Europe must not back down on internet giants paying for news

Directive on use of news agency and press material should not be diluted

Excluding short extracts from neighbouring rights will lead publishers and news agencies to employ fewer journalists. Then what will be the sources of information? State media? Authoritarian regimes? Photograph: Paul Hackett/Reuters

Excluding short extracts from neighbouring rights will lead publishers and news agencies to employ fewer journalists. Then what will be the sources of information? State media? Authoritarian regimes? Photograph: Paul Hackett/Reuters

 

Just three months ago on September 12th, the European Parliament voted massively in favour of a proposed directive that gives the press and news agencies hope that they will at last be paid by the giants of the internet. For years these companies have picked up thousands of media stories every day without paying a penny to those who produce them.

This historic vote on “neighbouring rights” was made possible thanks to an unprecedented mobilisation of journalists and the courage of members of the parliament despite intense pressure from the big tech firms.

The text now requires a consensus of the parliament, the Council of Ministers and the European Commission.

Today, with a new and widespread lobbying campaign, the internet giants are in the process of successfully emptying the text of substance: they are trying to exclude references to “short extracts”, “factuals” or “snippets” to exclude press agencies and specialist media, and to reduce the protection period for neighbouring rights.

Facts are for all. Everyone can explain and analyse them. However, when a search engine or an aggregator picks up word for word the output from a newspaper or an agency, it is totally normal to pay a neighbouring right even if it is only a short extract.

Can one envisage for even a second no payment for a factual story on Brexit or for a tragedy about refugees lost at sea off Greece on the pretext they are “short extracts”?

Investigative burden

Think of the investigative work that goes into publishing the headline “Suicide attack in Baghdad Shia quarter: 32 dead, say police, hospitals”. To pen this simple line, the journalist has questioned the police to determine what kind of explosion took place, called the hospitals to establish a casualty toll, visited the scene of the blast for a description and to interview witnesses. Occasionally he or she may risk their life because it is not unusual for a secondary attack to happen at the same place as the first. This was the case in Kabul recently when nine journalists and photographers lost their lives, including AFP’s Shah Marai.

Establishing facts also requires the elimination of rumours which pollute all major news: a supposed hostage-taking during the 2016 Nice attack that left 86 people dead, a new so-called atrocity at the Eiffel Tower on the night of the tragic November 13th events in Paris. Both were fake news which pervaded social networks and disappeared only after meticulous checks by the media.

This is the daily work of all journalists, photographers and videographers and it’s been mine too for years in Baghdad, Tehran, Cairo, Damascus and Beirut. If the picking-up of reports from publishers and agencies avoids neighbouring rights because they are short extracts, the directive will be empty of substance. That will mean that the fundamental work of our trade, the research and writing of proven facts, has no value. And all the investments publishers and press agencies make to bring news to the public will be a complete waste. It will also mean that facts do not make history. In the end, the field will be left to those who peddle fake news.

Short extracts

Excluding short extracts from neighbouring rights will lead publishers and news agencies to employ fewer journalists, to shut their bureaus in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Then what will be the sources of information? State media? The disinformation campaigns run by authoritarian regimes?

Let’s not allow “bots” or robots programmed to carry out influence campaigns, and “troll farms” to take over from reporters, or leave online fiction to replace verified fact

If short extracts are removed from neighbouring rights, the plundering of content will go on. The reason is simple : what internet surfers read in huge quantities, what generates millions of online interactions and thus considerable revenue for the platforms, is precisely these short extracts.

Another hobbyhorse for the internet giants is to eliminate press agencies from neighbouring rights. And yet they are on the frontline of news. Every day, every hour, every minute, they produce, stories, photos and videos through the dense networks they have built across the world. They remain an indispensable compass helping everyone, thanks to verified, pluralist and exhaustive information to know what is happening from Syria to Russia, from isolated provinces to capital cities.

Without agencies, newspapers, radio and television stations, the internet sites would lose a large part of their raw news input. Without agencies, images would become rarer. Agency content is plundered just the same as the work of publishers. It is indispensable for democracy that the agencies continue to exist – and that requires them to be fully included within the directive just the same as the publishers.

Protection time frame

The duration of the protection provided by neighbouring rights is also a key issue. Some want it reduced to one year. Would it not be absurd that the internet giants could use the tragic pictures of the 2015 Paris attacks for free because more than a year has passed? Common sense dictates a return to the initial duration period proposed of 20 years.

Can the European Union take the risk of emptying this neighbouring right of its substance when we are witnessing increased danger across the world and the spread of “fake news”?

We are told, and it is right that we should be, how important the European elections next May are for democracy. Then let’s not destroy a parliamentary text adopted on September 12th by 438 deputies, a very strong majority, after two years of work.

What is at stake in Brussels is the future of the press and all creative arts in Europe. And there would be no negative impact on consumers who would continue to have free access.

Ladies and gentlemen, ministers, members of parliament, members of the commission, journalists, publishers and news agencies are united in demanding fair reward for their work and for the investments made to keep the public informed. This is why the establishment of proper neighbouring rights is critical for our democracy.

Sammy Ketz is senior Middle East reporter with AFP and winner of the Albert Londres prize and the Bayeux war correspondent prize

The Irish Times Logo
Commenting on The Irish Times has changed. To comment you must now be an Irish Times subscriber.
SUBSCRIBE
GO BACK
Error Image
The account details entered are not currently associated with an Irish Times subscription. Please subscribe to sign in to comment.
Comment Sign In

Forgot password?
The Irish Times Logo
Thank you
You should receive instructions for resetting your password. When you have reset your password, you can Sign In.
The Irish Times Logo
Please choose a screen name. This name will appear beside any comments you post. Your screen name should follow the standards set out in our community standards.
Screen Name Selection

Hello

Please choose a screen name. This name will appear beside any comments you post. Your screen name should follow the standards set out in our community standards.

The Irish Times Logo
Commenting on The Irish Times has changed. To comment you must now be an Irish Times subscriber.
SUBSCRIBE
Forgot Password
Please enter your email address so we can send you a link to reset your password.

Sign In

Your Comments
We reserve the right to remove any content at any time from this Community, including without limitation if it violates the Community Standards. We ask that you report content that you in good faith believe violates the above rules by clicking the Flag link next to the offending comment or by filling out this form. New comments are only accepted for 3 days from the date of publication.