European Federation of Journalists response to UK consultation on copyright

Cover sheet
Your name Arne Knig Job Title President Organisation Name European Federation of Journalists Organisations main products/services Representing journalists throughout Europe

European Federation of Journalists to UK government on copyright proposals : p 1 of 4

European Federation of Journalists

European Federation of Journalists response to the UK governments consultation on proposals to change the UK's copyright system The European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) represents about 260,000 journalists in over thirty countries. It defends press freedom and social justice through strong, free and independent trade unions of journalists and calls for journalists to be recognised as authors of the works they create to be able to control further use of their works and negotiate equitable remuneration for these uses. We are concerned with the proposals to change the UK's copyright system because journalists (including photojournalists) throughout Europe licence works to UK-based publishers and broadcasters; because the proposals may affect indeed, in some instances seem to be designed to affect the evolution of EU regulations; and because in any case changes to the UK's copyright system will inevitably affect the market or markets for licensing journalists work throughout Europe. We restrict ourselves to responding to proposals which are likely to have such Europe-wide effects. Exceptions: In general, the UK governments proposal to implement every possible exception allowed under the InfoSoc Directive1 to max out the exceptions, as they put it contradicts the principles underlying the negotiations that led to the adoption of Article 5(2) in 2001. The exhaustive list of exceptions that member states may adopt was intended to accommodate differing national practices: had the intention been to offer a recipe the Directive would say that they should adopt these and it does not do so, for good reason. In particular, the questions raised over the UKs exception for educational uses are alarming. The UK governments Question 89 reads: Is there a case for removing or restricting the licensing schemes that currently apply to the educational exceptions for recording broadcasts and reprographic copying? Can you provide evidence of the costs and benefits of doing this, in particular financial implications and impacts on educational provision and incentives to creators?

1 Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001L0029:EN:HTML accessed 13/03/12

European Federation of Journalists to UK government on copyright proposals : p 2 of 4

The answer to this is simple: no. The UK collecting societies are, we understand, providing evidence on the costs to authors and related rights-holders of such a move. The answer to the proposals to allow schools to copy materials onto "whiteboards" and inside password-protected "online learning environments" implied by Questions 85 to 88 must be: "so long as all this is covered by a licensing scheme to compensate authors". There seems to be some confusion here between the interests of academic authors who in the UK routinely assign their authorship to publishers for no fee, in the hope of reward through promotion and the need to support a lively economy of professional authors whose works are used in schools and colleges. To remove a significant source of income from these authors would seriously challenge the provision of high-quality, diverse pedagogical material. In addition, the UK governments assertion that a private copying exception may be implemented while setting the fair compensation required in the InfoSoc Directive in Article 5(2)b and elsewhere to zero, is absurd. In general the levy system operating in the great majority of member states functions well and offers authors reasonable compensation. (We find no question in the consultation document dealing with this important matter.) The inconsistencies between levy systems in different member states, by which the UK government appears to set great store, arise as much as anything from the incremental outcomes of litigation by equipment manufacturers intended to frustrate or delay the application of Article 5(2)b. We are aware that the Commission is considering steps to regularise this and believe that the UK government should await the outcome of this initiative. If it presses ahead with action contrary to the policies and laws of the great majority of member states, the UK government will create the appearance that it is the tool of those same equipment manufacturers against the interests of authors and thus of the information society. Extended Collective Licensing: the UK government proposes to introduce such a scheme in the UK. While the European Federation of Journalists notes that our members in the Nordic countries are happy with the Extended Collective Licensing schemes they have: these schemes operate against the legal background of very strong protection for authors, in particular respect for the so-called moral rights of identification and integrity; the acceptability of these schemes depends upon the trust that authors place in collecting societies that are democratically accountable to them a trust which is encouraged by the Nordic social and legal climate. The UK government should realise that if it wishes to implement such a scheme in the UK then at the same time it needs to make additional amendments to copyright law. The following matters are not directly addressed in any of the questions which the UK government asks us to answer. Such changes should be:

European Federation of Journalists to UK government on copyright proposals : p 3 of 4

 to give all authors automatic, non-waivable, enforceable moral rights and in particular to remove the exclusion of journalists from moral rights protection; to ensure that authors enjoy unwaivable rights to fair remuneration at least in respect of Extended Collective Licensing schemes, to avoid the situation in which publishers and broadcasters operating in the UK will simply insist that all such income is assigned to them, for no extra fee in the UK such terms are commonly imposed under the threat that any journalist who objects will never work for that publisher or broadcaster again; to take steps to level the playing field on which journalists, particularly the many freelances who operate as sole trader businesses, negotiate over authors rights and licences with publishers and broadcasters. To do otherwise would be unjust, would be contrary to EU policy and likely to its law, and would undermine the potential for Extended Collective Licensing to be adopted as a legal solution to issues raised by information technology in other member states.

European Federation of Journalists Rsidence Palace Rue de la loi 155 1040 Brussels Tel : 00 32 2 235 22 00

European Federation of Journalists to UK government on copyright proposals : p 4 of 4