Copyrights and the Hyperlink Tax

Claire Thompson, freelance PR consultant, Waves PR

The UK’s Newspaper Licensing Agency (NLA) is trying to impose ‘cuttings’ fees on links to newspaper website content supplied by monitoring agencies. For most PR consultancies, this is old news – the fees were due to be applied on January 1, 2010. However, although licensing will proceed as planned from 1 January 2010, invoicing has today been officially suspended until a Copyright Tribunal process, instigated by Melwater, has concluded.

The NLA is owned by the eight national newspaper publishing houses and generates B2B revenues for 1,300 national and regional publishers through licensing use of their content by press cuttings agencies (PCAs) and their client companies. They define web monitoring services as ‘cuttings from newspapers or other websites generated by specialist software searching against specified keywords’.

However, on 16 December 2009, Meltwater News had refered this to the UK’s Copyright Tribunal. Meltwater is bravely challenging the NLA’s claim to be able to license hyperlinking, which Meltwater believes has no basis in English law.The NLA’s position by contrast is that organisations that make money from exploiting newspaper content need to be licensed by the publishers who own that content.

This is the bit that needs watching with care: if Meltwater is unsuccessful, expect the NLA to turn it’s sights on others. Like on-line specialists who constantly monitor across multiple sites. Of course, Murdoch has already turned his sights on both Google and Bing.

Small wonder that other agencies, like NewsNow are backing Meltwater.

It’s very easy to brush this off as a minor issue, one which only affects ‘old fashioned’ PR consultancies, but for anyone monitoring online presence, particularly if these sites adopt a more social approach, in the words of an old song ‘There may be trouble ahead’.

Meanwhile PR consultancies are faced with an issue: the NLA money clock is ticking, but the invoices aren’t, which means that a debt is accruing that will need paying in a lump sum at some point. Which makes budgeting a headache for consultants and their clients alike.

And you’ll have to trust me when I say that although PR salaries are high if compared to their journalist counterparts, at least in the early parts of their careers, PR consultancy is relatively low margin.

The answer may come in ‘Q2 2010′ when the NLA plans to launch its on link ‘cuttings’ database – eClips web. Presumably as it’s owned by the NLA, the licensing fee will be included, making it a straightforward option and cutting out the ’cuttings agencies’. Which although it seems like a safe, easy option in terms of guaranteeing compliance, also seems a little…. I’ll leave it to you to fill in the gaps.

Postscript: Tuesday January 12, 2010

The NLA has provided this link to information: http://www.nla-web.com

Tags: PR, public relations

communications, media, news, PR practise | claireatwaves | January 7, 2010 7:58 pm

8 Comments

By Newspaper Licensing Agency, January 12, 2010 @ 1:21 pm

Claire,
You are mistaken over our intentions with eClips web.
As context, eClips Web is an extension of the successful eClips service (for print titles) already used by over 30 media monitoring companies.
eClips web is a data feed service designed to give media monitoring services better access to website content – it plugs in directly to titles’ content management systems. So it will offer monitoring agencies and aggregators a faster, richer service, as well as an archive of website content.
It has been designed as a service for media monitors/aggregators and will cover around 1,000 national and local titles.

Second, we do not see the web licence as ‘licensing hyperlinking’ – it is a content charge. Aggregators copy and distribute newspapers’ copyright content for profit. It is reasonable for the owners of that content to ask for a fair share.

Third, we have been very clear who the licences apply to – providers and users of paid-for monitoring (i.e. b2b). Consumers, private individuals, are unaffected.

Fourth, Meltwater and NewsNow are exceptions in the monitoring industry, which is supportive. Press cuttings agencies and some aggregators like Moreover, are licensed and have kept their clients up-to-date. The trade body, the UK Media Monitoring Association, was happy to be quoted in our last press release.

Finally, the costs are far from prohibitive. Indeed, they have been set following an extensive year-long consultation with the wider industry. We expect the average end-user licence to be in the low hundreds of pounds per year. Licences for aggregators are either £5,000 or £10,000 per year, based on size and revenue.

There is lots of information, including a price calculator, on the dedicated NLA site on: http://www.nla-web.com. Please take a look.
By Claire Thompson, January 12, 2010 @ 3:29 pm

Thanks for responding Matt.

My biggest personal concern is the back charge. You’ve only stopped the invoices, not the billing clock.

For the rest, I personally have ambivalent feelings about the charging, and know some journalists are concerned about their rights – being paid for their work, which is being charged for.

The edges are very blurred around who’s an aggregator and I have some lingering concerns around halting innovation – for many bootstrapped developers looking at ways of monitoring/managing content, £5-10k annually for a small proportion of what’s out there is a huge additional business cost.

Am I right in thinking from your comments that e-clips is only for aggregators, not PR consultancies? If so, thanks for taking the time to clarify.

(BTW, I did look for info on the case on the NLA site before posting and didn’t find this info, so double thanks)
By Richard Ellis, January 12, 2010 @ 4:28 pm

Just reading Matt’s, I have a few comments.

First – I believe the NLA also intends to serve end users through it’s eClips service arguably anti-competitive if they are also serving the monitoring companies.

Second – everyone agrees that newspapers should be allowed to charge for content. The industry’s issue is with the way they are trying to do this.

Third point – the NLA’s approach is both greedy and underhand. Trying to restrict the ability of organisations to recieve clippings unless they sign up to an NLA digital licence is restrictive in unfair. If they want a fair share from the aggregators they should only charge the aggregators and leave end users alone.

Fourth point – I haven’t had particularly glowing reports from those in either the PR industry or the clippings industry about either the NLA or this latest proposal.

Finally – the prices may not currently be prohibitive but there has been little clarification or committment about future prices.

Rest assured the PRCA will continue to fight these ill-thought out proposals.
By Struan Bartlett, January 13, 2010 @ 12:07 pm

If the NLA is not licensing hyperlinking, then why is its “Media Monitoring Material: Commercial End User Licence” formulated in terms of charges for “links received”, “links retrieved” and “web pages displayed on screen”? Why does the Licence intend to restrict the user to being able to forward “only one copy” of a hyperlink, and then only to an “approved media evaluation advisor”? In the case of PR agencies, why does the “Licence” require the agencies to inform the NLA of the name and address of anyone to whom it forwards a hyperlink? To anyone who reads the “End User Licence”, it should be evident that the NLA is seeking to licence and restrict the acts of receiving, circulating and following links.

“Aggregators copy and distribute newspapers’ copyright content for profit” – the NLA fails to give consideration to fair use, or exceptions to copyright under UK law. Headlines and links are widely accepted not to be copyrightable. Hence any charges on end users for their receipt or circulation of headline links are unjustified and purport to licence what the end user is already free to do under the law.

“Meltwater and NewsNow are exceptions in the monitoring industry, which is supportive.”

This is not a reasonable contention. Quite the opposite. We believe there is wide support in the link aggregation industry for NewsNow and Meltwater’s position. Support from the traditional media monitoring organisations is irrelevant: it is a distinct industry. Of the link aggregation organisations that did sign the NLA contract, we believe most only did so because they felt they had no alternative: unwarranted technical blocks and/or continuing legal costs could see them put out of business. It should be noted that NewsNow and Meltwater are not the only members of the industry which support the Right2Link campaign.

“the costs are far from prohibitive”

They’re unjustified, so it would be irrelevant if they weren’t prohibitive; which of course they are. The cost of handing over one’s customer list to a potential competitor, that that refuses to offer guarantees to not compete, is by any measure prohibitive for any business. The NLA might assert that its intention is not to compete, but then it would say that wouldn’t it? The NLA’s assertions of its current intentions are legally worthless.
By David Phillips, January 14, 2010 @ 12:57 am

I am interested in the provision that the owners of the NLA have made for equitable treatment of owners of derivative works. In other words,will the NLA initiative also require publishers to acknowledge all the sources of content used in media stories in their publications with suitable ability to pay for the privilege of using someone else copyright. Very few stories, features and other articles in newspapers are original. They are but an extended view re-cast in prose by a journalist paid by a publisher (and these days not much and often freelance).

You see, it is now quite easy to trace provenance of such works online as I show here: http://leverwealth.blogspot.com/2009/12/its-going-to-be-hard-for-nla-to-make.html.

The NLA has opened the can of worms.

From now on,is it reasonable for the news publishers to have such extensive legal protection and so many rights which are not available to other publishers – many of whom break the stories before publication by NLA members?

Now we know so much about the provenance of stories published by NLA members, there would seem to be no good reason to continue to offer legal protection and privileges.

Under the new regime newspapers should reveal ALL their sources to avoid charges of plagiarism and copyright theft.

Using the software identified in the post above,it is possible to task publishers in court to prove that they and or their journalists did not use prior works. Tens of thousands of articles are now up for scrutiny.

Is this a bounty hunters dream?
By Peter Vezey, January 25, 2010 @ 3:50 pm

Lets put the NLA situation into perspective.

It was set up as a protection society to attack companies and consultancies mob handed with comissioned tele-sales staff, to bring in revenue for the UK’s ailing news industry. This was loosely disguised under a copyright scare. The NLA is the equivilant of the media mafia. Because papers cannot sell enough ad space at the price it wants and because it naturally doesn’t want to close publications, needs a new revenue stream. The NLA is that new income base using a semi-official sounding title (or front). This media should focus on its web news pages which could bring in far more revenue and leave the PR industry alone.

I am ashamed that the CIPR of which I am a member does not appear publicly to be doing much to defend the odd photocopy we might want to send around some staff at the client office or use on internal notice boards – I am not however supporting copying and putting it on a client websites.

The national media bullies funding the NLA forget that without the PR industry and associated promoters – record promoters, agents for stars and personalities etc – the organisations providing editorial and pictures they would be stuffed – they would need more staff to pay for the work we do for them. Don’t bite off the hand that feeds you.

This NLA situation is a farce that works like this – I give a publication information or finished copy and photos that is uses free of charge (no complaint as client pays me). I send photocopies of this same editorial to say 6 on the client’s board and can either get fined or have to pay a licence for this privilege. This is outrageous.

Trade press has the (don’t laugh please because it is so stupid) colour separations scam – seps no longer exist and the correct term is editorial payment fee or more accurately, editorial blackmail. Without this racket at least 50% of the trade press with no ABC figures and dubious unproven readership would disappear and that would be a good thing too. Those who deliver will get the advertising revenue and client budgets will not be diluted by a plethora of dodgey titles.

If the media backing the NLA suffers the same death as the unsuccesful trade media, tough. If it ain’t a marketable commodity without stealth charges then it ain’t worth having.

HERE IS ANOTHER SCAM

Changing the subject have you heard about the alleged trade and specialist publishers in the midlands area (maybe elsewhere too) that send ‘agents’ to all the NEC and other big show press offices? They return to their tele sales team with bags full of press releases for tele sales team to act on. You receive a call from Tracey or Sharon along the lines ‘Can I speak to the person in charge of your marketing?’ then they advise you they have received the press kit you sent them (lie no 1) and the rest is the usual trash about the editor chosing your story (lie 2), next lie is the circulation details etc and on it continues.

HEY HERE’S A GOOD ONE

When a dubious magazine I had never heard of (and actually never got launched) phoned me to pay for seps on a story they saw in another magazine and were going to copy (just think of the repro standard!!) I asked if they had an ABC figure the rep (probably a spotty 19 year old ex 2nd hand car salesman) advised me after a long wait for consulting his editor, advised me that his magazine went to a lot of ABC households in the area. Where do they get their staff? Car Salesman’s Weekly?