A controversial but crucial copyright reform is currently underway in Brussels. The proposed âpublisherâs neighboring rightâ would start to fix a system that undermines publishersâ potential to innovate and grow â protecting journalism and safeguarding its role in the democratic process.
This neighboring right would give us, as publishers, a legal standing over material published online and via mobile apps, of the kind already granted to other producers in the film, music and audiovisual sectors. These rights sit alongside the rights of authors and performers â or in our case, of journalists and photographers â and make it clear that we own what we publish and that we will act against unauthorized use.
The current law stipulates that reusing copyrighted content without permission is illegal. And yet publishersâ valuable content and revenue-earning potential are being siphoned off by companies, large and small, that routinely reuse and monetize our content without permission or remuneration. Without this reform, thereâs not much we can do about it. In the digital age, nothing is easier than copying and distributing content illegally.
Despite what opponents of this reform would have you believe, publishers are committed to an independent press and will continue to encourage our readers to share articles as they do today. No part of the neighboring rights proposal will criminalize individual use and sharing. This reform is about commercial theft and the wholesale scraping, copying and monetizing of our content.
Publishers take pride in what they finance. We take the risks, we pay the journalists, we are responsible and answerable for the content we produce on every platform and device.
Currently, copyright for our content lies only with the individual author of each and every article or image. This makes it difficult to start discussions with potential users, and costly to take action against infringements at the publisher level, as we must first prove the transference of each and every right.
Having clear legal rights of ownership of the entire publication would make it easier to negotiate the terms of trade with companies who wish to reuse and monetize our content. A publisherâs right will give protection to the publishers and their journalists against piracy and parasitism and pave the way for new, innovative and legal ways to monetize news content digitally.
Our websites have become platforms for news, comment and debate. But on average 47 percent â and sometimes as high as 67 percent â of readers who find our content on other platforms stay on the landing page and do not click through to publishersâ websites. As a result, a small number of very large companies, and a large number of smaller companies (often gilded with the term âstartupsâ), are getting raw materials for free, which they then reuse and sell with no benefit to those who produced them. This does not happen in other industries.
It is hugely frustrating when politicians and people with vested interest in the status quo tell us that a neighboring right wouldnât help us. We know our business. We know about journalism. And we know what a valuable tool such a right would be.
Christian van Thillo with Neelie Kroes in 2012 | Olivier Hoslet/EPA
Publishers take pride in what they finance. We take the risks, we pay the journalists, we are responsible and answerable for the content we produce on every platform and device. Whether the end product is free for the consumer and advertising-funded, paid-for, or licensed, healthy new business models will emerge to make digital journalism more innovative and much stronger.
At the end of the day, politicians need to decide whether they want to establish a legal framework that supports those who create and invest in producing professional journalism â or one that hands the future of our digital world to a few big internet giants who will continue to act like countries, making their own rules and dictating market conditions for everyone else.
Christian Van Thillo is CEO of de Persgroep and chairman of the European Publishers Council.