Kim Griggs
[ Last Updated 3 November 2005 ]
Date Received: 2003-02-21
Original version: Digital Copyright: Position Paper Submissions: No. 24: Kim Griggs [61KB PDF]
Kim Griggs
52 Helston Rd
Johnsonville
Wellington
New Zealand
Victoria Pearson
Policy Analyst
Intellectual Property Regulatory and Competition Policy branch
Ministry of Economic Development
Digital Technology and The Copyright Act 1994
Retention of copyright by freelance journalists and writers enables them to earn an income from their creative works. Signing away copyright, in what are termed "work-for-hire"' contracts, means the loss of control over creative works without the benefits that employed journalists and writers receive.
So, as a freelance writer I wholeheartedly agree that owners should be able to control digital copying and "first digitisation" of works that exist in print or analogue form. I also support the suggestion a specific reference be made that "material form" includes digital formats.
In New Zealand, many journalism contracts are informal to say the least. Contracts rarely mention who owns copyright or exactly what rights are being purchased. Previous submissions on this discussion document on this topic by newspaper groups illustrate how the whole area can confusing.
The Newspaper Publishers Association argues in its submission, drawing on the New York Times Co Inc v. Tasini ruling, that any amendments to the act must recognise that the digital form of a work is different from the print form. Thus, the NPA argues "the right to a copy of the printed work carries with it no right to the digital form." Not enforcing this difference would mean the ability of members of the NPA to derive income from their work would be unfairly eroded, the submission argues. "The owner of the work must retain the ability to control the copying and dissemination of that work," the NPA suggests.
This seems quite clear, but in its submission to the discussion paper, the major newspaper company, INL, cites the dissenting opinion of the Tasini ruling, appeared to be arguing for a reduction of freelancers' rights. INL suggested that the Act needed to be changed to protect publishers’ ability to provide publicly available and comprehensive archives. INL points out that it screens out freelancer stories from its database products, as it believes a test of the law here would end with the same ruling as in the Tasini case. INL argues that this creates holes in an important public record and the Act should be amended.
But it must be noted that these archives benefit are not just a public record, but a commercial enterprise. This same submission points out that "INL is active in exploring commercial opportunities on the Internet — examples are the stuff.co.nz website and the sale of access to database archives." So the solution to its "archives problem" is not to change the Copyright Act (as the company suggests on the final page of its submission). Rather the solution is to pay for the right to publish freelance content in a digital form.
Freelance writers are often in a very weak position when it comes to retaining or even understanding their rights. But freelancers — just like NPA members — must have the right to derive income from their work, whether that work be in analogue or in digital form. Therefore I suggest that there should be specific reference to digital form in the act in order to ensure that all copyright owners are be able to control digital copying and "first digitisation" of works.
Back to Top