Talk:Ancillary copyright for press publishers

A fact from Ancillary copyright for press publishers appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 September 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the proposed German ancillary copyright would affect sites that used even short snippets of news articles?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2012/September.

Wikipedia

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article title and scope

Although it often refers to the new bill in current press articles, "ancillary copyright" is a common translation for Leistungsschutzrecht, which also covers a number of other Leistungsschutzrechte (related rights?) mentioned, for instance, in sections 70 and 87 of the German Copyright Act (Urheberrechtsgesetz), e.g. rights of broadcasters.

So this article should probably be titled "Ancillary copyright for press publishers" (arguably capitalized as the proper name for a proposed change in the law, rather than the topic of the rights themselves). It should link to de:Leistungsschutzrecht für Presseverleger. Although it presumably refers mainly to newspaper publishers, I suppose it includes other types of product, so I think we have to say something like "press publishers", though that sounds a little unusual. The content of the current article Leistungsschutzrecht should presumably be merged into this article (if not already done), but it should probably redirect to Related rights, since Leistungsschutzrecht doesn't just cover this particular right for newspaper/press publishers. This article should also probably link somewhere to Related rights. Related rights already links to de:Verwandte Schutzrechte, aka Leistungschutzrechte. --Boson (talk) 09:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We should have an article not (just) about the one proposal in Germany but the concept in general, including the legislation in Spain and the proposals in EU, including current consultation by EC. --Oop (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ancillary copyright for press publishers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ancillary copyright for press publishers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scope?

So would this law only affect internet content providers, or would it also affect other media?

Some late-night and early-morning tv news programmes traditionally devote a slot to discussing what's in the day's (or the next day's) newspapers, and show the front pages along with with headlines, images, comparisons, etc. That's quite explicitly reusing content in order to let people know what's in the papers without actually having to buy and read them. It's justified by arguing that the population need to be informed, and since newspapers to some extent "make" the news by deciding what to cover and how, a topical news schedule isn't complete without coverage of "What the Papers Say". A newspaper's reporting may be considered even more newsworthy if it's considered a "Newspaper of record".

It would be odd if tv and radio were allowed to extract (and base complete programmes on) newspaper information on the basis of the public's need to be informed, but if the same principle of didn't apply to internet content. There's also the issue that conventional media providers also increasingly put their broadcast content on the internet, so for example, ITV are a commercial UK television network, and they have this: http://www.itv.com/news/2018-07-03/what-the-papers-say-july-3/ .

Again, it'd be odd if broadcast media could transmit news content to the general public, but nobody could archive that reporting for the historical record without paying the subjects of the reporting.

And some of the "offenders" extracting newspaper content and putting it online for comment are ... other newspaper companies, e.g. Belfast Telegraph: https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/what-the-papers-say-june-3-36972418.html

Some additional clarification in the article might be useful. ErkDemon (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS: for context, some years ago Rupert Murdoch complained bitterly that if you looked at the top ten news stories on the News International site, Google had the same stories. Google were obviously ripping off News International! The reality was rather different – shortly after I checked NI's top fifty news stories, as ranked by the site itself as being the most popular, and only three of those actually originated with NI journalists – the rest were syndicated "news agency" stories. Google were an official customer for the same agency feeds, and that's why – quite logically – they had the same stories. NI's problem wasn't that Google were cloning their site, it was that both NI and Google were relying on the same syndicated news feeds, and NI weren't able to add enough unique content or added value to differentiate themselves enough from Google's offering to be able to compete with Google being people's primary online information source. ErkDemon (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article by Pamela Samuelson

https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2019/3/234918-questioning-a-new-intellectual-property-right-for-press-publishers/fulltext Nemo 10:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]