Media, Tech at Odds on CO News Publisher Study

Media and tech groups offered competing comments last week on the Copyright Office’s study on potential copyright and competition protection for the news industry. Comments were due Wednesday on a study about “effectiveness of copyright protections for publishers, with a focus on press publishers.” The CO should recognize that Big Tech’s aggregation of “valuable news content” is a “major contributor” to the struggle of news publishers, the Copyright Alliance commented. The organization suggested the office offer guidance on copyright principles for news aggregation and recommend further study on competition and antitrust issues. News publishers and creators are relying on the agency to “diagnose the problem and to clarify how copyright laws actually operate in the context of news aggregation,” the organization said. Clarify the law and policies to strengthen news publishers’ rights, the News Media Alliance asked. It recommended the CO amend its policies on copyrightability of “words and short phrases,” clarify the law on “substantial takings and systematic use of news content,” study the need for “sui generis protections for news publishers” and study further guidance or congressional action on "the use of news content for artificial intelligence applications.” The Computer and Communications Industry Association opposed the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act (see 2103120066). JCPA is bipartisan legislation to give news outlets power to negotiate with Big Tech over compensation for content. A few commenters asked the CO to weigh in on the legislation. CCIA said the proposal is outside the scope of the CO’s inquiry and expertise. CCIA argued the legislation would allow larger news publishers to dominate negotiations, leading to further consolidation of the news industry. The JCPA would likely “benefit large actors, continuing the power imbalance and leaving smaller outlets and tech-enabled media startups behind,” commented Engine. Defining what is and isn’t subject to “enhanced copyright or competition protection” would put the federal government in the problematic position of “picking winners and losers when it comes to speech,” Engine said.