Get charged to see your own news coverage? Yes you can

Court rules Newspaper Licensing Agency can charge organisations to see their own coverage.

Bit of a weird one, this. The High Court has ruled that anyone getting clippings of online newspaper articles should pay a licence fee to the Newspaper Licensing Agency - which is owned by eight of the UK's largest newspaper publishers - even if they can only see the headline of the story, the line of text where their company's brand appears and the link to the article.

Clippings service and news aggregator Meltwater News had argued that while it is happy to pay a licensing fee to the NLA itself, its customers should not be considered to be infringing copyright for simply seeing where their company is mentioned in online newspaper clippings.

Newspapers don't have to pay anything to brand owners when they write about them, of course. Which means Nike may have to pay to see where its name is used in newspapers, while newspapers can use Nike's brand for free to help drive readers, web traffic and hence advertising revenues.

But a judgement issued yesterday by Mrs Justice Proudman ruled that end-users who paid aggregator Meltwater News to distribute online newspaper content in the form of a news monitoring service should also obtain a license to do so from the Newspaper Licensing Agency (NLA).

Meltwater's CEO Jorn Lyseggen told the NS that while he was disappointed by the decision, the firm intends to appeal, and that the main focus should be on a forthcoming Copyright Tribunal decision which will rule on the reasonableness of the NLA's licensing terms for online content.

"This High Court issue is just something that the NLA threw up to get in the way [of the Copyright Tribunal]," said Lyseggen. "It's a disappointing verdict which has dramatic consequences for the UK Internet ecosystem."

As Lyseggen pointed out, the ruling means that in theory users of the Internet should obtain a license from the NLA to view copyrighted material even when it is not protected behind a 'pay-wall'. "A user reading a poem online that is copyright could mean they need to pay a license fee, even though it has been posted online free," said Lyseggen. "There are very serious consequences of this verdict."

David Pugh, managing director of the NLA, welcomed today's ruling. "We hope this ruling will help ensure a fair share of web monitoring revenue for publishers and a fair media monitoring market," he said.

"Creating news content for the web is a substantial investment for publishers - it is therefore only right that they take a share when others are profiting from it. We estimate the total UK market for online news monitoring to be worth around £10 million," said Pugh.

But Meltwater's Lyseggen was unmoved. "We will appeal this verdict, we think this verdict is a misinterpretation of copyright law. If this ruling stands it will be a significant step back for the UK Internet ecosystem," he said.

"If the court upholds this decision then we think the courts need to take a closer look at copyright law and see if it needs to be more up-to-date for today's world," said Lyseggen.

He also noted that Meltwater News would object less if the license fees that the NLA wants to charge end users were lower. "In principle if the court rules that there must be a license then although we disagree, that's one thing," said Lyseggen. "But the licence should reflect the small amount of copyrighted material being accessed."

Justice Proudman granted permission to appeal her decision; Meltwater's CEO says it will.

 

Jason Stamper is NS technology correspondent and editor of Computer Business Review.

 

 

 

Jason Stamper is editor of Computer Business Review

Daily Mail
Show Hide image

Who "speaks for England" - and for that matter, what is "England"?

The Hollywood producer Sam Gold­wyn once demanded, “Let’s have some new clichés.” The Daily Mail, however, is always happiest with the old ones.

The Hollywood producer Sam Gold­wyn once demanded, “Let’s have some new clichés.” The Daily Mail, however, is always happiest with the old ones. It trotted out Leo Amery’s House of Commons call from September 1939, “Speak for England”, for the headline on a deranged leader that filled a picture-free front page on David Cameron’s “deal” to keep Britain in the EU.

Demands that somebody or other speak for England have followed thick and fast ever since Amery addressed his call to Labour’s Arthur Greenwood when Neville Chamberlain was still dithering over war with Hitler. Tory MPs shouted, “Speak for England!” when Michael Foot, the then Labour leader, rose in the Commons in 1982 after Argentina’s invasion of the Falklands. The Mail columnist Andrew Alexander called on Clare Short to “speak for England” over the Iraq War in 2003. “Can [Ed] Miliband speak for England?” Anthony Barnett asked in this very magazine in 2013. (Judging by the 2015 election result, one would say not.) “I speak for England,” claimed John Redwood last year. “Labour must speak for England,” countered Frank Field soon afterwards.

The Mail’s invocation of Amery was misconceived for two reasons. First, Amery wanted us to wage war in Europe in support of Hitler’s victims in Poland and elsewhere and in alliance with France, not to isolate ourselves from the continent. Second, “speak for England” in recent years has been used in support of “English votes for English laws”, following proposals for further devolution to Scotland. As the Mail was among the most adamant in demanding that Scots keep their noses out of English affairs, it’s a bit rich of it now to state “of course, by ‘England’. . . we mean the whole of the United Kingdom”.

 

EU immemorial

The Mail is also wrong in arguing that “we are at a crossroads in our island history”. The suggestion that the choice is between “submitting to a statist, unelected bureaucracy in Brussels” and reclaiming our ancient island liberties is pure nonsense. In the long run, withdrawing from the EU will make little difference. Levels of immigration will be determined, as they always have been, mainly by employers’ demands for labour and the difficulties of policing the borders of a country that has become a leading international transport hub. The terms on which we continue to trade with EU members will be determined largely by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels after discussions with unelected bureaucrats in London.

The British are bored by the EU and the interminable Westminster arguments. If voters support Brexit, it will probably be because they then expect to hear no more on the subject. They will be sadly mistaken. The withdrawal negotiations will take years, with the Farages and Duncan Smiths still foaming at the mouth, Cameron still claiming phoney victories and Angela Merkel, François Hollande and the dreaded Jean-Claude Juncker playing a bigger part in our lives than ever.

 

An empty cabinet

Meanwhile, one wonders what has become of Jeremy Corbyn or, indeed, the rest of the shadow cabinet. The Mail’s “speak for England” leader excoriated him for not mentioning “the Number One subject of the hour” at PM’s Questions but instead asking about a shortage of therapeutic radiographers in the NHS. In fact, the NHS’s problems – almost wholly caused by Tory “reforms” and spending cuts – would concern more people than does our future in the EU. But radiographers are hardly headline news, and Corbyn and his team seem unable to get anything into the nation’s “any other business”, never mind to the top of its agenda.

Public services deteriorate by the day, George Osborne’s fiscal plans look increasingly awry, and attempts to wring tax receipts out of big corporations appear hopelessly inadequate. Yet since Christmas I have hardly seen a shadow minister featured in the papers or spotted one on TV, except to say something about Trident, another subject that most voters don’t care about.

 

Incurable prose

According to the Guardian’s admirable but (let’s be honest) rather tedious series celeb­rating the NHS, a US health-care firm has advised investors that “privatisation of the UK marketplace . . . should create organic and de novo opportunities”. I have no idea what this means, though it sounds ominous. But I am quite certain I don’t want my local hospital or GP practice run by people who write prose like that.

 

Fashionable Foxes

My home-town football team, Leicester City, are normally so unfashionable that they’re not even fashionable in Leicester, where the smart set mostly watch the rugby union team Leicester Tigers. Even when they installed themselves near the top of the Premier League before Christmas, newspapers scarcely noticed them.

Now, with the Foxes five points clear at the top and 7-4 favourites for their first title, that mistake is corrected and the sports pages are running out of superlatives, a comparison with Barcelona being the most improbable. Even I, not a football enthusiast, have watched a few matches. If more football were played as Leicester play it – moving at speed towards their opponents’ goal rather than aimlessly weaving pretty patterns in midfield – I would watch the game more.

Nevertheless, I recall 1963, when Leicester headed the old First Division with five games to play. They picked up only one more point and finished fourth, nine points adrift of the league winners, Everton.

 

Gum unstuck

No, I don’t chew toothpaste to stop me smoking, as the last week’s column strangely suggested. I chew Nicorette gum, a reference written at some stage but somehow lost (probably by me) before it reached print.

Editor: The chief sub apologises for this mistake, which was hers

Peter Wilby was editor of the Independent on Sunday from 1995 to 1996 and of the New Statesman from 1998 to 2005. He writes the weekly First Thoughts column for the NS.

This article first appeared in the 11 February 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The legacy of Europe's worst battle