[
To Table of Contents]
EditDigital Copying
There are three types of digital copying:
• scanning-photocopiers, that scan a printed page to produce a printed copy - this is covered by the photocopy licences
• scanning from print to digital
• digital to digital copying, where a digital publication is emailed to a colleague, or cut and pasted to show on screen
Digital to digital copying is now permitted under the latest set of Collective Digital Licences following consultation with rightsowners. They allow licensees to re-use limited parts of born digital publications. The limiting terms of digital licences remain the same as for print, ie 1 article, chapter or 5% etc, and that material can be circulated to authorised users only. However, the key difference with digital licences is that they operate on an opt-in basis for publishers. Once opted in at Publisher level, Publishers are still able to exclude individual titles should they wish.
The experience of the licensee generally is that they will be offered a more ‘comprehensive’ licence allowing photocopying, scanning, and now the re-use of digital material. Where possible, there will also be an uplift in fees for the additional digital copying rights. Licences which currently include digital re-use rights are:
• Business licence (launched April 2008)
• Public Administration licence (launched April 2008)
• Higher Education licence (launched August 2008)
• Pharmaceutical licence
CLA will survey the re-use of digital material under its licences in the same way it currently does for print material. A proportion of the licence fee revenue will be allocated to digital material picked up in surveys for onward distribution to publishers by PLS.
EditInternational Developments
IFRRO has four main structures to address different aspects:
Digital Strategy Committee
a high-level body consisting of IFRRO Board members (rightsholders representatives and RROs). They develop IFRRO strategy, not the strategy for individual RROs.
Digital Technical Sub Committee
a small committee of IFRRO members. It is involved in the development of standards for licensing and data exchange online. The aim, put most simply, is an interoperable system for rights clearance, administration and remuneration.
The technical committee is working on:
• ONIX standards for licensing and data exchange
• an IFRRO ACAP use case
• the ISO Standard International Standard Text Code - ISTC
• the work group developing the International Standard Name Identifier - ISNI
Digital Issues Forum
a wide forum open to all IFRRO members for two-way information exchange. The DIF usually meets twice per year.
Copyright Industries Focus Group
inaugurated by IFRRO after the IPA Montreal meeting, when the situation of the music industry was highlighted and contrasted with that of the publishing industry. Its members are RROs, rightsholder representative bodies, and individual rightsholders. It aim is to develop an industry-wide vision, for enabling online text and image-based content to be accessed online easily, legally, and under the control of its rightsholders.
EditDigital Repertoire Exchange
There is strong demand in the UK for the use of the overseas repertoire of works, in digital form. Because of the strength of UK publishing, the UK repertoire is equally heavily in demand overseas.
A Repertoire Exchange Mandate (REM) has been developed, to enable RROs to exchange repertoire by means of digital bilateral agreements. The REM was developed by IFRRO over a period of about a year in consultation with its members, including European Writers Congress, International Federation of Journalists, International Publishers Association, and the International Association of Scientific Technical and Medical Publishers (STM). At the IFRRO AGM last October, the STM Board issued a written endorsement of the REM.
The REM places control in the rightsholders’ hands. The underlying principle is that repertoire exchange must be voluntary and non exclusive, with the ability for rightsholders to opt in or out.
The RRO responsible for its national rightsholders’ repertoire is termed the “repertoire holding RRO”. The repertoire holding RRO is responsible for ensuring that its opposite number the “licensing RRO” complies with the REM principles of voluntary participation, non exclusivity, etc.
The licensing terms must be transparent and must be clearly communicated to the rightshoders. Payments must be efficient, and any changes in the licensing terms must be communicated, and the rightsholders given the choice to opt out if wished.
In the case of transactional licences, prices will be set by the rightsholders throughout the chain.
The aim of the REM is to facilitate the exchange of digital bilaterals. At some future point, the possibilities offered by Web 2.0 will change the character of licensing, including collective licensing. For the immediate future, the exchange of bilaterals continues to be essential, to allow users to copy from paper and digital originals legally in their possession.
The REM enables digital mandates to be exchanged with confidence between RROs which mutually observe the REM principles. The REM was launched in May 2007. Countries which have entered into digital bilaterals with each other to date include Canada, France, Spain, Australia, and USA.
UK universities and business want to be able legally to make digital copies of non-UK copyright materials. By the same token, overseas users want to legally make digital copies of UK materials. For this to happen, digital bilaterals must be exchanged.
CLA is seeking to exchange bilaterals with the following countries – USA, Canada, Spain, France, Ireland, S. Africa, Australia, NZ. These countries operate voluntary licensing systems in some or all sectors, and all operate according to the principles of the REM. Terms have been agreed which comply with the necessary conditions. Letters of Intent have been exchanged with most of the above.
Through the rightsholders organisations CLA is now seeking the appropriate digital mandates.
Publishers are able to include their works in the various bilaterial agreements by giving their digital mandate to PLS. Publishers commmit at 'publisher level', but are permitted to then exclude individual titles, should their be any specific concerns surrounding and works.