This guest post is from Lauredhel, crossposted from Hoyden About Town
The blogosphere is starting to buzz. What’s the buzz? AP has kicked up about bloggers posting short, linked excerpts without paying.
Out-law.com says that the Associated Press issued Rogers Cadenhead (of the Drudge Retort) a series of takedown notices under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The stories contained excerpts from 33 to 79 words long of AP stories, with links to the original articles.
The Drudge Retort defends these excerpts as fair use.
Wired reports that the AP has been a little rocked by the blogosphere’s defiant response:
“We need to take a step back. It doesn’t mean we’re going to try to define a legal standard for fair use. All we’re saying, we’re going to figure out how the bloggers can use our content in a way we feel gives them a lot of leeway but still protects us,” Jim Kennedy, an AP vice-president, told Threat Level in an interview.
Kennedy added: “Do we really want to take this fight into the blogosphere? I think the answer to that question is, ‘no we don’t.’ Bloggers are different. That distinction was not being made. To that extent, this has been a helpful episode.”[1]
The Citizen Media Law Project site discusses the debacle:
As Jeff Jarvis notes, the AP “is ignoring the essential structure of the link architecture of the web. It is declaring war on blogs and commenters.”
In fact, it is very likely that the posts AP is complaining about on Drudge Retort are permissible fair uses under the Copyright Act. First, several posts appear to be offering commentary on recent news items. [...]Second, all of the posts use fewer than 80 words from the original AP articles. [...] Third, it is hard to see how the posting of AP headlines and 80 word snippets could possibly impair the market for the original AP articles
[...]
While AP is entitled to issue a set of guidelines for the use of its articles, these guidelines are not legally enforceable and they cannot narrow the scope of what is permissible under the fair use doctrine. The blogging community needs to be careful not to allow these guidelines to become a de facto set of norms that constrain the permissible uses of news content.[2]
And the Electronic Frontiers Foundation (EFF) is on the case:
If the AP were right, that would sharply limit a practice widely used throughout the blogosphere to help spread information and promote public discussion. Many of those bloggers have worked as reporters, so you’d think they’d be well attuned to the issues here. If copyright means what the AP seems to thinks it means (which seems questionable), maybe the problem is with the law, not the bloggers.[3]
And Whiskey Fire discovers what the AP is really after:
![[Excerpt for Web Use]](http://license.icopyright.net/user/images/instant-excerpt-icon.gif){kind=icon}
|
Excerpt for Web Use
License parts of this article for republishing on your website or intranet. Pricing based on the number of words excerpted.
|
|
[1] 106 words.
[2] 168 words.
[3] 67 words.
If these excerpts had been from AP articles, the Associated Press would be wanting to invoice me for $125.00. Their pricelist alone should have cost me $17.50. Did you get your money’s worth today, Hoydenizens?
It’s decades since I had my head into copyright law, but we had to do all manner of sorting out in relation to schools.
I thought that excerpts for criticism and comment came under fair dealing without any problem.
The key question in AP’s case should be whether the blogosphere’s use of their stuff gains them more readers or fewer.
Brian: “The key question in AP’s case should be whether the blogosphere’s use of their stuff gains them more readers or fewer.”
Structurally, I think one of the constant problems in these sorts of situations is that a lot of times, entities in AP’s position have got legal counsel advising them of the potential downside consequences of allowing a freewheeling sort of precedent to be established, viz., it’s not about this immediate circumstance, but what their position will look like in 5 or 10 years’ time if they permit the present situation to stand.
That said, I hope AP makes all the wrong moves and stumbles blindly over the cliff into well-deserved oblivion. It’s become utterly despicable as a news-gathering organization; I read AP stories with about the same level of seriousness that I used to read “Broom Hilda”.
Ah, don’t you just love it when old business models fail to adapt to technological change? Anything which imposes even the smallest cost on something as simple as copying and pasting an excerpt from an article for commentary is going to get your news service sidelined as bloggers will look for royalty-free news services.
I wonder if “Share this Story” webmail based services will have a Paypal logo next to them.
Another question is how many AP stories are mainly cut and pasts from press releases?
Ian – hah!
I am just bemused. All the news services must get so many additional eyeballs as a result of blogs. I never used to go to the US newspapers and the UK ones only rarely. Now I’m a regular, as a result of following links. Are they mad?
That’s the thing, being linked to by a blog means extra exposure which means, if you’ve got a decent advertising scheme, extra ad dollars. I suspect this will blow over when the AP realise that they can’t impose costs on bloggers without looking like a bunch of greedy fools.
IIRC there was something a while back in the courts about there being a difference between just quoting and linking (a simple aggregation of links to stories) and quoting and linking but then making substantial comment/critique in which case you could claim fair use.
It seems clear that these activities fall under fair use. AP is trying to push the limit of what it can get away with.
Typical rent-seeking bull***t on the aprt of AP.
The AP’s push may be as much about controlling how its work is used by others as trying to get paid for its use. Their Terms of Use state that:
The impact on reader numbers may be less relevant to them than trying to ensure that the readers they do get think their reporting is solid.
That could be a point, Tobias, but only if their reporting is RS.
And, Sam, when they realise that you can’t get blood out of a stone.
You shall not use the Content in any manner or context that will be in any way derogatory to the author, the publication from which the Content came, or any person connected with the creation of the Content or depicted in the Content. You agree not to use the Content in any manner or context that will be in any way derogatory to or damaging to the reputation of Publisher, its licensors, or any person connected with the creation of the Content or referenced in the Content
So, if this became universal, any snarky blog posts dissecting Andy Bolt or Dennis Shanahan or US MSM opinionistas would cease?
How… convenient.
AH YES, TOBIAS! AND, SAM C, not only is the BUSINESS MODEL O*U*T; so is the BUSINESS’S MAIN USER!
Further to an attempt to control Blogspace (fat chance, given blogs can set up in countries not signatory to copyright laws) there is another BIG consideration – newspapers are dying! – less slowly in Oz than OS but we will catch up. Internet ad revenue is less & more sophisticated viewers use AdBlocks. International streaming & downloading will further eat into ad revenue – I assume the new breed of Young Nerds will develop AdBlocks for that too.
Reminds me of the 1950s best-seller (filmed)The Cardinal, whose father was a harness maker utterly convinced, then utterly consumed by the belief that motor cars were but a passing fancy and he would make a fortune when humanity switched back to horse & carriage transport.
(Here insert relevant last line of 60’s anthem: The times… )
As a writer I’m all for copyright protection on the internet, but this is capitalism gone mad. Or maybe just normal capitalism.
And, as Helen @ 11 inplies, there could be a lot more to it. Methinks they might want to shut us up.
You shall not use the Content in any manner or context that will be in any way derogatory to the author, the publication from which the Content came, or any person connected with the creation of the Content or depicted in the Content. You agree not to use the Content in any manner or context that will be in any way derogatory to or damaging to the reputation of Publisher, its licensors, or any person connected with the creation of the Content or referenced in the Content
That’s in direct contradiction of the notion of ‘fair use’.
Doesn’t surprise me:
Murdoch joins Associated Press board
Posted Tue Apr 15, 2008 ABC News
Media mogul Rupert Murdoch, the chairman of News Corporation, will temporarily join the board of directors of US news agency The Associated Press (AP).
Mr Murdoch, whose company owns Fox News and the world’s largest social networking site MySpace, fills the seat vacated by Cox Newspapers president Jay Smith who retired after serving five years on the board, the news cooperative said at its annual meeting.
——————
SHOW ME THE MONEY….
“money makes the world go around…” you can finish the song.
Same fella who supported Bush…the WAR/INVASION…& doesn’t the Bush admin. luv owning intellectual property rights and such? And screw whether they are HAND-ME-DOWNS or not. Mebbe some should interrogate them for borrowing ideas/theories/comments…;) Considering what an original bunch the AP are. Still, don’t try to gather & sue…the Busheviks w/ the aid of their ENABLERS made sure that journey is alot tougher these days.
Or is it?
Hey, I wonder if this is a trick to get us to scrutinise their news offerings even more? Kerching.
One way or another I reckon they think they’ll win. Unless we treat them like they are
INVISIBLE
And if this putrid water spreads…it might put bloggers off letting commentors cut & paste from articles before they conveniently VANISH from cyberspace.
Articles that might demonstrate how certain media organisations are playing games w/ the public, being hypocrites, playing it both ways, being opportunistic & Machiavellian…like promoting the ugliness of binge drinking in one country…but opportunistically telling people they should be able to exercise their rights as good libertarian citizens in the so called Nanny State overseas…once known as the Great Southern Land.
I wonder where the LABEL “nanny state” came from?
I’m also wondering where the sand for sand bags comes from?…anyone? And whether the bloggers can work out how to use sand bags when the levee breaks?
Here comes the FLOOD.
Good job all.
$125. Tell em they’re dreaming!
When it comes to the meeja, esp Rupert’s Global empire, I lay aside my usual disdain for conspiracy theories, and willingly suspend my disbelief in the near-certain knowledge that they probably only represent the tip of the iceberg!
Every time he takes over something else, my hero-worship of those Indians – especially Indian women – who, after vainly trying to make him see sense re providing them with a service, bought themselves satellite dishes, hijacked his satellite TV broadcasts & set-up wealth-creating small businesses buying satellite dishes & stringing cables around to small (often poor) users!
PS Why is it that writers & film makers portray those who want to take over the world as updated versions of 1930s German & Russian dictators with WMDs, not business moguls? Capitalism GOOD, anyhing else BAD, perhaps?
There was an evil media mogul in one of the Bond films who wanted to take over the world.
I wonder how a certain media mogul will feel about the use of quotes from his most recent leading Aussie man, Sheridan, at comment #4 here?:
http://www.roadtosurfdom.com/2008/06/19/greg-the-stop-sign/#comment-343285
Seems like a reasonable use of minimal “cut & paste” to me.
But heck I’m BEARly awake…so what do I know? Time for lemon in soda water to get my mind buzzing.
N’
Well, before the FLOOD breaks thru all the cyber-levee walls, I thought I’d have a look at how fair & balanced & moderate Aussie journo Greg Sheridan is in reality, by putting up some of his questions posed during an interview w/ loveable & kind American VP Dick Cheney when he visited Australia…it’s a bit like push-polling, or a FREE RIDE…or playing SOFTBALL w/ a SOCK PUPPET:
Interview of the Vice President by Greg Sheridan, the Australian
Altitude Restaurant
Sydney, Australia
Q Sir, welcome to Australia. And thank you very much for making time to see me.
Q Of course, I wanted to ask you a couple of questions about Iraq. But I wondered, sir, if I might start with Iran. And I’d like to ask you how dangerous for the world would a nuclear-armed Iran be?
Q And, sir, how far away from having nuclear weapons, do you think Iran is?
Q How bad is their interference in Iraq?
Q So would you share Senator McCain’s formulation that the only thing worse than a military confrontation with Iran is a nuclear-armed Iran?
Q Sir, on Iraq, what will success look like?
Q Sir, without providing the terrorists a date, do you have any sense of a time frame for when that might likely evolve, that situation?
Q Sir, Australia has been in Iraq and Afghanistan with the United States from the very beginning. But the troop numbers have been relatively small. Do you believe the Australian contribution has been meaningful — militarily meaningful in both those theaters?
Q Would it be a significant setback if all Australian combat troops were withdrawn from Iraq?
Q Sir, under President Bush and Prime Minister Howard, the U.S.-Australia alliance has become very close. There’s a new level of intelligence sharing and so forth. Have you been happy to participate in that process? Would you say the alliance is now closer than it was when President Bush came to office, closer than it’s been perhaps?
Q The new arrangements between Australia and the U.S. in areas like intelligence, do you think they’ll outlive President Bush and Prime Minister Howard? Do you think there’s a new institutional closeness between the two countries that will live on?
Q Sir, you’ve been Vice President a long time now —
Q Sir, are you concerned about the growth of anti-Americanism around the world, that this compromises the ability of free people to achieve the security ends that are necessary?
Q Sir, looking back now you would say the strategic calculus, it was right to mount the Iraq operation?
Q The benefits outweigh the negatives?
Q Yes, indeed. Sir, thank you very much, indeed.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you.
———
Yes Sir, no Sir, three bags full Sir…
Yes Sir, no Sir
Where do I go Sir
What do I do Sir
What do I say
Yes Sir, no Sir
Where do I go Sir
What do I do Sir
How do I behave
Yes Sir, no Sir
Permission to speak Sir
Permission to breathe Sir
What do I say, how do I behave, what do I say
(The Kinks)
N’…growl…I need a hug.
I’d like to know the views of the Market Democrats in relation to this charge a fee for copy-paste business. And do they think there is appropriate competition in the newspaper & PAY TV sectors in Australia? And if not, what do they intend to do to rectify the problem of monopolisation/dominance in this area?
I’d agree w/ much that Craig Emerson said in his speech today…but have plenty of questions. Later.
Emerson’s our local member. Seems to be a nice guy. Anyway. Time to relax.