Analysis: Could Twitter users be affected by the Newspaper Licensing Agency copyright ruling?

The Newspaper Licensing Agency (NLA) has taken the legal measure in a bid to stop its members' news being distributed widely online by other media owners. Opposing this was technology firm Meltwater, with the support of the Public Relations Consultant’s Association, which sees the ruling as something that could affect the liberty of online useage at large.

“Most people use the internet today. Millions of internet users will be outright offenders, which is, of course, absurd. That is why we are seeking permissions to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court,” Jorn Lyseggen, CEO of Meltwater told The Drum.

Bill Lister, head of IT, IP and Media at Pannone, said that today’s ruling was further evidence that the courts were clamping down hard on those who infringe the copyright of even a short extract of text.

“Once again the court ruled that extracts did constitute copyright infringement because of the level of labour and skill involved in the original – therefore it’s a warning to all that both quality and quantity can lead to copyright infringement,” stated Lister.

It has been claimed that those browsing the internet maybe in breach of a media owner’s copyright by just opening a webpage, although that possibility is up for debate.

“What the judgement says here is that when you click on a link, if you haven’t then got a license to use that website beyond that link, and you know you haven’t, then potentially you are infringing copyright. It’s a little similar to when you buy a CD and you burn it onto your iPod, that’s copyright infringement. It’s quite easy to get hysterical to say that anyone could be caught unwittingly by looking at a website, and technically speaking that is true, but this is a very specific sector and a very specific industry,” explained Steve Kuncewicz, HBJ Gately Waring LLP social media and intellectual property lawyer who believes that the case may well “kick-start” a much needed review of copyright law in the UK.

“The NLA is living 20 years out of date,” states Frances Ingham, director general of the PRCA. “People often think the NLA is some kind of wing of Government. It’s just a private company owned by eight newspapers who are trying to squeeze every last penny that they can while their model is still worth anything. They are clinging to an old fashioned model in our view. They are being unreasonable and that is what the tribunal will decide on. To any reasonable person, they would have to say that this is just an antiquated way of doing business.”

Kuncewicz agrees that the whole case is a bid by the newspaper industry to retain revenue while the traditional model fails, but believes that had the ruling gone against it, the implications would have set a more dangerous precedent for the newspaper industry.

With the internet potentially becoming a potential minefield of copyright infringement, social media platforms such as Twitter could become a dangerous place for users, with links widely spread with little accompanying explanation.

“This will absolutely impact on those sites,” claims Lyseggen. “As well as that, if someone sends you an email with a link, or you find a link of Facebook or you find a link of Twitter, you are risking being in breach. Clearly this is a breakdown and society is not served by this ruling. It is absurd. Millions of people use the internet every day.”

Adam Mitton, a partner in the intellectual property practice at law firm Harbottle & Lewis, confirmed that the ruling pose an issue for Twitter users, saying that “theoretically” anyone who copies or makes available a headline and a link as part of a commercial search or aggregation service, could be infringing copyright, as could anyone who retweets that message.

"However, there are defences open to Twitter users which would not be available to a news aggregator or other commercial organisations,” continues Mitton. “For example, most media content is made available to end users on terms which allow 'personal and non-commercial use' and can be downloaded and copied for that purpose. This could be broad enough to provide a defence for individuals who draw attention to articles or print their own copies.

"But there is now with this ruling an added risk to downloading content and sending headlines and links to articles which you might have thought was not there before,” concludes Mitton.

Metlwater has said that it aims to appeal the verdict at the Supreme Court, although the main decision will be made with the Copyright Tribunal review of the commercial aspects of newspaper website licensing.

As Kuncewicz says; “it’s going to get even messier”.