Enter a search term such as “mobile analytics” or browse our content using the filters above.
That’s not only a poor Scrabble score but we also couldn’t find any results matching
Check your spelling or try broadening your search.
Sorry about this, there is a problem with our search at the moment.
Please try again later.
Now, in the interests of balance, it's the NLA's turn to put its side of the case. I've been asking MD David Pugh about his reaction to the ruling, and whether the ruling does indeed criminalise normal web users.
What is the NLA's view on the Court of Appeal ruling?
The Court of Appeal has today unequivocally confirmed the ruling of the High Court that online newspapers are copyright protected. It has given a clear declaration that most (if not all) businesses subscribing to a media monitoring service that contains content from online newspapers require a licence.
We welcome this ruling and the clarity it provides for publishers, media monitoring agencies and their clients.
This positive interpretation of UK copyright law provides legal clarity and certainty for all players in the market. 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.
Why does the NLA think it is necessary to charge both Meltwater and their clients to license content?
Media monitoring agencies and PR agencies each make separate copies of publisher content and forward copies of that content to others for commercial gain. The publishers are entitled to charge a fee in respect of each of these copies. The Court of Appeal agreed.
Do you think the ruling potentially makes millions of web users into copyright offenders?
No. This ruling applies only to companies that make a living out of using newspaper web content for commercial purposes. Individuals browsing for personal reasons are not covered.
Given that links and sharing content is the 'lifeblood' of the internet, shouldn't newspapers be encouraging this, rather than seeking to license it?
They absolutely are doing so! But where there are commercial entities who make a living out of distributing content which newspapers have created and invested in, it is only right that they should pay a fair price for doing so.
If newspapers want to make money online, shouldn't they simply charge for content?
Some do, and that is their commercial decision. But all newspapers have an interest in getting a fair return from their investment in journalism, whether they charge directly or not. That is where the NLA comes in.
Why did NLA decide to introduce the licensing scheme for media monitoring sites?
The present licenses were introduced in 2010, and all but one of the major monitoring companies agreed to take out a license. But the idea of a license to copy newspaper content is not new.
Licensing of physical newspaper copying has existed since 1996 and has simply been extended to reflect the way in which technology has changed. What has not changed is the underlying principle behind the whole system: newspaper content is copyright, and the NLA exists to license those who use and distribute that content commercially.
How do you justify charging license fees for links to content that is freely available on the web?
There is nothing to stop people who want to search out content on the web for free – for example by using Google alerts. But in practice it makes sense for most organisations to use a commercial aggregator, and those – and their clients – are the people who derive an income from distributing newspaper material.
We ourselves have helped make this system work better by introducing eClips web, a service that allows licensed aggregators to scrape content directly from newspaper content management systems, resulting in a better, faster service for their clients.
How does this affect other means of sharing content? For example, this blog may link to articles from news sites, yet we make money from ads and subscriptions. Are we exempt? If so, why?
NLA licences cover businesses (like Meltwater) that charge subscribers to receive media monitoring reports – and the clients who pay for those services.
Google/Yahoo/Bing do not charge – and publishers have reserved the right to have a direct commercial relationship with them (i.e. NLA licences do not apply).
Your business does not appear to use publishers’ content in a comparable way and therefore charges would not be applicable. If in doubt you can ask the publishers!
What are your typical charges?
End user licences start at £58 and average £500 pa to date.
Are you free to increase these charges / fees once companies and individuals have signed up to them?
We have normal commercial rights, but we have always tried to work in partnership with aggregators to grow the market. Ultimately, NLA licence fees are subject to regulation by the Copyright Tribunal.