The dispute between the media relations and press cuttings industries and the Newspaper Licensing Agency over the latter's efforts to launch a 'links licence' will rumble on for at least a year. Papers published by the UK Copyright Tribunal last week revealed that in a preliminary hearing last month the copyright court rejected the NLA's efforts to have the legal case against the agency dismissed, and then ruled it wouldn't consider the disagreement in full until February 2011.
As previously reported, the NLA argues that agencies who provide corporate clients with lists of relevant newspaper headlines and links to the actual articles than mention their company should have to pay a licence fee, in the same way they would if they provided photocopies of the actual articles. But the PR industry argues that because no copies are made when links are provided, the copyright laws that empower the NLA in the print media and photocopy domain don't apply with digital links.

Cuttings agency Meltwater and the PR Consultants Association are opposing the NLA's efforts to launch the links licence, and took the matter to the Copyright Tribunal, the court that considers disputes specifically relating to copyright issues and royalty payments. The NLA was forced to suspend its link licence operations when Meltwater began its action, and given the time scale of the Tribunal hearing those operations will now have to be on hold for over a year.

In related news, the NLA recently announced a new fee structure regards their traditional newspaper copying licences for smaller PR agencies, those with less than five staff and three or less clients. The new fees will simplify the licence system for said agencies and, the NLA argues, reduce their costs. Though the boss of one affected agency said that while he recognised both the NLA's claims were true, it still wasn't a cost effective licence for his company.

Mervyn Edgecombe, MD of London-based PR agency Mervyn Edgecombe Associates, told Communicte: "The old system was so complex and convoluted that anything that simplifies the process has to be welcome. [But while] £150 [per client] may not sound much, that's £450 for the three main accounts that would warrant this license, and there's not enough value to justify it. When we get the coverage, we just send the office junior out to buy an extra copy of the paper".

Talking of lobbyists, the PR Consultants Association has confirmed it will be lobbying key decision makers in both government and the Conservative Party as part of its previously reported campaign to stop the Newspaper Licensing Agency from charging PR companies who provide clients with lists of URLs that link to relevant media coverage on free-to-access newspaper websites.

As previously reported, the NLA recently claimed companies who provide such links on a commercial basis need a copyright licence, similar to that required when a communications department or agency distributes photocopies of articles to their managers or clients. But many in the PR and newspaper cuttings industries disagree, saying that as no actual copy is made when a link to a relevant web page is provided, no such licence is required.

Media monitoring company Meltwater is taking the NLA to the Copyright Tribunal about their links licence claim. Meanwhile the PRCA is busy trying to win influential support for their campaign against the NLA's new licence. They recently surveyed 151 MPs on the issue, and say that 65% supported their viewpoint.

Now PRCA chief Francis Ingham now plans to engage in some lobbying on this issue. He told PR Week: "We will now be rolling out the next stage of our campaign against the NLA's plans. It centres on good, old-fashioned political lobbying".

So back to the ongoing dispute between those involved in media monitoring and the Newspaper Licensing Agency.

As much previously reported, the NLA is the body which licences the companies which make photocopies of newspaper cuttings available on a commercial basis, so mainly cuttings and PR agencies. Such a licence is required under UK copyright law, which gives a publisher the right to control who makes physical copies of its content.

The NLA has recently seen a decline in the number of companies buying its licences because increasingly PR people provide their clients or directors with lists of links to online versions of articles about their companies, rather than actual physical photocopies. Because this is basically a digital alternative to the old method of making photocopies of relevant articles, the NLA announced last year that PR agencies would now need to get a licence to legally provide 'link lists' to their clients as well.

However, the PR industry disagrees that such licences are required. Because no copy of an article is actually made when a link to a relevant piece is provided to a client, copyright law does not apply, and therefore no licence is needed. One media monitoring company called Meltwater is so sure this is the case that they have taken the NLA to the Copyright Tribunal - the court that considers copyright disputes - in a bid to get judicial confirmation that no links licence is required. In response to that legal action the NLA put its plans to launch the new licence on hold - or, rather, it claims a licence is still needed, but says it won't invoice anyone until the Tribunal has ruled.

The latest development is that the PR Consultants Association, who have opposed the proposed licence since it was first mooted last year, have formally joined Meltwater as a partner in its legal action against the NLA. The PRCA had previously welcomed the cutting agency's action, and will now work with it in presenting the PR industry's case to the Copyright Tribunal.

PRCA Director General Francis Ingham told esPResso: "In the face of their aggression, it's not good enough just to talk tough with the NLA - we need to act tough too. That is why we have intervened in support of Meltwater. We will now pursue this case with vigour and to a conclusion. We are clear that the NLA's pretensions have no basis in law, and represent an intolerable attempt to restrict and to tax knowledge. We are certain that standing up to the NLA - and standing up for the PR industry - is the right thing to do".

A spokesman for the NLA told reporters: "This move from the PRCA comes as no surprise and makes no difference to web licensing for newspaper content. Monitoring agencies are still required to have and pay for a web licence but we will not invoice their clients for their NLA web licences until the Copyright Tribunal has ruled. We regret that, unlike other trade organisations and companies, the PRCA chose not to engage constructively while the NLA consulted on its web licences throughout 2009".

In related news, the Financial Times has announced it will start to licence digital images of FT newspaper articles directly to cuttings and PR agencies, rather than via the NLA. This isn't related to the controversial links licence, but rather to the licence needed to access PDFs of FT print output for distribution to clients. Such access was previously available with an NLA licence, but as those licences come up for renewal FT content will no longer be included and companies will have to get a licence for the business paper directly. The FT say the move to cut the NLA out of this part of its operations is part of a wider "direct licensing strategy".