On 10 October, the European Parliament published a study that rejects the idea of related rights for newspaper editors as proposed by the European Commission in its copyright reform. The report is around one hundred pages long and is, however, in favour of a presumption.
It should be pointed out that in September 2016, the Commission proposed revising Community rules on neighbouring rights in an effort to respond to the current legal insecurity confronting rights holders and users (see EUROPE 11624). One of its suggestions was creating a new neighbouring right that granted newspaper editors the rights to reproduction and provision during a 20 year period in digital environment.
The study of around 100 pages was carried out at the request of the European Parliament by the Technopolis Group and Cambridge University (CIPIL). It rejects the arguments put forward by the Commission justifying its position. The report illustrates that this kind of right will not help to ensure the future of the press, facilitate the conclusion of licences for press editors or the application of rights. The document is based on the observation that the difficulties encountered by authors it is more related to the structure of the market then the unethical behaviour of search engines or news aggregators. As proof, the report provides the example of Germany and Spain: in the former, the optimum policy adopted by the German edition of Google News in October 2014 reduced the number of visits to sales points controlled by the Axel Springer by 7%; in the latter, when Google News left Spain, traffic to Spanish newspapers declined, with studies suggesting reductions of between 6 and 30%. The authors of the report also highlighted the lack of clarity regarding the term “press editor”. They argue that the absence of a precise definition could lead to uncertainties and unjustifiable transaction costs. They also add that, “the way in which the rights are formulated, suggests that they will not confirm any more substantial protection of press editors than what they already have”. With regard to the question of what would help facilitate the conclusion of licenses, the report clearly takes a position in favour of the presumption of representation or the ownership of rights. It should be recalled that the former Parliament rapporteur on this dossier, Therese Comodini Cachia (EPP, Malta), who has now been replaced in this role by Axel Voss (EPP, Germany), was in favour of a “presumption of representation”.
Up till now, the parliamentary committees responsible for the opinion, the culture (CULT), industry (ITRE) and single market (IMCO) have all supported the idea of a neighbouring law for preservatives and the CULT and ITRE committees had even gone as far as suggesting that this right be extended to non-digital uses. One final committee for an opinion, the civil liberties committee (LIBE), still has to give its point of view before the vote of the judicial affairs committee (JURI), responsible for this issue. The calendar does not yet appear to have been completely finalised.
Press editors are furious
In response, the European Press Council (EPC) denounced a study “based on fragments of declarations” that mainly came from opponents of a new neighbouring right. It indicates that the report has confused the presumption of representation and the presumption of ownership. It explains that the first provides editors with the simple status of “agent” (such as a collective management company) and the second is rejected by journalists insofar as it would legally appropriate the rights of authors. Angela Mills Wade, EPC director explained, “An exclusive right is the right to say “yes or no”, to the re-use of content, the freedom to negotiate contracts and the possibility to enforce when the right has been abused. It is not a links tax, it is not the German or Spanish laws but it would clarify the legal standing of press Publishers in a harmonised way across Europe, and avoid a patchwork of national solutions."
The draft text of the study can be consulted at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/596810/IPOL_STU (2017)596810_EN.pdf. (Original version in French by Sophie Petitjean)