UK Newspaper Licencing Agency Says Musicians Need To Pay To Quote Reviews
from the live-by-copyright,-die-by-copyright dept
I wonder how copyright maximalist musicians feel about this particular story. Techdirt reader glassneedles alerts us to an offline (!?!) news article in the publication Private Eye, about how the UK's Newspaper Licensing Agency (NLA) has declared that musicians who quote positive reviews from newspapers need to pay £1,250 per year (which would allow them to quote up to 50 reviews). Seriously. Apparently, the NLA went around to various music agents and managers a while ago, and they (quite reasonably) ignored the threats. That just made the NLA mad.... the phoney war has turned into a real one, with the NLA chasing agents, threatening legal action and demanding not just license payments for future quotes but also retrospective payments for past ones.For folks who help market a number of musicians, the NLA claims are apparently adding up to being fairly serious.
The amounts are crazily excessive for the modest, shoestring operations that most classical music management and PR companies tend to be, with £7,000-£8,000 a typical demand.
The most outrageous example... concerns a small PR company called ElevenTenths, which is effectively one woman, Claire Willis, working form a spare bedroom.... Poor Ms. Willis was collared by the NLA a few months ago, required to fill in forms about her clients and activities, and then received a bill for £23,500.Willis complained and apparently the NLA "backed down" and offered a deal for "only" £1,588.45. In the past, we had written about the NLA winning a lawsuit against news aggregators, so perhaps it's now turned to those who quote its reviews as a new, highly questionable, revenue stream.
I wonder if folks in the UK are regretting the decision, in the Hargreaves report, that the UK doesn't need an explicit fair use rule.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, licensing, musicians, newspapers, quotes, reviews, uk
Companies: nla
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everyone's a winner, so what's the problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nothing makes a parasite angrier than it's host not playing along, and hence this kind of mess springs up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In America this sounds stupid, because we have, since the inception of the ACA, had fair use.
It makes common sense that if I said "I love Weird Al's 'Alpocalypse'", and I was a music reviewer whose opinion mattered, Weird Al might want to use that review to market sales. That's marketing 101, and is used all over American media.
The UK is seeing the same issues with copyright holders tightening the reigns. But without fair use, heavier abuses of the system can occur. Such as preventing standard marketing until the holder gets his cut.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
see http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p27_work_of_others
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=columnists&issue=1326
Private eye is a satirical British news paper edited by Ian Hislop and is very funny. They are not naughty but they do like to tread the line!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- A musician, types away on his trendy laptop (look into product placement dollars) updating his blog with a review of his recent work.
- Cut to front door -
*The door bursts in, pieces flying everywhere. A SWAT style team rushes in, guns leveled at the musician.*
- Close up on the musician looking frightened as the SWAT team forces him face down on the floor handcuffing him -
- Cut to well dressed businessman walking in carrying a bill for using the review without having paid the fee -
Musician - "Why are you doing this to me?! All I did was share positive comments about my work! What are you talking about I owe you money for "stealing" the review! What gave you the idea to do this horrible thing?!"
Businessman - "We learned from your industry music man!
With penalties, fines, and the willful bonus multiplier you owe us $43 million dollars!"
Friends don't let friends fall victim to copyright.
Brought to you by the Partnership for Copyright Reform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1) trendy laptop (I think Apple has a patent on that)
2) SWAT (even if they don't have a trademark, let's not piss them off)
3) well dressed businessman walking in carrying a bill (let's face it, there must be a lawyer that has patented this)
4) "stealing" the review (the MPAA has patented the use of "stealing" to refer to use of something in a way that bothers someone)
5) you owe us $43 million (another one the MPAA has exclusive rights to - totally inappropriate monetary penalties)
6) Friends don't let friends fall victim to copyright (yeah, you are not getting away with that one)
I'm pretty sure your licencing for your movie will be around $200 million.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's the problem
"Everyone's a winner"
Legacy newspapers simply don't understand how that can be the case. The assume zero-sum games - if someone else is winning, we MUST be losing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who needs advised on what music to listen to?
So what I'm saying is that here Mike illuminates for me a previously unconsidered corner of a third-hand world where such "reviews" and quotes matter. Like discovering cockroaches when you turn on the kitchen light. Thanks, Mike, for bringing down my opinion of humankind when I didn't think it possible.
As to your ranting: who cares? But if those musicians and promoters find it worthwhile to quote, then let 'em pay up for value received. It's no skin off my nose either way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who needs advised on what music to listen to?
You've really built quite the self-righteous bubble around yourself, haven't you?
I shudder to think of all the things you are missing out on in life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who needs advised on what music to listen to?
However, if there is one thing I've learned in all the years of discussion/debate forums is trolls absolutely require direct attention to thrive. Talking around them (like this) is almost always the worst kind of action a person can take, and they often resort to outlandish attempts to get people to respond directly to them and their commentary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who needs advised on what music to listen to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who needs advised on what music to listen to?
How about you go find a well, out_of_the_ass, and go drown yourself? It'd be a vast improvement. For one, your intelligence might increase to zero!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who needs advised on what music to listen to?
" No one living in the real world would bother reading reviews -- or getting advice on music except from well-known friends, implying same general tastes."
Really? A 'well-known friend' implies the 'same general tastes'?
I have lots of people I consider well-known friends, whose musical tastes are NOTHING like mine.
I base friendships on a lot of factors, and 'general tastes' in music really doesn't make the list of factors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who needs advised on what music to listen to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who needs advised on what music to listen to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only Artists who get affected by this will be the Sold-Out MAFIAA Signed Ones.
Stuff like the Underground Punk Music I do will get a lot of LOL's and just do what we do while the Big Sold-Out Artists have a good hissy fit.
I feel no Sympathy at all for Traitor Artists who Sign with the Big Ripoff Pricks.
Why should I even bother to care ? A Move like this only helps to drive more folks to my kind of great scene.
We got Fanzines !!!
Nothing you can do about guys like us putting out Fanzines and we do not ever have to Mention anything from MAFIAA or from Mainstream News.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 2xnegative = positive
The only out is to publish a negative review positively - which is of course impossible because in the UK they have slander laws that would make your head spin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 2xnegative = positive
The only out is to publish a negative review positively - which is of course impossible because in the UK they have slander laws that would make your head spin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I wonder...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Besides, who wants to associate themselves with something like a newspaper.
It's really just saying, "Outdated Business' opinion on new things!" at which point they either like you or not.
They would be better off quoting some drunk at a bar than an 'expert' anyways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Sue all musicians who use your reviews
- Put the musicians out of business
- ...
- Profit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Three things needed here...
And as for those three things needed, just about everyone involved in this techdirt story (especially the commenters) need the following: A grip, a clue and a life. I suggest everyone drop this thread and go try to find one of each.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Three things needed here...
Thanks for pointing that out. Saves me the trouble of looking it up myself and spares me from making a comment based on incomplete info and therefore looking silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Three things needed here...
Colin Davidson a personal friend of yours?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Three things needed here...
I've seen photos and stories on Facebook that I am about to share, but before I do, I check them out and realize they are satire. It's gotten common enough that I should double check every story/photo now before taking it at face value. Most of the time I do, but sometimes I don't take the time and have to backtrack afterward. I feel silly when I treat a satirical story as a real one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Three things needed here...
So you'd prefer to trust that incorrect info rather than find out that this was NOT satire? Yet by trusting an anonymous comment online, you don't look silly? Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Three things needed here...
I'm just making an observation that I'm learning to verify before responding. All the commenter did for me was to remind me of that.
I did try to verify the story online myself but couldn't find much, so I'll just wait until it evolves more. That's all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Three things needed here...
Except you didn't do that. You took that commenter's obvservation as fact and then DID respond based on that. If you were being honest here, you wouldn't have responded at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Three things needed here...
I was being chatty and evidently I've hit a nerve. I'm not taking his comment at face value, either. I was just saying to him, "Oh, good to know that the publication is known for satire. I'll keep that in mind and not say more yet."
His comment just reminded me that satire abounds these days. I've nearly tripped over it on Facebook multiple times. I didn't realize it never appears here. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Three things needed here...
No offense, but that seems to contradict what you actually said. In response to his original comment, you stated: "Thanks for pointing that out. Saves me the trouble of looking it up myself and spares me from making a comment based on incomplete info and therefore looking silly."
That clearly implies that you've taken his statement as fact, since it "saves" you "the trouble of looking it up" yourself... and also you suggest that you now have "complete info" thanks to that comment.
Anyway, it's pointless to argue with you over this. Just pointing out a rather silly statement on your part. Would have been nice for you to just admit it upfront rather than pretending you said something different than you actually did, but whatever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Three things needed here...
Yes, if someone says something "might" be satire, I will self-censor to avoid looking silly. I don't need to confirm that he is right to self-censor myself. If someone says, "Don't go there, you'll fall off a cliff," I'll probably say, "Thanks. Now I know not to go there" whether or not it's true.
You have totally missed my point all along. I've spotted lots of satire recently, so whenever anyone sends out "satire alert" it stops me in my tracks before posting. I don't feel I have go confirm the alert to stop posting.
If you really want to get into this, we can talk about the effect of increasing skepticism when people post satire as reality. Yes, I've run into enough fake stories that my default is to question everything. Somehow you want to defend yourself over this because I said "thank you" to someone who said "satire." Why are you taking this so personally? It was my side conversation with someone, just like I might have in the comments of a Facebook post. I wasn't talking to you. That's okay here, is it not?
I still haven't found any background on the story because now I have started to look for it. That's not to say it isn't true but I have ended up trying to do my own fact-checking after all. So now I am putting in the time to verify it because people are asking me here why I accepted his view that it might be satire rather than your view that it was true. Surprisingly there is very little on this story. There's an incomplete blurb on the Private Eye site and in Google there's mostly there's just references to this Techdirt story. It's taken on a life of its own because of these comments back and forth, but no verification that I can nail down yet. It's an echo chamber effect so far. Maybe someone can do some more fact checking on it.
I have, over recent months, begun to learn which sites to laugh at rather than accept as truth. The Onion I've known all along. There's also a faux Christian site and a military satire site. Being in America, I don't know Private Eye, but now I know a bit more about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Three things needed here...
2. here's the thing: with the -literally- unbelievable lengths the MAFIAA and their foreign counterparts engage in to squeeze pennies out of widows, orphans, and the blind for activities that 99.99999999999999999% of us think are acceptable, it is EASY to believe ANY crazy, impractical, unjust extreme bullshit that we hear about is true-true...
in other words, it is IMPOSSIBLE to exaggerate, make up ANY extreme scenario, or go so far beyond the pale to satirize copyright maximalists; because NO MATTER HOW EXTREME and ridiculous a scenario is, they have already gotten laws to that effect, or would if they could...
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to make any hyperbolic statements regarding their draconian 'enforcement' of so-called IP laws, because next week you will be reading that is EXACTLY what they did or are trying to do...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Three things needed here...
Private Eye is a a satirical and NEWS magazine and that story was in the news section
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Three things needed here...
Before posting the article I not only "Googled" Private Eye, but asked people I know from the UK if Private Eye was a satirical publication in the vein of the Onion -- because the story had me wondering. However, their website DOES NOT indicate that, and two separate London residents told me that it is considered a *news* publication, and a very popular one.
So...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Three things needed here...
From this you should learn the old adage.. never trust anyone from London.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Three things needed here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At first, I had no sympathy for the music industry, but then I realized that the big boys might actually appreciate this turn of events. They have the pockets to afford these kinds of fees by essentially doing the same to other people, and simply passing on a portion of their ill-gotten gains. But it also serves as yet another method to effectively help prevent/slow possible competition to their efforts to funnel everything through them and continue to control all the avenues of distribution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For what it's worth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
News May NOT be Shared!!
Where does this stop?
Old professors & employers demanding royalties for recommendation letters?
Friends whose recommendation for a good movie you pass along must now be paid?
When I was young I started conversations with "They say..." My father would demand to know who "they" were. If he were alive I would tell him that although I knew, my piddly allowance meant I could not afford to tell him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tainted journalism rears its ugly ... rear
So does this apply to reviews of books, films, etc., or only music?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quoting Reviews
This charge is senseless. The newspapers themselves create content by reviewing the musicians'music, and sometimes, even quote the lyrics of their music. Shouldn't they pay the musicians too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, this is awful. All musicians should be paid for the work they do including the work between performances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Down to Margate Knees Up? - Pay Up!
Certainly agree that any musicians putting on a knees up should get remunerated - notice that we were actually absent from the Down to Margate festival in our own stomping ground
[ link to this | view in chronology ]