Blog: Guest blog: The International and European Federation of Journalists on the Copyright proposal - Hoofdinhoud
The International and European Federations of Journalists (IFJ/EFJ) have, in general, welcomed the Commission's proposals for a new directive on authors' rights. We still need, however, to discuss the problem of the enormously unfair contracts that are so often imposed on journalists, as they are on other creators.
First, the good news. For the first time in our lengthy battle for better recognition of journalists’ authors’ rights, there is high-level recognition that there are issues to be confronted. We note with great satisfaction the European Commission’s acknowledgement of this. In the EU debate over authors' rights (and copyright) reform there is finally some recognition of the human beings behind the creation and the conditions under which they have to work.
President Juncker said it well: “Artists and creators are our crown jewels. The creation of content is not a hobby. It is a profession. And it is part of our European culture.” We would like to see those “crown jewels” being given proper of protection and safeguards against the never-ending theft of their authors’ rights.
The "transparency triangle" that the EC proposes to put in place is a useful step in that direction. It will not, though, solve all our problems. At least journalists will be given an opportunity to be informed of the uses made of their works. Journalists’ unions will be able to play a role in setting transparent reporting mechanisms, alongside publishers and broadcasters. The interests of journalists will therefore be better protected. But too many journalists will still be forced to sign away all their rights.
A steeply-tilted playing-field
Too many publishers and broadcasters - particularly those in a dominant position in the market for journalists' work - present journalists with "take-it-or-leave-it" contracts. Often, all attempt at negotiation is refused.
In practically every case, the playing-field on which negotiations might take place is severely tilted. A freelance journalist is a sole trader: they may be faced with a company with a turnover in the millions or the billions. The value of an individual article or photo is much less than the cost of the legal advice that is often assumed in law to be an essential part of contract-making. The IFJ and EFJ's member unions offer journalists all the support they can in getting better bargains, both individually and collectively - but this cannot overcome the frequent refusal by the exploiters of journalists' work to negotiate at all.
The imposed terms frequently include handing over to the publisher all income from subsequent exploitation of the work. They often frustrate the goals of EU legislation by transferring the publisher (or a photo agency) income from secondary uses such as photocopying.
In the UK and Ireland these imposed terms mostly include a "waiver" of the right to be identified and to protect the integrity of the work - even though the laws of these member states exclude these "moral rights" from journalistic work. Outside the field of authors' rights, publishers are increasingly demanding that journalists "indemnify" them against legal costs arising from the published work - which is blatantly unjust when they have just demanded the right to change the journalist's work without consultation.
And, of course, publishers and broadcasters try to get away with condescending to publish work for no fee, just a byline. The supply of young journalists hoping to build their portfolio means they often succeed - and the public is thus deprived of the work of experienced, critical writers and photographers.
This is the usual take-it-or-leave-it situation many working freelances are faced with. The European public and its democracy has an interest, as President Juncker recognised, in being informed by experienced, independent, professional journalists. This is why it is extremely important to enhance authors’ rights.
Other features in the Commission's proposals give cause for concern. It is right that internet companies that make large amounts by re-publishing extracts of news should contribute to the cost of reporting. Any new right for publishers of news content must, therefore, be backed up by ensuring remuneration for both publishers and journalists, through collective management societies.
The exceptions and limitations proposed for education seem at present to be too ill-defined: what constitutes "illustration" for teaching? Any new Directive should specify clearly that well-functioning licensing systems come before exceptions. Authors should have an unwaivable right to remuneration for secondary use.
There is a risk of unintended damaging consequences of expanding the country-of-origin principle for broadcast works, as proposed in the new measures on online transmissions. This should not be done without watertight rules to prevent broadcasters’ forum-shopping to find the cheapest country with the lowest standards, which would harm the creative industry. This will not be easy: what of the broadcaster that is based in Luxembourg for tax and some regulatory purposes and in the UK for the purposes of copyright contracts?
The IFJ and EFJ welcome the first steps towards more fairness in our sector that the Commission has proposed with the transparency rules. We are relieved that the first efforts have been made to respond to the continuous extortion of authors’ rights. We hope that these will open the door to legislation banning unfair contractual practices such as buy-out clauses - and we will continue to fight for that. This needs to be set in stone, just as legislation protects others in a weak contractual position, such as consumers.
EU members states and parliamentarians must hear this call and act accordingly to defend authors’ rights. It is only by looking after those who feed the beginning of the copyright value chain that creation - for the benefit of European culture and democracy - can be sustained.
Philippe Leruth, IFJ President
Meer over ...