NLA License FAQs


On 5th June 2014, the PRCA won a landmark decision  at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) that affirmed the right of internet users to browse online freely without the threat of infringing copyright law.

The CJEU accepted all of the arguments of the PRCA and Meltwater against those arguments put forward by the Newspaper Licensing Agency (NLA), that browsing and viewing articles online does not require authorisation from the copyright holder.

The decision is binding and comes in the wake of a protracted legal action In the UK courts that began in 2010.

The judgment means that internet users are now protected by the temporary copy exception of EU copyright law when they read or browse content online.

The ECJ ruled that European law "must be interpreted as meaning that the on-screen copies and the cached copies made by an end-user in the course of viewing a website satisfy the conditions… and that they may therefore be made without the authorisation of the copyright holders."

What does the judgment mean for the PR industry?

This judgment is pivotal to our entire case against the arguments advanced by lawyers for the NLA, but it is by no means the end of the process.

To explain the situation, let’s go back to the two NLA licences that this judgment relates to, that cover the sharing of online links: the Web Developer Licence (WDL), which charges media monitoring agencies like Meltwater for sharing links with their clients; and the Web End User Licence (WEUL), which requires PR agencies and in-house teams to pay for the links that they receive from those monitoring firms.

The CJEU judgment means that the NLA cannot copyright online content, when a link is clicked on. But the judgment does not – and never attempted to - cover the sharing of digital links by email – this is still covered by copyright law. So, while there are implications for the WEUL, the WDL is unaffected by the judgment.

This ruling opens the way for media monitoring companies to create new service models with innovative digital formats that can get around the WEUL – we encourage them to do so. For instance, they may launch a web portal which features links to coverage, rather than sending an email listing the coverage.

The NLA might attempt to deal with this by increasing its fees to Meltwater and other media monitoring firms for the WDL – fees which the media monitoring companies might feel compelled to pass on to end users. But if the NLA were to attempt such a manoeuvre, we would respond in as forthright a manner as we have in the past. We have saved the industry millions in licensing fees, as the Copyright Tribunal forced the NLA to lower its proposed prices by 90%.

These issues will all be turned over at the next stage in this process – intense negotiations between the PRCA and Meltwater and the NLA. We have gained a far greater negotiating position against the NLA to force them to drive down the cost of licencing for receiving digital links.

But it is important to point out that the NLA’s suggestion that they can somehow work around this judgment is absurd. They cannot ignore the ruling of the court by increasing fees to media monitoring companies – fees that will be passed on to the end users.

If they attempt to do so, we will once again take them to the Copyright Tribunal for attempting to bill too much.

International technology and IP specialists Bird and Bird observed: “From an industry perspective, the decision will have interesting implications for the NLA's licences (which were the origin of the dispute). These currently require a payment by end users for acts which do not require a licence as a result of this decision."

However, while negotiations are ongoing, the PRCA advises its members to continue paying their fees – for the time being.


In January 2010, the NLA released an extension to their existing media license scheme, to include a Web End User Licence (WEUL) for companies receiving online content from media monitoring organisations (i.e. PR consultancies and teams).

The PRCA felt the licence was unfair for internet users who will require the authorisation of the copyright holder to view and read their online content. The NLA argued this is necessary because cached copies of web content will be made due to the technological process of reading content online. However, the PRCA argued, that if this were the case, end users such as PR professionals as well as ordinary internet users would be unintentionally infringing the copyright law due to an incidental and technological process.

The scheme also stated media monitoring agencies such as Meltwater Group needed a similar licence, the Web Database Licence (WDL) to supply online media content, which Meltwater wanted to challenge for legality and the associated fees.

2010: Copyright Tribunal

Meltwater with the support of PRCA referred the scheme to the Copyright Tribunal in February 2010. The Copyright Tribunal is an independent board established under the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988. They aim to settle disputes between collecting societies and users of copyright material, on the fairness of the license.

2010: High Court

In May 2010, the NLA responded by taking Meltwater and PRCA to the High Court to rule on the legality of its scheme. As a result, the Copyright Tribunal rescheduled their judgement until after the High Court made their decision.

In November 2010, the High Court ruled in favour of the NLA, that both users (WEUL) and suppliers (WDL) require a licence. In addition, anyone who clicks on a link and reads a news article on a public website in a commercial setting will infringe copyright laws unless licensed by the publisher i.e. newspapers. Meltwater and the PRCA were disappointed by the High Court judgment, but successfully had the case referred to the Court of Appeal to try to overturn the judgement made at the High Court for June 2011.

2011: Court of Appeal

However, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court decision that the caches made by computer through the technological process are not exempt from copyright laws. PRCA felt that technology was developing faster than the 1988 Copyright Act and that this decision would be costly for many UK businesses and professionals.

The PRCA challenged the specific ruling on the temporary copies exemption made by the Court of Appeal by appealing the ruling to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the PRCA’s case.

2012: Copyright Tribunal

In May 2012, Copyright Tribunal delivered their final verdict upon the Web Database Licence (WDL) and Web End User Licence WEUL, granting PRCA and Meltwater seven out of nine of their changes proposed. The full licence fee prices were slashed by 90% which saved the PR Industry £100 million. Following the ruling, the NLA began to charge fees for the WEUL dated back to 2010.

An entry on the tribunal can be found here.

2013: Supreme Court

In April 2013, the PRCA and Meltwater made legal history with a successful appeal to the Supreme Court that could save the UK public relations industry millions in copyright licence fees that may have had to be paid to the NLA, had the decision gone the other way.

The Supreme Court overturned the judgment of the Court of Appeal made in July 2011 and ruled that anyone should be free to visit a newspaper website without fear of infringing copyright law should they view the article on their computer screen. The Court of Appeal had previously ruled that a temporary copy made within and on the screen of a computer when a user clicks on a link to an article shouldn’t be exempt from copyright law protection.

In its 23-page judgment, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Court of Appeal ruling and held that prior authorisation was not either required or practical and applied the law as stated in two recent decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) that established broad principles in the interpretation of European copyright laws.

Temporary copies created as part of the technical processes involved in viewing copyright material on a computer are dealt with by Section 28A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 that itself was added to UK law as a result of EU Directive 2001/29/EC that dealt with the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related rights.

According to lawyers for the PRCA, the decision of the Supreme Court is binding on the lower courts.

An announcement can be found here and an entry on the outcome can be found here.

2014: Court of Justice of the European Union

In his judgment, Lord Jonathan Sumption explained it was desirable that any decision on the point of accessing such content be referred to the Court of Justice for preliminary ruling “so that the critical point may be resolved in a manner which will apply uniformly across the European Union”.

On Thursday 5th June 2014, we won our case against the NLA in the CJEU.

On Monday 9th June, we responded to the NLA and set out our future lobbying agenda. 

For more information please contact our Policy and Research Manager Nicholas Henry Dunn-McAfee.
Think before you print! Save energy and paper! Do you really need to print this page?
Fee Income
Drag here
  • This field should only be completed by the individual with responsibility for your company's PRCA membership.
  • NB - Once you check the box to the left of this field and click update this figure is fixed for the entire year.
  • Fee income is defined as fees or income arising from time spent on carrying out public relations consultancy work plus any mark up and any handling charges or profits made on disbursement or expenses.
  • This figure
    1. will be used to calculate your membership subscription fee for 2009
    2. will be published on the PRCA website and in the yearbook.
  • This figure must include the fees from any subsidiary companies but not associated companies (see below).
  • If you are bound by Sarbanes-Oxley please select that accordingly, we will contact you individually about your fee income.
Holders of public office
Drag here
  • Please list any employees who hold any public office including members of House of Parliament, members of local authorities or of any statutory organisations or bodies who are full- or part part-time directors, partners, staff, special advisers or consultants retained by the consultancy
Subsidiary companies
Drag here
  • These companies are entitled to the same benefits as other PRCA members, they must abide by the PRCA Professional Charter and Codes of Conduct and their fee income must be included in the fee income field above.
Associated companies
Drag here
  • These companies are not included in your membership and as such do not benefit from PRCA member benefits. These companies are not covered by the PRCA professional charter.
Current clients
Drag here

The clients listed in this section are those which retain a consultancy on a continuing basis to deal with their public relations either in a specialised area or as a whole. One asterisk (*) against a client's name indicates that the consultancy has been retained by that client for three years; two asterisks (**) indicate that it has been retained for at least five years. Clients served on an ad-hoc basis are listed separately.

Adhoc clients
Drag here

Clients for whom you have undertaken work in the last twelve months on a project rather than a retained basis

Conflict of interest clients
Drag here

NB This will not appear as a separate list in the yearbook.