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".