|
Freelance Realities:
Internet Rights
Internet rights
are cable rights.
As far as legislation is concerned, Internet rights are a grey area, certainly
in the UK. There is no definition of Internet rights under the Copyright
Act so they are slotted into existing categories. According to UK law,
internet rights are cable rights, part of the current EC proposed directive
on Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society. If this directive
is passed, it will create an on-demand right in respect of phonograms,
film producers and performers, but not camera operators. The basic legal
position is that camera operators do not create copyright in their work
and thus are not in the same position as authors, composers or directors.
Their work and its use are therefore controlled by the contract they sign.
The question of extra payments to website contributors boils down to simple
accounting: do the broadcasters make enough extra money from having websites
to justify extra outlay? The answer is currently no, but as the medium
is expanding so rapidly its significance cannot be underestimated.
Legally, camera
operators are not recognised as copyright holders in their footage.
Most broadcasters have an All Rights policy for their contributions. In
some programme areas (notably Natural History) the camera operator's contribution
is recognised by a royalty share of gross receipts, so it is not entirely
unprecedented, but is unlikely to become the norm in the majority of programme
categories. To try to establish legal copyright authorship, would be a
lengthy and expensive process, and the technological revolution is certain
to have moved on several large steps before any profitable results accrue,
if ever.
The most practical
way forward in the short term is individual negotiation.
Many talent areas are represented by Trade Unions or Guilds, whose function
is to negotiate industry-wide agreements and guidelines for the employment
of their members. A significant percentage of the profession would have
to partake (and be in agreement) if a Union were to have a strong voice,
but a blanket agreement stipulating basic terms and conditions, as well
as a Minimum Rate Card, could benefit its members considerably. Whilst
being aware of the danger of pricing oneself out of the market, the more
camera operators who stipulate that a higher initial fee must be paid
to include Internet rights the more the broadcasters will have to sit
up and take notice. It is in everyone's interest to establish the ground
rules at an early stage.
SUMMARY
- A collective effort will be most effective in achieving a fair resolution
that penalises neither the broadcaster nor the camera operator.
- Individual negotiation
will determine the actual rates deemed acceptable by both parties,
but remember that broadcasters are not making extra money from Internet
use.
- Despite the impact
of new technology and its implications for all concerned, a legal
campaign to establish copyright ownership for camera operators is
unlikely to become a realistic possibility.
- The Rory Peck
Trust might consider forming a committee to discuss issues such as
fees, and produce a negotiation booklet with guidelines for anyone
who might require them.
Note: This
paper is intended for public discussion. If you want to join in, please
contact Lucian Hudson, Chairman of the Rory Peck Trust, directly: lucian.hudson@bbc.co.uk
or via the Rory Peck Trust.
|
Issue 4
December 1999
|