Visit speed website Wadd's PR and Media blog home
July 27th, 2011 by Wadds

Court of Appeal finds in favour of NLA but web licensing debate goes on

Another chapter closed today in the on-going case between Meltwater and the PRCA versus the Newspaper Licensing Authority (NLA). But the arguments are far from over yet.

The UK Court of Appeal issued a ruling upholding the original High Court judgement in favour of the NLA in November 2010. The court confirmed that commercial consumers of web content need a licence from the publisher to view content.

Web licences
In the case of UK newspaper publishers licences are issued by the NLA. Conceivably other licensing agencies could be created to police niches on the internet where web content is shared for commercial gain.

The Court said that the technological process of displaying a web page on a computer is not exempt from copyright.

“This positive interpretation of UK copyright law provides legal clarity and certainty for all players in the market,” said David Pugh, managing director, NLA.

“Publishers can be sure of fair royalties for the use of their content, suppliers of paid-for online monitoring services will benefit from a level playing field and clients of such services know that their licence provides a simple way to guarantee compliance with the law,” he added.

Meltwater and the PRCA are seeking permission to appeal this decision to the UK Supreme Court.

Personal versus commercial
The issue remains between commercial monitoring and personal usage. Google as a consumer search engine falls outside the NLA licence scheme.

“The NLA has dodged taking on Google because of size. Any solution that excludes Google is ignoring its massive presence in the industry,” said Ingham.

The story will continue at the Copyright Tribunal in September when Meltwater will seek a ruling on the fairness of the NLA’s licensing scheme.

“We are confident that the Copyright Tribunal will rule the NLA licensing scheme is over-reaching and unreasonable,” said Jorn Lyseggen, CEO, Meltwater.

In the meantime if you’re an agency or company that uses a commercial monitoring service such as Meltwater you’d be well advised to set aside fees for when the NLA comes seeking backdated settlements.

“We’ve advised PRCA members to set aside fees from the outset,” said Ingham.

You can calculate the likely cost to your organisation by using the NLA Web Fee Calculator. By my reckoning a 10-person agency sharing 100 links a week should expect to pay £300 per year, while a 50-person agency sharing 500 links a week should expect to pay £1,260 per year.

Content costs but who pays?
The root of the challenge to the NLA licensing issue lies in its newspaper publisher members fooling us into thinking that their content is free on the internet. In the 90s business models were set aside in the race for eyeballs as newspaper publishers made their content available for free.

Steve Kuncewicz, social media and intellectual property lawyer at HBJ Gately Waring LLP has gone further in media interviews today. He told The Drum that the ruling is a bid by the newspaper industry to retain revenue while the traditional publishing model fails.

Ultimately this on-going case must surely hasten a review of intellectual property law in the UK. It’s a point that Kuncewicz makes to The Drum.

“There’s a widening chasm between how we use the internet and the law. We’ll look back at this debate in five or ten years’ time and it will be a tiny parenthesis in the history of copyright in the UK,” said Lyseggen.

Speed is a Meltwater customer and a member of the PRCA.

Related blog posts:

Enhanced by Zemanta
February 9th, 2010 by Wadds

Right2Link stink: Downing Street response required; NLA stands firm

On the day that David Cameron has promised to further democratise the legislative process, the Right2Link’s Downing Street e-petition calling for statutory protection for the right to link has clocked up 1,180 signatories.

It’s a long way from the 100,000 signatories that Cameron says will be required for an issue to be debated formally in the House of Commons but the issue continues to cause a stink and has passed the 500-threshold where it requires a response from Downing Street.

The move follows an amendment to the Digital Economy Bill tabled by Lord Lucas that would ensure “protection of the right to link to publicly available information on the internet.”

But the NLA’s managing director David Pugh said that he believed that Lord Lucas’ amendment was a bid to flush out views and is unlikely to become law.

“It is a fundamental principle of copyright that content owners can control the way in which their content is exploited. The market adequately addresses this issue already through website terms and conditions and licensing,” said Pugh.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
September 11th, 2009 by Wadds

NLA engages directly with critics

I was in the audience at The Guardian yesterday morning for a briefing with the NLA’s managing director David Pugh.

The NLA has received an onslaught of criticism since it announced that it would introduce a licence for web clippings from January 2010.

After yesterday’s briefing I firmly believe that the NLA has failed to communicate the rationale and remit of the new licence. Much of the negative comment results from misinformation and the NLA’s tradition approach to communications.

The NLA has briefed PR Week, the CIPR and the PRCA and responded directly to blog criticism. It frequently cites its eClips web site as the authoritative source of information on the topic and while it is exhaustive it isn’t the easiest site to navigate.

But after yesterday I believe that the NLA needs to work harder to take its message to its audience in a more accessible format. In social media parlance it needs to follow the conversations. And to be fair it has started to do this by arranging briefings such as yesterday’s session.

So what did we learn from the sesson? The web clipping licence is a bid by the NLA to recover a contribution from the after market for business-to-business web clippings. It isn’t a tax on web clippings or a bid to licence URLs.

The new web licences will cover digital content on national and local newspaper websites with the exception of the Financial Times and News International publications which have their separate licence requirements.

Clipping agencies such as Cision and Durrants, scrappers such as Meltwater, and PR agencies, all generate revenue from monitoring press coverage online. Clippings are a currency that drives the PR industry.

The NLA believes that newspaper publishers as the original producers of this content should receive a share of that income. The initiative is expected to raise up to £2 million per year for NLA members.

The PR industry has responded badly to the proposals in part because of poor communication on the part of the NLA, but also because it has a mindset that content from newspapers web sites is free.

In 18 months as newspaper publishers raise paywalls in front of their sites and content disappears from Google news searches this attitude will change.

Here lies the real issue of web copyright. The media industry’s approach to online is in turmoil. We have no way of knowing whether paywalls will work and how newspapers will manage their relationships with search engines.

In the meantime the NLA is making a bid to put a model in place to recover revenue for its members. As I have said previously ultimately the future health of the media and technology innovation will dictate the conclusion of this debate.

Neville Hobson interviewed David Pugh after yesterday’s session for a special edition of his For Immediate Release (FIR) podcast which he said he’ll likely post later today.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
August 27th, 2009 by Wadds

NLA responds directly to blog criticism

The NLA’s managing director David Pugh called me last week after I invited him via a blog post to discuss its new web clipping licence, set to be introduced in January 2010.

To be candid I had expected the NLA’s response to stop at a comment in response to my blog post and I appreciate Pugh taking the time to call. During a 20 minute conversation we discussed the rationale behind the new licence model.

I’ve already said that the objective of the new licence is laudable. The NLA to seeking the claw back a contribution from the after market for web clippings from its members’ intellectual property.

No one could argue that the newspaper industry is in very real trouble. Ad revenues have collapsed and circulation figures are down. We’ve all got friends on regional and national papers that have been laid off.

The NLA as custodian of its members’ intellectual property has watched over the last five years or so as clipping agencies such as Cision and Durrants and scrappers such as Meltwater have generated income by providing businesses with content from newspaper web sites.

PR agencies store and manipulate coverage from web sites on behalf of their clients and clients themselves record and store copies of web coverage.

The new web license is a bid to redress the balance and recover a contribution for its members in recognition of the benefit that commercial organisations gain from its members’ intellectual property. If you generate income from the reuse of newspaper content the NLA believes that you should make a contribution to the original producer. Fair enough.

This issue is not about licensing URLs; the PR industry has jumped on this headline because the NLA has failed to properly explain the issues that its members face and the rationale of the new licence.

The legal argument of commercial versus non commercial use of web content is sound and the licence stacks up in the context of the social web. If you are scrapping or recording content from a web site and not providing links back you should expect different terms from social web users.

But I maintain that retrofitting a licensing model on an open network is flawed and fraught with loopholes.

The NLA isn’t pursuing Google because it claims Google News is not a genuine substitute for a professional media monitoring service yet in my experience it is the PR industry’s frontline web clipping service.

Self-certification combined with ad hoc audits is the only way that the NLA will be able enforce the new licensing fee. The web licence will go ahead but technology will ultimately dictate the conclusion of this debate.

I applaud the direct approach by Pugh. He’s upped the ante and invited me to an open briefing session at The Guardian at 9am on 10 September. Why don’t you register via email and join us?

Related posts:

NLA furore continues (and an invitation to breakfast) – 18 August, 2009
NLA goes on the defensive over eClips charges as PRCA leads industry fight back
– 9 July, 2009

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]