French Politicians Want To Create Ancillary Copyright In Thumbnail Images
from the make-your-views-known dept
Despite the fact that copyright has been repeatedly extended and strengthened over the years, the thought never seems to cross publishers' minds that they could ever have too much of it, or that the public might have some countervailing rights here. As a consequence of this insatiable appetite, there have been a number of recent moves to create an ancillary copyright, also known as a "snippet tax," "link tax" and "Google tax," since it aims to make it obligatory to pay for making even short excerpts or linking to copyright material -- for example, in search results. Rather amazingly, publishers are still pushing for this new monopoly "right" despite abundant evidence from their own research that it harms their businesses.
Undeterred by these facts, some politicians in France are pushing for the creation of yet another kind of ancillary copyright, covering thumbnail images. That idea was squashed a long time ago in the US, but as the public domain advocacy group Comunia explains, in France, the following is still a real possibility:
A new right that would require search engines and indexing services to pay royalties for the use of thumbnail images of copyright protected works. According to French proposal, which has been approved by the French Senate, this new right would be managed by one or more collecting societies, regardless of the intention of the rightholders whether to be financially compensated for the use of their works by search engines.
In an open letter to the French Minister of Culture (pdf) Comunia explains why this is a really stupid idea:
Its scope will impact many online services and mobile apps, from search engines to creative commons models and [the online cultural collection] Europeana. Money would be collected arbitrarily and without any realistic way of redistributing it accurately. Basic, every day activities of online users, such as posting, linking, embedding photos online, would be subject to a cloud of legal uncertainty.
Unfortunately, France isn't the only part of Europe that is considering the introduction of ancillary copyright. This week, the European Commission launched a public consultation on the idea of giving publishers what it calls "neighbouring rights" -- in other words, ancillary copyright:
It would isolate France in the European Union, at a time when courts across Europe have made
clear these were lawful activities under national, European and international laws. It would isolate France globally, as a country where using images online would be subject to restrictive and unworkable practice.[The European Commission] is seeking views on the role of publishers in the copyright value chain, including the possible extension to publishers of the neighbouring rights. Publishers do not currently benefit from neighbouring rights which are similar to copyright but do not reward an authors' original creation (a work). They reward either the performance of a work (e.g. by a musician, a singer, an actor) or an organisational or financial effort (for example by a producer) which may also include a participation in the creative process.
The European Commission paints European publishers as somehow missing out on the ancillary copyright currently enjoyed by those in the music or theatre worlds. The intention is clearly to suggest that this kind of extra right is perfectly normal, and that it should -- of course -- be granted to those poor, struggling publishers, who barely have any copyright at all, apparently. However, that framing rather skates over the fact that posting an article on a website is hardly a creative act on a par with performing a song, or appearing in a play. So it's not entirely clear why the European Commission thinks it deserves an extra layer of legal protection on top of standard copyright -- other than the fact that publishers want that new monopoly in the hope of extracting money from Google.
Fortunately, the consultation is open to everyone, including those outside the EU, which means Techdirt readers everywhere can make their views known using the online questionnaire. As a bonus, you can also give your views on the so-called "panorama exception" -- another area where lobbyists are working hard to make copyright even less fit for the digital age than it is now.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
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: ancillary copyright, copyright, europe, fair use, france, google tax, thumbnails
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
... forty-third time's the charm?
Now where have I seen that logic employed before... ah yes, that would be when Spain introduced a law making it mandatory to charge for displayed snippets, with no ability for sites to opt out of charging since it was an 'inalienable right' under the law that they(well to be more accurate collection agencies) be paid, like it or not.
Anyone remember how well that worked out for them?
Anyone at all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ... forty-third time's the charm?
This is the very definition of corruption: introducing a new law that grants your crony the right to set and demand a tax that usurps the property of others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gee a 'rights group' who will collect all of the money and then maybe just maybe send a few cents to the rightsholders they manage to identify while sitting on the growing pile of cash laughing.
Perhaps it would be a good time to talk with actual people who don't have a vested self interest in expanding power to make more cash, and work on fixing the huge fustercluck copyright has become. Using evidence to make decisions, rather than just giving into loud dying industries who don't want to compete and ignore the benefits they are getting for free in the deal.
To listen to the media we are in a constant global state of war against the terrorists, and yet these assholes have time to try and create new way to try and make copyright more screwed up rather than doing things that could improve the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why stop there?
Oh, oh, and homebuilders should pay to review different blueprints before picking one!
The Google street view cars need to pay me a zillion dollars for taking pictures of MY house!
Yesterday I took a picture of a cloud that looks like a cotton ball. Anyone else who takes pictures of cotton ball looking clouds needs to pay me for coming up with the idea!
It's also not fair that some artists are starving, successful artists need to share their money with the starving artists who first painted similar ideas.
Lastly I think everyone should pay me money because I'm awesome and have lots of good ideas that others have ripped off! This world is soon unfair!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why stop there?
Let's see how long it takes for these same people to say "o crap, this needs to be stopped". Apply stupid laws to their letter and you'll see such laws being killed off very quickly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The uninteded consequence is ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The unintended consequence is ....
try that again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Real reason
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If this world could get rid of Money we would all be better off. This crap only happens Cause of Greed. Money is the root of all evil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A small correction, the desire for lots of money is the root of all evil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A small correction to the small correction. The actual quote is from the Bible, Timothy 6:10. The KJV has it as
*pedant mode off*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not a chance, but probably image search would be disabled there if this goes through. Then they would have to go through this whole rigamarole again about whether Google has to block something in the whole world, or just on google.fr. Has that question been resolved yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1. What would you do, go to the barter system? What do I have that the grocery store would want in exchange for food? Will I have to negotiate my paycheck every month with my employer? What if he doesn't currently have anything I need?
2. Why would eliminating money eliminate greed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thumb tax?
(ducks & covers)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right to forgotten thumbnails, oh my
They just haven't gotten over the fact that the lingua franca of the modern day is American English.
Ehud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]