Sorry to have been absent from these pages for a while, but I seem to have been living in a parallel universe. It’s a universe where a PR practitioner has to pay a fee in order to direct someone to a website where the content is made available free of charge.
But of course, it is not a parallel universe, it is the NLA reinventing the rules again. I guest blogged about them this week on the PRWeek site – you can read that here. You will recognise the opening sentiment from the words above.
When I addressed the Fellows’ Forum at the annual House of Lords lunch I got possibly the biggest cheer of my Presidency so far for vowing to battle against these latest NLA charges. I should also say that the lunch followed a splendid peer group debate led by George Pitcher of the Daily Telegraph on ethics and expenses. I hope that we are able to publish some of George’s remarks in Profile magazine either in print or online.
But back to the NLA – the latest charges are nonsense. Leaving aside the fact that I find it hard to understand why I should have to pay a fee, indirectly, to the owner of a newspaper website simply because I have sent someone to read the material on the site – especially when the owner of the site makes no charge themselves – there is also a tremendous amount of inconsistency in the fees and the way they seek to apply or not apply them.
Copyright law is, of course, complex and potentially confusing. But I would say it either applies universally, or it doesn’t. If the links I or my cuttings agency identify and forward to my clients are covered by copyright law and the NLA can therefore raise a charge legally against my business – then surely those same laws apply to Google. Except the NLA has no intention of taking Google on and therefore Google searches and links are exempt from its currently proposed charges.
So – my fellow PR practitioners, I could suggest that you carry out all your searches for client news online with Google news search and forward the link with results of the search and thereby avoid any potential NLA charge. But that is not particularly practical.
Instead, I will point you to the fact that the CIPR has produced some member guidelines on the new NLA charges (available via the Member Area of the CIPR site in the Public Affairs section under Policy Briefings). We did this because, actually, we want you to understand the NLA’s latest proposals and be well informed about the potential impact on your business. It doesn’t mean we approve of the charges or that we will not fight and campaign against their introduction.
Already, in the meetings we have held with the NLA we have won some concessions. Not enough so far, but some. We are also looking to co-operate with the PRCA and other bodies on this matter.
This year’s medals…
Ironic really that this NLA debate should be taking place now. Because last Tuesday at the CIPR Excellence Awards I announced the recipient of this year’s CIPR President’s Medal. I choose to award the medal to Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web. Sir Tim’s contribution to communications, and indeed to the way we can do our job is absolutely immeasurable.
The irony of course is that the man who invented the web and therefore led to the creation of the newspaper websites at the heart of the NLA action – gave his invention to the world copyright free. He believed in open communication and did not want to put any financial barriers in the way of his invention – so he gave it away. Now that’s class, and in stark contrast to the NLA.
As President, it is a great privilege to lead the choices of the Institute’s two premier individual medals each year. But if Sir Tim Berners-Lee was a popular choice when I announced him for the President’s Medal, my recipient of the Sir Stephen Tallents Medal for services to the Institute and the profession really did raise the roof – especially at the Fellows’ lunch when I surprised her and the Fellows by making an unscheduled early release of the news.
As many of you will know, this year will see the creation of our first individual Chartered Practitioners in Public Relations. But you can’t award an individual a charter, unless that profession holds the Royal Charter as well. That’s why I chose to award the Sir Stephen Tallents Medal to Professor Anne Gregory, whose drive, leadership and commitment during her year as President ensured that the Institute achieved Chartered status. That is a service to the Institute and profession that truly deserved recognition.
Reading your "debate" with the NLA's David Pugh at Communicate Magazine (http://www.communicatemagazine.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=358:loggerheads&catid=44:currentissue&Itemid=113) further reveals the muddled thinking of this new "tax" from the newspapers.
The gist seemed to be that other people are making money from monitoring online coverage and NLA wants a slice of that.
With technology enabling (indeed encouraging) direct feeds from media websites, plus a host of freely accessible aggregate or bookmarking sites by which information is freely shared, the NLA seems Canute like in its move.
I also wonder how its approach would apply to organisations outside the UK who monitor online coverage. Would a European HQ be able to employ a non-UK based monitoring company without paying a fee?
And, presumably this approach is saying it is okay to employ someone inhouse to monitor what is being said, but not to engage an outside firm even if paying the same amount. Bizarre.
All this without the fact that the vast majority of coverage is actually derived from either press releases or other media (including Twitter etc these days). So who actually does own the copyright?
Posted by: Heather Yaxley | 13 August 2009 at 05:03 PM