Rewarding quality journalism or distorting the Digital Single Market? The case for and against neighbouring rights for press publishers
Résumé
Last September, the European Commission introduced 'neighbouring rights' for press publishers at EU level as part of its proposal for a new Copyright Directive. These new rights are similar to the ancillary copyright for press publishers already introduced in Germany and Spain.
Neighbouring rights give publishers additional protection, entitling them to receive remuneration in the form of royalties from online services (such as search engines and news aggregators) that, for example, display snippets of news in search results.
New neighbouring rights at EU level may provide additional revenue for publishers, but raise many concerns. What would the implications be for other economic actors, such as creators, small publishers, online services and users? What is the added value of the new rights over existing copyright frameworks? How can the balance best be struck between the various stakeholders' interests? How to ensure that copyright exceptions are invoked given the significant disparities between member states' provisions?
While copyright is an important tool to encourage investment in the creative industries, strong evidence of a market failure is required to justify the introduction of a new right or related right provision. An ill-designed copyright reform would fail to deliver important objectives such as an efficient value chain and a functioning Single Market. It could also have a negative impact on society as a whole by limiting access to information, undermining media plurality and hampering innovation.
That is why, in developing copyright legislation, proposed instruments should be carefully assessed in light of accurate market data and existing evidence.
National experiences with similar neighbouring rights – the ancillary copyright laws in Germany and Spain – have not been satisfactory. There appear to be two reasons for this. First, they created massive legal uncertainties. Second, they did not bring clear economic benefits, but rather resulted in reduced competition and media pluralism as well as smaller consumer surpluses (See section I.2.B).
The German and Spanish experiences demonstrated that the negative consequences of new neighbouring rights go beyond purely economic considerations.
Limiting the right to index content by introducing neighbouring rights, and the associated administrative burden and costs, harms users and negatively impacts media pluralism and freedom of expression (i.e. access to information).
The intense debate around the ancillary copyright provisions in Germany and Spain has nevertheless increased public awareness of the challenges facing press publishers in the digital environment, drawing attention to the growing importance of alternative revenue streams.
A potentially beneficial option to reward quality journalism could be to investigate the possible use of economic rather than legal instruments, such as, for example, reduced taxes (e.g. VAT) for the publishing sector. If publishers' business models are moving away from advertising towards reader-funded content, this might be a more effective way to encourage quality journalism and media pluralism.
In conclusion, neighbouring rights for press publishers do not appear capable of delivering the desired economic or societal benefits (as shown in Part I of this report). On the contrary, they might have the reverse effect, reducing the benefits for all the stakeholders involved. They also raise significant legal issues (as highlighted in Part II).