There’s a big hoo-ha going on in Brussels at the moment about copyright. Please keep reading – it’s not about the niceties of nerdy copyright law – it’s about the future of our independent, professional press; it’s about how we value the 24/7 output of news, insight, war zone coverage, entertainment, sport, investigation and enquiry by professional journalists bound by strict codes of conduct and professional ethics; it’s about whether or not publishers can continue ad infinitum to invest in online content that is systematically scraped, re-used and monetised by third parties without permission or remuneration.

As part of the long-awaited EU copyright reform package to bring copyright in line with the digital age, EU Digital Economy Commissioner Oettinger has proposed a Publisher’s Right, acknowledging the value of a free and viable press to democratic society and the challenges that we face. 

Simply, this will provide legal certainty for the benefit of press publishers large and small, making it clear that we own our content, and that it cannot be copied or reused for commercial benefit without permission. In the same way that it is illegal to walk into a newsagent, take a news­paper off the shelf, leave without paying, photocopy all the contents, sell some advertising around the content and distribute it to millions of people, the Publisher’s Right makes it clear that the same cannot be done with online publications.

You might ask yourself why there is a campaign against something so fair and straightforward. Since many years tech companies have tried to justify free use of professional media, as a necessity for the Internet to remain “open and  creative”. The very campaigners who advocate an “open” web need to understand that publishers cannot continue to invest in the very content these advocates want to find freely available without a proper remuneration.

But how can press publishers continue to invest, if it’s easy for others to exploit their work and earn revenues without taking any of the risks or costs of producing it? What if ‘traditional’ media fails?

The advertising-supported business model online could perfectly work for publishers, if their content wouldn’t be copied on a massive scale by others who monetise that same content without paying for it. This has nothing to do with an open or creative web. It’s just plain theft and parasitism. For publishers that thrive in competitive market-led environments, resorting to legal redress and supporting a change in legislation is an absolute necessity.  It is the only solution to stop piracy and parasitism of the content we own.

‘Traditional’ seems to have become a bad word in the context of the digital media revolution and yet traditional publishers have tackled the digital revolution head on.  We’ve innovated, invested, we distribute all kinds of content on every conceivable device and platform for the benefit of consumers and our high-tech newsrooms are unrecognisable from the pre-digital age. 

But how can press publishers continue to invest, if it’s easy for others to exploit their work and earn revenues without taking any of the risks or costs of producing it? What if ‘traditional’ media fails? Does it matter?

I think it does and I feel sure you do too, when you think about it.  Those of us lucky enough to enjoy life under a democracy often take press freedom for granted. Yet it is that press freedom that underpins our democracy, and it depends on a market that can generate sufficient returns to cover the enormous costs of the news business.

Opponents of this reform claim, quite disingenuously, that it will criminalise individuals from sharing links to content.  This is a misleading scare tactic from those who seek to undermine the case for a publisher’s right.

Nothing in this reform will stop individuals from browsing the web and sharing and posting links to things they’re interested in.  In fact, the only people who will notice any changes at all are the commercial aggregators and search engines who today freeride for commercial gain on publishers’ investments without permission or payment. These people will have to work with publishers to find the mutual interest at the heart of all agreements.

A Publisher’s Right won’t entirely tame the internet Wild West, but it will give us legal clarity and make it easier to assert ownership over our published editions and bring people to the table to negotiate reasonable terms for the use of our valuable content. Surely that’s only fair?

Christian Van Thillo is CEO of de Persgroep in Belgium and chairman of the European Publishers Council.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.