ppa.tbcserver19.com

Category: Public Affairs

  • Ofcom confirms plans for postal reforms: impact on magazine subscription services

    Ofcom confirms plans for postal reforms: impact on magazine subscription services

    From 28 July 2025, Royal Mail will move to an alternate weekday delivery model for Second Class letters. Mail will be posted on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday on one week, then Tuesday and Thursday the following.

    Crucially, for publisher brands that send titles using the Royal Mail service, access mail (the bulk mailing route commonly used for subscription delivery) will follow the same alternating timetable.

    Saturday deliveries are also set to be scraped for the second-class service, but to be kept for first class, meaning magazines posted later in the week could face further delays in reaching readers, or be forced to pay more.

    Ofcom has acknowledged the impact these changes may have on time-sensitive titles, such as Radio Times, The Week, and publications serving older readers or those in rural areas. However, the final decision does not include or mention specific provisions for magazine publishers or subscription-based content. Instead, the burden of ensuring timely delivery has been shifted to publishers, with the expectation that they will absorb the cost of faster, premium services.

    Separately, Ofcom has also confirmed that it will introduce regulation for the new alternate-day delivery service, including “margin squeeze controls” to guard against anti-competitive pricing. This means Royal Mail won’t be allowed to set wholesale prices so high that other companies can’t afford to compete in the bulk mail market. With Royal Mail the only provider capable of final-mile delivery, continued oversight is vital.

    Commenting on the announcement, PPA CEO, Sajeeda Merali said:

    “We are disappointed by Ofcom’s recommendation to scrap Saturday deliveries for second-class post. Reducing delivery days not only hurts specialist publishers, who are already absorbing rising costs, it undermines consumer experience.

    Subscribers pay for a regular service, and delays reduce the value of their subscription, particularly for consumers for whom a digital alternative would be unsuitable. Offering a faster delivery option at a higher cost puts the onus and cost on publishers – smaller publishers will struggle to stay afloat or be forced to pass costs onto readers. We hope that Ofcom will reconsider the impact these reforms will have in their review of postal pricing and affordability later this year.

    We welcome Ofcom’s decision to retain regulation of existing bulk mail services and to introduce new safeguards, including protections against anti-competitive pricing. These measures are essential to ensuring publishers can continue delivering subscription magazines without the risk of anti-competitive prices along the line, particularly in a market where Royal Mail remains the sole final-mile provider within the market”

    Ofcom plans to consult on postal pricing and affordability in late 2025, and PPA will continue to push for a model that protects the viability of print subscriptions and recognises the distinct needs of magazine publishers.

    If you have any questions, please get in touch with Eilidh Wilson, Head of Policy and Public Affairs, PPA (eilidh.wilson@ppa.co.uk)

  • Digital competition legislation: CMA proposes to designate Google with strategic market status in search and search advertising

    Digital competition legislation: CMA proposes to designate Google with strategic market status in search and search advertising

    SMS is a status given to firms with substantial market power, allowing the CMA to impose tailored rules to promote fair competition.

    This marks a significant step towards addressing longstanding concerns about the dominance of large tech companies with significant market power. It will promote a better playing field for publishers and other businesses operating in digital marketplaces.

    The CMA has set out an indicative timeline, including an active consultation phase due to close in mid-July, and an opportunity for Google to make oral representations before a final decision is made later this year.

    A final designation is anticipated in autumn 2025, after which a tailored set of conduct requirements would be designed and implemented. The PPA will continue to monitor developments and engage closely with the CMA to ensure the interests of publishers are represented as the regime takes shape.

    You can read more about the provisional decision here.

    For further information contact Eilidh Wilson, Head of Policy and Public Affairs, PPA (eilidh.wilson@ppa.co.uk)

  • Government publishes Industrial Strategy and Creative Industries Sector plan

    Government publishes Industrial Strategy and Creative Industries Sector plan

    Alongside this, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has released an 80-page policy paper titled, Creative Industries Sector Plan, setting out detailed growth plans for the creative industries.

    The sector plan identifies four sub-sectors as having the “highest potential” for growth: film and TV, music, performing and visual arts, video games, and advertising and marketing. However, publishing has not been recognised as a key sub-sector, a point also raised by the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Caroline Dinenage MP.

    A key announcement within the Sector Plan was the proposed development of a ‘Creative Content Exchange’ (CCE), described as a ‘marketplace for selling, buying, licensing and enabling permitted access to digitised cultural and creative assets’. The CCE is framed as a mechanism to open up new revenue streams for content owners, and is presented in a press release as part of the Government’s commitment to maintaining a robust copyright regime.

    However, some have noted that the proposals do not fully address long-standing concerns around copyright and AI. While the function of the CCE remains to be known, it appears to be formed as a voluntary platform, rather than a regulatory framework for developers seeking to access copyrighted content for training AI systems. There are also concerns around how it would operate around current licensing models and whether it could risk undermining these frameworks already in use across the industry.

    Commenting on the CCE, the PPA’s Head of Policy and Public Affairs, Eilidh Wilson, said: “We are particularly interested to see how a proposed Creative Content Exchange develops. Incentivising an effective licensing market in the context of AI technology requires regulation to address widespread copyright infringement. This is something which the Government failed to address in the Data Bill earlier this month.”

    The PPA responded to the original industrial strategy in Autumn 2024. We are actively engaging with the sector and officials, including DCMS Secretary of State, on the forthcoming plans, including the Creative Cultural Exchange.

    For further information contact Eilidh Wilson, Head of Policy and Public Affairs, PPA (eilidh.wilson@ppa.co.uk)

    You can read the Invest 2035: the UK’s modern industrial strategy consultation here.

  • PLS launches publisher consultation on Generative AI

    PLS launches publisher consultation on Generative AI

    The short survey aims to gather feedback from publishers on key aspects of PLS’ proposal, including whether you would consider opting in to share your content with Generative AI and any areas of concern.

    This consultation is for PLS-registered publishers only that license content through CLA, and is open for feedback until 22 August 2025.

    Your responses will not be shared externally and will help shape the final version of the licensing scheme.

    You can read PLS’ consultation paper here. You will need to be logged into your PLS Collect account to access.

    Complete the survey here.

  • PPA calls for meeting with Culture Secretary to champion trusted editorial brands

    PPA calls for meeting with Culture Secretary to champion trusted editorial brands

    The letter highlights the significant contribution of specialist publishers to the UK economy and society, from our role in producing high-quality children’s content to our work in sustaining trusted journalism through advertising and subscription models. It outlines key challenges facing the sector, particularly around AI and monetisation, and calls for publisher representation in the planned government working groups on copyright and AI.

    The letter makes clear that the PPA can play a vital role in helping deliver the government’s ambitions for the creative industries.

    You can read the full letter here.

    For further information contact Eilidh Wilson, Head of Policy and Public Affairs, PPA (eilidh.wilson@ppa.co.uk)

  • EU General Product Safety Regulation (GPSR)

    EU General Product Safety Regulation (GPSR)

    The following guidelines for publishers are in relation to the sale of printed magazines and books in the EU & Northern Ireland, produced in association Lewis Silkin LLP and Marketforce.

    In light of the updated EU General Product Safety Regulation (GPSR), which came into effect on 13 December 2024, book and magazine publishers exporting to the EU, European Economic Area (EEA), or Northern Ireland (NI) must appoint an Authorised Representative based in the EU. 

    This requirement applies regardless of the sales channel used, meaning all exports, including those made via third parties or online platforms, must comply. 

    Background to the regulation 

    The GPSR is a key instrument in the EU product safety legal framework. It replaced the previous General Product Safety Directive and the Food Imitating Product Directive from 13 December 2024. 

    The GPSR requires that all consumer products on the EU markets are safe and establishes specific obligations for businesses to ensure it. 

    A key requirement in the Regulation is for non-EU-based companies to have an authorised EU-based representative to act on behalf of the manufacturer/publisher and importer to provide a local contact for quick resolution to issues in the market with products. 

    The legislation requires all product manufacturers to provide their authorised representative’s contact details (postal address and electronic address) on the printed products supplied into the EU market.  

    If there is a ‘safety issue’, this can readily be reported via this representative and the product can be easily recalled from the market if required. All products must be ‘traceable’ – which for magazines and books can be done using ISBNs/Barcodes and Volume Numbers/Issue Identifiers. It is recommended that manufacturers/publishers retain an audit trail detailing production traceability for all products supplied to the EU for at least 10 years. 

    How does this affect publishers? 

    Book and magazine products distributed within the EU must comply with these requirements. This also includes products for sale in Northern Ireland. 

    What needs to be done? 

    Sellers should establish an Authorised Representative in the EU to act on their behalf in relation to GPSR 

    Options: 

    1. Use an existing EU-based entity as an authorised representative, or, 
    1. Appoint a specialist third-party representative to specifically manage this process on behalf of the seller 

    Responsibilities of an Appointed Representative include, but are not limited to: 

    • The representative to be referenced on the product, for example on the imprint page of the book, as a point of contact for any safety queries/complaints raised. 
    • The representative will also have to report to the authorities on any concerns with a product or actions taken to ensure a product’s safety (if required). 
    • Regularly check that a product has had a relevant risk assessment drawn up for it (where relevant) and that it complies with various technical requirements (e.g. manufacturer’s name, postal and email address is included on the product, the product is accompanied by clear instructions/safety language). 

    What is the recommendation? 

    Appoint a specialist third party representative to manage the process and that help you fully understand the implications of EU GPSR. 

    What is my next step? 

    For titles yet to be printed, you will need to print details of the appointed EU AR on the imprint page of each magazine to be sold in the EU or Northern Ireland, alongside a safety declaration statement. 

    What are the labelling requirements?  

    It is advised to include on the magazine or book imprint page: 

    • The business name, clearly stated as the ‘Manufacturer’ along with a contact email address 
    • Clear heading advising ‘GPSR EU RP’ 
    • The company name of the authorised representative 
    • Their full postal address (EU based) 
    • A contact phone number (EU based) 
    • A contact email address 
    • A declaration statement that avoids the need for additional paperwork or assessments given that books/magazines are deemed ‘safe’ 

    What would the text look like? 

    An example statement could look something like: 

    “General Product Safety 2023/988: The use of our product under normal or reasonably foreseeable conditions of use, including the actual duration of use, does not present any risk or only the minimum risks compatible with the product’s use, which are considered acceptable and consistent with a high level of protection of the health and safety of consumers” 

    PLEASE NOTE – This declaration statement is an example only. It will need to be reviewed by each publisher’s own legal department and appointed AR to ensure it meets the full requirements of EU GPSR in the sale and distribution of their product within the EU and Northern Ireland. 

    This information should all be included on the imprint page of each magazine and book available for sale within the EU and Northern Ireland. 

    Risk assessments 

    Despite printed products being ‘deemed safe’ there is still a requirement for your business to create and develop risk assessment documentation for all products sold within the EU (and Northern Ireland), if requested by EU regulatory bodies. 

    Magazine products with cover mounted toys or gifts may come under more scrutiny than non-cover mounted variants, especially as the EU has proposed new toy safety rules. It is recommended that additional information is sought from your appointed AR to ensure compliance. 

    What do I need to do online? 

    All of the detail required in the ‘Labelling Requirements’ needs to also be available for consumers or regulatory bodies on the Manufacturer’s website, who in this case is the publisher. 

    There is little clarity around how visible this needs to be on the website, but we would suggest that you add it. You may however be able to get away with including it as a link on the website footer alongside your existing Privacy Policies, Cookie Policies etc. 

  • Max Wilkinson MP on journalism, that deep fake, and why the Data Bill matters

    Max Wilkinson MP on journalism, that deep fake, and why the Data Bill matters


    You’re the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for Culture, Media and Sport in the House of Commons, can you tell us about your key focus areas at the moment? 

    It’s a very wide brief – and a very stimulating brief too. Much of my recent work has been focused on the challenges to the creative industries posed by AI. I’ve worked as a tag-team with my colleague Victoria Collins on the Data Bill and we’ll continue to press the government for a long-term solution that protects creatives.

    I’m also pushing the government to do more to improve public health by supporting sports and physical activity, as well as fighting the corner of touring artists who have been given a raw deal by Brexit.

    You’ve recently been the subject of online misinformation thanks to a deepfake. For anyone who missed it, can you tell us what happened and what concerns you have about this emerging technology?

    This was a very serious incident. People familiar with the House of Commons will be aware that the microphones pick up comments of those sitting behind a member making a verbal contribution. Comments I made when sitting behind Nigel Farage were manipulated using AI to create the illusion I had used a four-letter expletive to describe him.

    The video was posted by a Reform UK social media account. The video was seen by more than 100,000 people before it was taken down after I raised a point of order in Parliament. I reported the incident to X and received no reply. In fact, there wasn’t even an option to report content as having been manipulated by AI.

    The consequence of the manipulated post was that I received a deluge of abuse and some threatening posts. My team had to deal with this. Political parties shouldn’t use misinformation in campaigns. In its actions, Reform has shown it isn’t ready for the responsibilities of power.

    You supported the amendments tabled by Baroness Kidron to the data bill, why are these so crucial? 

    Because the creative industries are vital not just for our cultural life but for our economy too. If creators’ IP is not protected, the economic imperative to produce creative content will over time be deleted.

    AI is already transforming the way we work and the way we enjoy arts and culture. Indeed, creatives are embracing it. But if the unique elements of the arts and culture created by humans are removed, we will all be poorer. When I say ‘poorer’, I mean literally, as well as culturally.

    The creative industries generate in excess of £120billion for the UK economy annually. It’s also worth noting that the creative industries are using technology and AI. Anyone who seeks to portray creatives as luddite completely misunderstands the issue. This is fundamentally about fairness.

    Trusted editorial brands need their copyright to be protected from AI, to ensure the sustainability of their business models. Are you pushing for regulations that will defend the rights of publishing businesses? 

    Yes. We’ve pushed this at the second reading, public bill committee of the Data Bill and we will continue to do so. As a former journalist and communications professional, I understand why this is such an important battle for the industry. It’s one I’m committed to fighting.

    Can the government balance AI innovation with upholding the UK’s gold standard copyright laws? 

    With technological change comes challenge. The task of government in this area is to ensure that the legal system works, that it protects those who need protection and that it generates prosperity. Those principles must stand even in the face of the rapid change and international competition we are experiencing. I’m sure the government can do it – it must.

    Before becoming an MP, you worked for your local paper. What made you pursue a career as a journalist? 

    The honest answer is that I was a bit directionless during and after my time at university. What I knew was that I was interested in the world around me and one of the talents I did have was in describing what was happening. Being trained as a journalist was transformative for me. I was a shy teenager and student, but the skills I learned as a reporter helped me grow as a person. If I didn’t embrace that process, I definitely wouldn’t have ever become an MP.

  • Lords stand firm on AI copyright protections

    Lords stand firm on AI copyright protections

    In this round of parliamentary “ping pong” peers supported a revised amendment led by Baroness Kidron, which would require the Government to make a public assessment on the scale of copyright infringement by AI developers and publish a draft Bill.

    These amendments do not propose formal regulations but instead compel Ministers to acknowledge the issue and plan out next steps.

    Despite repeated Commons rejections, support for the amendment in the Lords has grown, with a majority of 242 to 116.

    While previous amendments focused on direct regulation, this version requires the Government to:

    • Make a public statement on the scale of copyright infringement
    • Bring forward a draft Bill to improve transparency from AI companies


    These suggestions keep the issues raised by Kidron on the parliamentary agenda, without welcoming the previous argument from the Commons that the amendments would have financial implications.

    Baroness Kidron labelled the vote a test of “whether we uphold the rule of law in the age of AI”, urging the Government to stop blocking efforts to protect UK intellectual property.

    The Government has consistently maintained that they are not minded to pursue the asks within the amendments, but rather will rely on working groups inform next steps.

    For further information contact Eilidh Wilson, Head of Policy and Public Affairs, PPA (eilidh.wilson@ppa.co.uk)

  • Lords vote in favour of amendments to protect copyrighted works from AI companies

    Lords vote in favour of amendments to protect copyrighted works from AI companies

    ‘Ping-pong’ refers to the to-ing and fro-ing of amendments to Bills between the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

    The Bill is approaching the final stages of its passage through Parliament and is currently undergoing “Consideration of Amendments”. This is the stage where the Lords and Commons exchange amendments and respond to each other’s decisions. If one House disagrees with the other’s changes, the Bill returns for further debate (ping-pong) until agreement is reached.

    Crossbench Peer and former film producer, Baroness Beeban Kidron, has led on the amendments to add provisions to protecting copyright holders, particularly in the creative industries, from the unregulated use of their work in AI development.

    Earlier this month, the Commons rejected the proposed amendments on the basis that their wording could require the government to spend public money enforcing transparency obligations on AI companies. In response, Baroness Kidron revised the amendment to address these concerns, removing specific enforcement requirements and replacing “must” with “may” to ensure the amendment no longer imposes a spending obligation.

    On Monday 19 May 2025, the Lords voted in favour of Kidron’s amendments, resulting in a third government defeat over copyright protections. The revised amendments were debated amongst MPs on Thursday 22 May 2025, but were ultimately voted against, with the same reasoning relating to public spending.

    The Government has stated that Data Bill is not the appropriate “legislative vehicle” to address these complex issues such as Baroness Kidron’s amendments, and future proposals will only be bought forward when they are fully considered and workable.

    Despite this, celebrity artists have been vocal about their concerns with the Government’s decisions on AI and copyright. Sir Elton John said he’s felt “betrayed” over the Government’s plans to favour tech companies over rightsholders. Dua Lipa and Paul McCartney are also among those opposing the Governments decisions.

    To discuss this issue in more detail, contact Eilidh Wilson, Head of Policy and Public Affairs, PPA (eilidh.wilson@ppa.co.uk)

  • Government proposes concession amendments on copyright and AI amidst pressure from creatives

    Government proposes concession amendments on copyright and AI amidst pressure from creatives

    These amendments include commitments to publish a report on the recent AI and copyright consultation and to conduct an economic impact assessment.

    While these steps acknowledge the concerns raised, they fall significantly short of the sector’s needs. The proposed measures do not introduce binding legal safeguards and largely reflect actions that would already be expected as part of the government’s standard process.

    Nonetheless, the introduction of these concessions signals that the advocacy efforts of the PPA and broader creative community are gaining traction. We will continue to engage closely with MPs and officials as the Bill progresses through its final parliamentary stages.

    Advocacy from across the sector remains strong. Last week, ABBA’s Björn Ulvaeus joined the PPA and fellow stakeholders in Parliament to highlight the importance of robust transparency and copyright protections for the future of the UK’s creative economy.

    If you have any questions or would like to find out more, contact our Head of Policy and Public Affairs, Eilidh.wilson@ppa.co.uk