Ancillary copyright for press publishers

"Link tax" redirects here. For the EU-wide version, see Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market.
See also: News Media Bargaining Code
Protest against Ancillary copyright in Berlin, organized by Digitale Gesellschaft

The so-called ancillary copyright for press publishers[1] (German: Leistungsschutzrecht für Presseverleger) is a proposal incorporated in 2012 legislation proposed by the ruling coalition of the German government, led by Angela Merkel of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), to extend publishers' copyrights. The bill was agreed by the Cabinet at the end of August 2012 and submitted to parliament on 14 November 2012. It was passed by the Bundestag on 1 March 2013 by 293 to 243, following substantial changes in the week before the vote.

In its original form, the law would have forced Internet content providers to pay fees, collected by a central clearinghouse,[2] to publishers for displaying their content: fees would have been levied for even short snippets of news made available by news aggregators and web search engines.[3] The intended effect would have been to force Google, a leading search engine, to pay publishers fees for display of news search results, causing the bill to be dubbed a "Google tax" by some.[4] It would give press agencies the exclusive right to publish press releases for commercial purposes on the Internet[5][clarification needed] and would require search engines such as Google to obtain licenses for using small text passages.[6] A Google spokesman called it "a black day for the Internet in Germany".[7] Many trade associations regard it as useless[8] and critics fear a reduction in diversity of opinion.[9] Wikimedia Deutschland regards this as dangerous "for the creators of free content in general and for providers of open content platforms in particular".[10] It was agreed between the coalition parties, the CDU and the FDP in their coalition agreement for the 17th session of the German Bundestag.

It passed in the Bundesrat March 22, 2013, was published in the Bundesgesetzblatt May 14, and came into force on August 1, 2013.

The publisher's right is the subject of an ongoing legal challenge by Google and has not yet generated significant revenue for German publishing groups.[11]

History

German copyright law already provides for similar "related rights" in relation to other protected objects. They are regulated in sections 70 et seq. of the German Copyright Act (Urheberrechtsgesetz). A press release from the German Federal Association of Newspaper Publishers (Bundesverband Deutscher Zeitungsverleger, BDZV) dated 7 May 2009 justified the demand for such a "related right" for press publishers on the grounds that press enterprises needed to defend themselves against unpaid use of their products on the Internet. This demand found its expression in the coalition agreement, which, in line 4776, states:

Publishers should not be placed in a worse position in the online field than other disseminators of a work. We therefore propose to create a related right for press publishers to improve the protection of press products on the Internet.[12]

In a speech to the Newspaper Congress of the German Federal Association of Newspaper Publishers in September 2011, the chancellor, Angela Merkel, stated that legislation on such related rights was in preparation:

Publishing costs time and money. For this reason, I can understand the demand for related rights for publishers. The Federal Government is therefore currently working on a bill to adapt German copyright law even more to the requirements of a modern information society. We have not forgotten it; it is being pushed forward. We are striving for a balanced solution that takes account of the just interests of all those involved.[13]

메르켈 총리는 또 이 구상을 유럽 차원에서 추진하겠다고 밝혔다.[14][15]

2012년 3월 5일 공동연정위원회는 독일 저작권법 개정의 세 번째 바구니 중 하나로 언론출판사에 대한 '관련 권리'를 도입하기로 합의했다.[16] 1년 이내에, 특히 검색엔진 제공자와 뉴스 집계업자를 위한 인터넷상의 프레스 제품의 상업적 사용은 요금을 부과받게 되었다. 수수료 징수 및 배급을 위한 수행권 사회에 준하는 것이 있어야 했다. 한 가지 불분명한 점은 유료 상업적 이용과 사적 이용 사이에 선을 그어야 하는 부분인데, 그것은 무료였다.[17]

2012년 6월 14일 독일 연방 법무부가 다른 부처와 로비단체에 법안 초안을 보낸 사실이 알려졌다.[18] 독일 저작권법에 87f에서 87h까지 새로운 하위조항을 삽입하는 이 초안은 현재 인터넷에서 구할 수 있다.[19]

2016년 8월 25일, Statewatch는 EU 저작권 규칙의 현대화에 대한 유럽 위원회의 영향 평가 초안을 발행했다. 이 초안에는 위원회가 실제로 뉴스 출판사에 대한 EU의 광범위한 보조 저작권 도입을 제안할 것이라고 명시되어 있으며, 이는 링크 세금이 도입되지 않을 것이라는 안드루스 안십의 확신과는 모순된다.[20][21]

임팩트

2013년 8월 출판사의 권리가 법률에 발효된 직후 독일 미디어 출판사들은 자신을 대신해 협상하는 저작권 단체인 VG 미디어를 만들었다. 구글을 비롯한 다른 대형 인터넷 업체들은 자신들이 지불할 필요가 없고 11%의 면허료가 부당하다며 그룹과의 협상을 거부했다.[11] 동시에 수많은 독일 출판사들이 구글과 제로 코스트 라이선스 계약을 체결하여 그들의 콘텐츠가 구글 뉴스에 계속 게재되도록 했다. VG미디어는 2014년 10월 요금을 6%로 인하했다.[22]

독일 특허청은 2015년 9월에 수수료가 적용되었다고 밝혔다. 이번 결정에 대한 사법적 검토가 진행 중이며 2019년 이전에는 마무리되지 않을 것으로 보인다. 최종 타결이 될 때까지 VG미디어는 권리관리 독점으로서 구글에 로열티 없는 라이선스를 부여해야 한다.[11]

VG Media filed a competition complaint against Google, which it accuses of illegally misusing its dominant market position. The complaint was dismissed. VG Media then filed a civil suit claiming that Google owed them remuneration, which is ongoing.[22]

Issues

Free speech

Opponents of the measure believe that granting copyright protection to what may be little more than headlines violates the freedom of speech. Till Kreutzer of the Bureau for Information Law Expertise wrote in 2011 that this expansion of copyright, sought by publishers since 2009, could cause "collateral damage to fundamental freedoms like the freedom of the press, the freedom of expression, the freedom of science and education as well as the communication and publication practices on the Web."[2]

Supporters have stated that freedom of speech would be protected because "journalistic citations from news articles" would be exempt from the bill, as would private Internet users.[3] Publishers perceive the fees as fair compensation for the effort put into reporting; in an example presented at a hearing on the bill, "a bank employee reads his morning newspaper online and sees something about the steel industry, and then advises his clients to invest in certain markets ... The publishers argued that the bank consultant was only able to advise his clients because of the journalistic work in the published article. So that means the publisher deserves a fair share of any money made"[2]

Consistency with other copyright law

According to Till Kreuzer, writing in Computer Law & Security Review and cited by a group opposing the bill, Initiative Gegen ein Leistungsschutzrecht, the 2009 German coalition government announced in its coalition contract that "Press Publishers shall not be discriminated against other disseminators of copyright protected works [e.g. film or music producers]. Therefore we aim for the introduction of a neighbouring right for press publishers to increase the protection of press publications on the Internet." However, Kreuzer disputed that the proposed right is comparable to neighboring rights for other forms of copyrighted media, writing that the regulation of extraction of snippets from news sources and regulation of the right to read ("reception") of the sites containing media were unprecedented in the law.[23]

Disbursements

The co-founder of Perlentaucher questioned what criteria would be used to determine eligibility to receive payments from the clearinghouse, noting that if every blog were eligible, benefits to newspapers would be very small. These criteria remain under consideration by drafters of the proposal.[3]

Author's right

German authors of news articles retain author's right to control news articles after their publication, raising the question of how payments would be divided between publishers and authors.[3]

Economic considerations

The Federation of German Newspaper Publishers issued a statement that "In the digital age, such a right is essential to protect the joint efforts of journalists and publishers," describing such revenues as "an essential measure for the maintenance of an independent, privately financed news media."[2]

A spokesman of Google denounced the proposal: "We don't have any sympathy for these plans, as an ancillary copyright lacks all factual, economic, and legal foundation. And we are not alone with this opinion: The Federation of German Industries (BDI) and 28 other associations vehemently oppose an ancillary copyright for publishers. The German parliament is divided on the issue as well. For a good reason: An ancillary copyright would mean a massive damage to the German economy. It's a threat to the freedom of information. And it would leave Germany behind internationally as a place for business." Critics have suggested that Google might respond to the law by ceasing to do business in Germany.[2]

Comparisons with other countries

The New York Times quoted Christoph Keese, described as "co-chairman of a copyright committee of German publishers" and president of public affairs for Axel Springer, "There is no other developed country that has given publishers this kind of right against aggregators. This could be a benchmark." The Times compared the measure to NewsRight, a system introduced by the Times and other newspapers, that tracks unpaid use of articles, while noting that the NewsRight system does not address the use of snippets.[3]

See also

References

  1. ^ The terms "related rights" and "neighbouring rights" are also used, but they cannot conveniently stand on their own when not preceded by "copyright".
  2. ^ a b c d e Matthew J. Schwartz (2012-08-22). "Germany wants to charge Google for news snippets". InformationWeek Government.
  3. ^ a b c d e Eric Pfanner (2012-03-11). "Germany trying to cut publishers in on web profits". The New York Times.
  4. ^ Martin Brinkmann (2012-08-30). "Germany's Google Tax is a go". Ghacks Technology News.
  5. ^ "Ministerium nimmt Google ins Visier". N24 - Gesellschaft für Nachrichten und Zeitgeschehen mbH. 28 August 2012. Retrieved 30 August 2012.
  6. ^ "Geld von Google - Kabinett beschließt umstrittenes Leistungsschutzrecht". Spiegel Online - Netzwelt (in German). Hamburg: Spiegel Online. 29 August 2012. Retrieved 30 August 2012.
  7. ^ "Google lehnt Lizenzierungspflicht ab". Spiegel Online - Netzwelt (in German). Hamburg: Spiegel Online. 29 August 2012. Retrieved 30 August 2012.
  8. ^ "Leistungsschutzrecht: Die Axt an der Wurzel der Marktwirtschaft". FOCUS Online (in German). 29 August 2012. Retrieved 30 August 2012.
  9. ^ "Leistungsschutzrecht: Suchmaschinen müssen zahlen". Welt Online (in German). 30 August 2012. Retrieved 30 August 2012.
  10. ^ Hedemann, F. (15 June 2012). "Leistungsschutzrecht: Wikipedia bald ohne Links?". t3n. yeebase media GmbH. Archived from the original on 4 September 2012. Retrieved 30 August 2012.
  11. ^ a b c "The ancillary copyright for press publishers in Germany". LSR-Aktuell. Retrieved 2019-02-12.
  12. ^ Original German: Verlage sollen im Online-Bereich nicht schlechter gestellt werden als andere Werkvermittler. Wir streben deshalb die Schaffung eines Leistungsschutzrechts für Presseverlage zur Verbesserung des Schutzes von Presseerzeugnissen im Internet an.
  13. ^ Original German: Verlegerische Leistungen kosten Zeit und Geld. Deswegen kann ich auch gut verstehen, dass ein Leistungsschutzrecht für Verleger gefordert wird. Deshalb arbeitet die Bundesregierung derzeit an einem Gesetzentwurf, der das Urheberrecht weiter an die Anforderungen einer modernen Informationsgesellschaft anpassen soll. Wir haben es nicht vergessen; es wird vorangetrieben. Wir streben eine ausgewogene Regelung an, die den berechtigten Interessen aller Beteiligten Rechnung trägt.
  14. ^ Angela Merkel (19 September 2011). "Rede von Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel anlässlich des Zeitungskongresses des Bundesverbandes Deutscher Zeitungsverleger e.V." [Speech by Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel at the Newspaper Congress of the Federal Association of German Newspaper Publishers] (in German). Berlin: German Bundesregierung. Archived from the original on 15 September 2012. Retrieved 2012-08-31.
  15. ^ Florian Altherr (21 September 2011). "Merkel-Rede beim BDZV zu Medien und Internet (including recording)" [Merkel's speech at the BDZV on the media and the Internet] (in German). Retrieved 2012-08-31.
  16. ^ David Pachali (5 March 2012). "Koalitionsauschuss einigt sich auf Leistungsschutzrecht" [Coalition committee agrees on intellectual property right] (in German). IGEL Initiative gegen Leistungsschutzrecht. Retrieved 2012-08-31.
  17. ^ "Koalition: Verlage sollen Geld von News-Aggregatoren erhalten" [Coalition: publishers should receive money from news aggregators]. Heise online (in German). 5 March 2012. Retrieved 2012-08-31.
  18. ^ "Justizministerium legt Entwurf für neues Leistungsschutzrecht vor" [Ministry of Justice shall submit draft for a new intellectual property right]. Heise online (in German). Retrieved 2012-08-31.
  19. ^ "Referentenentwurf des Bundesministeriums der Justiz: Entwurf eines Siebenten Gesetzes zur Änderung des Urheberrechtsgesetzes" [Draft of the Federal Ministry of Justice: draft Seventh Law amending the Copyright Law] (PDF) (in German). 13 June 2012. Retrieved 2012-08-31.
  20. ^ Keller, Paul (August 25, 2016). "EU Commission: Yes, we will create new ancillary copyright for news publishers, but please stop calling it a "link tax"".
  21. ^ "Taking a bad idea and making it worse: An ancillary copyright in snippets disguised as a neighbouring right for publishers". OpenForum Europe. April 6, 2016.
  22. ^ a b Anonymous Joint Research Centre employee (June 2016). "The Economic Impact of Online News Intermediaries" (PDF) – via AskTheEU.org.CS1 maint: uses authors parameter (link)
  23. ^ Till Kreuzer (2011). "German copyright policy 2011: Introduction of a new neighbouring right for press publishers?". Computer Law & Security Review. pp. 214–16.

German-language sources

Italian-language sources

External links