I don’t know copyright law in detail. Being a writer, editor and occasional photographer, I assume first that everything is not for use until I confirm that it is.
One of the latest proposals to save print journalism, however, seems to have good legs in existing copyright law. A story in Editor and Publisher suggests extending copyright law to offer newspapers protection for the content they generate for a set period online—say, 24 hours.
Newspapers invest a lot of money in newsgathering. Reporters track down the news—sometimes that means paying a reporter to sit through four days of city meetings to hear a conversation on Day 5 that turns into a big story. Editors vet the facts and make sure the story is complete and well-rounded. Copy editors check that work for grammar and accuracy—verifying every phone number, looking up every address. A slot checks the copy editor’s work. A proofreader checks the finished page, as does the original editor. Photographers illustrate. Designers organize and present. Even if you don’t include the cost of printing and distribution, there’s a heavy price for trustworthy news.
Newspapers recoup this investment by selling advertising to run alongside that vetted-and-thus-valuable news. Just as with magazines, the cost of a subscription doesn’t cover it. But if other sites are swiping newspapers’ content online, there’s no way for newspapers to recoup the investment with advertising, either. They lose their go-to status for the work they produced.
It makes sense to let them protect it for a time. They gathered the news, they should reap the rewards. It’s counter to a popular movement that suggests all work should be freely shared, but if that model kills off the creator of the work, then is that a successful model?
Other materials are protected in this way. Consider the issue in context of movies that are only available in theaters first before going to DVD. Or songs on the radio that pay their creators a royalty every time they air. Shouldn’t there be similar protection for journalism, something that acknowledges its value and compensates its creator? Much as I love what I do, I don’t often work for free. What say you?
--Julianne W.
One of the latest proposals to save print journalism, however, seems to have good legs in existing copyright law. A story in Editor and Publisher suggests extending copyright law to offer newspapers protection for the content they generate for a set period online—say, 24 hours.
Newspapers invest a lot of money in newsgathering. Reporters track down the news—sometimes that means paying a reporter to sit through four days of city meetings to hear a conversation on Day 5 that turns into a big story. Editors vet the facts and make sure the story is complete and well-rounded. Copy editors check that work for grammar and accuracy—verifying every phone number, looking up every address. A slot checks the copy editor’s work. A proofreader checks the finished page, as does the original editor. Photographers illustrate. Designers organize and present. Even if you don’t include the cost of printing and distribution, there’s a heavy price for trustworthy news.
Newspapers recoup this investment by selling advertising to run alongside that vetted-and-thus-valuable news. Just as with magazines, the cost of a subscription doesn’t cover it. But if other sites are swiping newspapers’ content online, there’s no way for newspapers to recoup the investment with advertising, either. They lose their go-to status for the work they produced.
It makes sense to let them protect it for a time. They gathered the news, they should reap the rewards. It’s counter to a popular movement that suggests all work should be freely shared, but if that model kills off the creator of the work, then is that a successful model?
Other materials are protected in this way. Consider the issue in context of movies that are only available in theaters first before going to DVD. Or songs on the radio that pay their creators a royalty every time they air. Shouldn’t there be similar protection for journalism, something that acknowledges its value and compensates its creator? Much as I love what I do, I don’t often work for free. What say you?
--Julianne W.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment