You can't change that! It's a press release..

It started with me being copied on an angry email from one editor back to a PR person at a major CAD company. The email read, "This press release is copyrighted. I will not use this."

The PR person, realizing a mistake had been made, apologized profusely and assured the editor that they had inadvertently sent him the 'Businesswire' version of the press release, which always contains a copyright, while he should feel there are no restrictions on him reproducing that news.

Why is this an issue? Well, if you look at the definition of Copyright on dictionary.com it says, "The legal right granted to an author, composer, playwright, publisher, or distributor to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work." This essentially means that reproducing parts of it without permission is against copyright law.

Ok fine.

Except that the purpose of a press (or in this case news) release, as summarized by Answers.com, states: "A news article is a compilation of facts developed by journalists published in the news media, whereas a news release is designed to be sent to journalists in order to encourage them to develop articles on the subject. A news release is generally biased towards the objectives of the author.

The use of news releases is common in the field of public relations, the aim of which is to attract favorable media attention to the PR firm's client, and publicity, the aim of which is to attract favorable media attention for products marketed by the client."

This whole scenario grasped my attention since it would appear that claiming copyright on a press release works directly against the nature of the press release itself. i.e. If you can look at it, but cannot use it to 'develop articles on the subject' then what does it achieve? If you send it out on the main newswires with a copyright on, (although not to the trade press when sent directly) then what does it achieve? Thusly if an editor gets his news off the wires (which perhaps have a copyright on) rather than direct from the vendor, can he then use it 'to develop articles on the subject'? If looking at it from a legal point of view, the answer is No.

The cynic in me reflects that this is the typical outcome of 'business as usual' after the lawyers have taken over a company. But I started to conduct a fairly brief survey of what the other main CAD companies do, using PRnewswire and BusinessWire for my research.

It came out as follows:

Autodesk - puts a standard web page copyright notice on its web site press releases, but i couldn't determine if they were on their various newswire releases.
SolidWorks - puts a copyright on its Businesswire press releases and in the body text of its web site press releases
Dassault - doesn't put a copyright on its wire press releases but uses a standard web site copyright on its press releases published (as opposed to within the body copy)
UGS - Doesn't put a copyright on its wire press releases, and uses a standard web copyright on its web-based press releases.

As worryingly, all press releases sent via a newswire also end up with a copyright claim from the wire service when viewed on the newswire web site.

So umm. Okay. This is where it gets very convoluted. If I get a SolidWorks press release via a newswire web site, I not only receive a Solidworks copyright but also a Businesswire copyright? Now then, you want an editor to develop a story on this with due consideration for various copyright claims? So who owns it then? Can it still be used as a the basis for a news item, or maybe the editor should just forget it and focus on something else? I would.

Or maybe we should just go back to using press releases for what they are intended - a seed to a good news idea, something that can be applied to a story or editorial. These copyright claims rule out the intention of a good press release, something that, by the way, has worked well since it was first thought of in 1908 - good ideas for news, and a basis for great editorial.

Rach

Comments

[owenwengerd]

IANAL, but... I have to disagree with several points you make.

First, news releases (and any other "works") are automatically extended copyright protection whether they contain a copyright notice or not. The real question is not whether a copyright notice exists, but whether editors are granted limited rights to copy the release.

Second, I believe your assertion that using a copyrighted news release to "develop an article" runs afoul of copyright law is incorrect. Using parts of a news release to prepare an article is "fair use" of a copyrighted work. Regurgitating the entire thing verbatim may or may not be fair use depending on the circumstances.

[Joan Stewart, The Publicity Hound]

I worked in the newspaper business for 22 years, mostly as an editor.

And I am NOT an expert in copyright law.

That said, the dream of every press release writer is that a newspaper publishes the release exactly as it was written.

I think this whole discussion of copyright is silly. And it is, indeed, an example of what happens when people let lawyers get involved.

Also, I wanted to point out something else about press releases. Don't forget they aren't written only for journalists. They are written also for search engine spiders.

So releases that might be of no interest to a journalist might be of great interest to a consumer. My free tutorial "89 ways to write powerful press releases" explains everything you need to know about writing and distributing a press release online.

You can opt in at http://www.PublicityHound.com/pressreleasetips/art.htm