legal right to do so. This right may derive from the law, but more commonly from a contract, such as a transfer of rights or a licensing agreement. No action should be taken without ensuring its legal validity. In this context, uploading materials to RTSH’s YouTube channel constitutes the right to making works available to the public, a right that belongs exclusively to authors (who may transfer it to a producer – for example, in the case of films – but only explicitly through a contract and in exchange for appropriate remuneration). In practice, RTSH behaves like an individual trying to succeed online by creating a YouTube channel and uploading content. However, the comparison fails: not only RTSH is a public entity with the obligation to show utmost diligence with respect to the material they share, but it also bound by the duty to uphold the law, which derive from the duty of any Broadcasters, including RTSH. Notwithstanding that, RTSH acts wrongfully by populating its channel with works created by other persons that were not related whatsoever with RTSH at the time of such creations. It should be noted that RTSH has not only launched “RTSH Archive,” but also “RTSH Films,” where films from the “Shqipëria e Re” film studio are made available, such as films administered by another entity, not RTSH. The same applies to music.

Second, the right to make works available to the public must be based on a clear legal act, namely, a contract through which the rights holder authorizes RTSH to perform such actions. Licensing departments handle meticulous and complex work, but ultimately, it ensures that broadcasters act lawfully and avoid civil and criminal liability. Yet here we return to the issue of the apparent untouchability of broadcasters, which allows them to act as they please.

Third, the use of the term “archive” creates confusion among the public. The word suggests that old tapes have been dusted off and are now being shared. In reality, these materials are not particularly old—one only needs to look at them. Furthermore, regardless of age, they are protected by copyright for up to 70 years after the author’s death. Finally, while the physical tapes may belong to RTSH, the works contained within them do not.

In fact, the issue goes beyond discussion over YouTube channels. RTSH broadcasts countless films and music pieces on its own channels without authorization or payment. This is well known, as the author of these lines deals with such matters daily. Complaining about YouTube violations while RTSH infringes rights on its own airwaves is like complaining about rain when you’ve already been battered by hail. Still, these issues must be raised loudly. Due to such irregularities and unlawful practices, Albania is not considered a reliable partner by YouTube for enabling video monetization. Not to mention the unethical behavior of those managing YouTube channels; but that is another matter.

II. What should be done?

Much needs to be done. One key step is changing the public sector’s overall approach toward authors. Public broadcasters, in particular, can play a valuable role in regulating the market and ensuring transparency in the use of works.

International copyright doctrine has, for over 25 years, emphasized the important role of public broadcasters in correctly implementing copyright law. In a difficult environment like that of audiovisual media services (OSHMA), authors struggle to enforce their rights. Broadcasters hold two major advantages: first, the lack of strong legal understanding about how rights are managed up to the point of broadcast; and second, their power to shape public opinion, which issomething widely recognized in practice and rarely challenged.

In this context, international practice has identified public broadcasters, often state-controlled, as institutions with a higher responsibility not only to promote culture and information but also to protect creators’ interests. Experience shows that progress in many countries has come from successful cooperation between three actors: the Ministry of Culture, the public broadcaster, and authors’ agencies. Together, they define how authorization and remuneration systems function. This cooperation does not solve all copyright issues but lays essential foundations that Albania urgently needs. Unfortunately, such institutional collaboration is still not visible on the horizon.

III. RTSH Archive is just a drop in the ocean of violations

We are discussing RTSH, but what about the “Big Three” (Top Channel, Klan, Vizion Plus) and the entire array of broadcasters and retransmitters operating in Albania? Saying that, as we leave the third decade of the 21st century, we are still at the level of the early 1990s would be an understatement.

The situation must change, and perhaps it is beginning to. Albania’s anticipated accession to the European Union may accelerate this transformation and bring all stakeholders into proper alignment with copyright law. However, without collective mobilization, this transition will be slow and not necessarily successful.

O.S.