copyright
Forced to share for little reward
A scheme to pay creators for works shared privately may sound good but brings risks, says Andrew Wiard
A
re you happy for people to make use of your pictures, articles, books, drawings and other
creations free of charge? The culture media and sport committee recommends, in its Creator Remuneration Report issued last year, a compulsory scheme whereby anyone can make private use of our copyright material, without permission or payment. What exactly does ‘private’ use mean?
According to the government, when such a scheme was first proposed in 2014: “If you lawfully own it, you can copy it, as long as you do not give copies to other people.” That covers personal, private uses such as format shifting, which would include transferring music from CD to a mobile phone or archiving. That scheme fell then because it did not pay creators for waiving these rights. Today, the culture, media and sport committee is considering a similar proposal whereby we do now get paid – from a ‘smart fund’. This would work by imposing a levy on technology manufacturers, who would pay a small fraction of the value of each device they sell into the smart fund. A smallish chunk would then be siphoned off for community and cultural institutions and we would get what is left through five collecting societies. These societies represent artists, musicians, performers, authors and TV and film directors. The two most likely to represent NUJ members are the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society (ALCS) for writers, and the Design and Artists Copyright Society (DACS) for photographers. Why would we agree to this?
First, the argument goes, is because
while these private uses are in clear breach of our copyright, we find it extremely difficult to track and collect payment, so let’s just put a ring round them and let them go. We would then get something (not much!) from the levy.
Second, it would also allow for
reciprocal payments from collecting societies abroad. As far as the government is concerned, it is good PR as it bungs some money (our money) at cultural and community organisations. It is claimed the smart fund will provide a ‘purposeful and sustainable solution to rebuilding the UK’s cultural economy’. (The report doesn’t go in for managing expectations.) Whatever its value may be to others, this scheme will not save us from the food banks. It’s a case of a loss of rights for minimal payments. While ALCS and DACS bring in significant sums for some, for most of us, payouts from them are peripheral to our main sources of income.
“
It bungs some money (our money) at cultural and community organisations
What we freelances really need is
whatever it takes to see us through our daily jobs, week in week out. For that, we need something far more radical. Fair contract law would be a good place to start. So would the following. The above report also recommends “that the Government appoint a Freelancers’ Commissioner with appropriate powers and cross-departmental oversight to advocate in the interests of creative freelancers and address wider issues around contracts and working conditions”. Now that’s a big deal and it would make a real difference. But it’s not a case of either or here, so
what’s not to like? Just one word. Sharing. The report
talks about ‘private copying, storing and sharing on electronic devices’. Where did that word sharing come from? What on earth does it mean? Where does sharing begin and end? No clarity here from the smart fund: “Every day, millions of people access and store content like music, art, books and films on their personal digital devices. Whether downloading films and albums, or sending pictures to our friends, we use creative content to stay connected and express ourselves. Unlike streaming services or some social media, storing and sharing content for personal use infringes the creators’ copyright, and creators do not get paid. Other countries have already solved this problem by changing copyright to make storing and sharing content lawful, and paying the creators in the meantime,” it says. You can see what this could open the
door to. Buying pictures of mine then copying them for personal use is one thing. That was the deal in 2014. Sharing them with others is quite another. I would lose all control of my work. We did not ask for this scheme. It
would not be voluntary. So it is essential that the rights we would be compelled to surrender are not open-ended but strictly limited. Parliament got it right first time: “If you lawfully own it, you can copy it, as long as you do not give copies to other people.” Exactly so. If – and only if – they say the same again, then OK, let’s do it. That would be a good deal for all.
theJournalist | 07
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28
