A major news agency has claimed that a blog's quotation of its stories is copyright infringement and has demanded they be taken down in a case which could redraw the lines of acceptable blog behaviour. The writer behind the blog has told OUT-LAW.COM that if AP continues its case it will be taking on the entire blogosphere. " …
All it takes is an acknowwledgement with or without permission?
We can't quote ddirectly from the source at www.#¢€.com
We can quote directly from a source at www.#¢€.com
79 words? Looks like fair use to me.
Such short excerpts, if properly attributed, should fit the letter and spirit of fair use nicely.
Not when the article has only 80 words
Newswire stories can be that short
I suggest that bloggers begin charging the A.P. for all of the free advertising it has received to this point. According to the pricing schedule published by the A.P., each word in an article is worth at least forty cents (and considerably more for shorter quotations); if we were to charge the A.P. one cent per word, flat rate, multiplied by the number of times the article was served over a 30-day period, I think that would be fair. Any protestations would be met with incredulity on my part: The A.P. has just convinced me that it's particular use of a word is worth at least forty cents. Further, since the A.P. has seen fit to change its policy with no public discussion or even a sporting chance for response, I believe that they should be billed for advertising starting today, prorated for the remaining days in the month. I also think that it is incumbent upon the A.P. to determine where their words are being used; there is no excuse after all for not maintaining adequate inventory records for valuable licensed property. Claims of "we didn't know it was published there" are not exculpatory when invoicing is received.
AP may have to take on entire blogosphere
"A major news agency has claimed that a blog's quotation of its stories is copyright infringement and has demanded they be taken down in a case which could redraw the lines of acceptable blog behaviour.
The writer behind the blog has told OUT-LAW.COM that if AP continues its case it will be taking on the entire blogosphere. "Linking to news articles with short excerpts is common practice throughout the web, both on individual blogs and on social news sites," said Rogers Cadenhead, who is behind blog Drudge Retort. "If AP intends to fight this one out, it'll be the case of AP v. Everybody.""
As posted on El Reg:
I would get my coat, but someone calling themselves Mistress Sarah B is at my door with a large hammer and a pair of curling irons, shouting about copyright infringement, and that the El Regs lawyers have decided to infringe my right to live :-0
What about the other way?
So what happens when AP quotes from a blog? Perhaps they ought to be required to desist? I guess the only trouble with that approach is that the blogger ego effect takes over and they actually want AP to give them the publicity.
Let's fight for our right to Cut and Paste!
A truly stupid legal stunt - but why can't bloggers do better themselves? Even parasites keep their hosts alive.
"AP may have to take on entire blogosphere"
But since the entire blogosphere contributes exactly $0.00 to AP's bottom line, do you think AP cares? Their customers are the clueless dead tree newspapers, aka MSM. So fighting for the right to be as clueless as the MSM does not seem very uh, aspirational.
Word count is red herring, says blogger
As few as eighteen words can contain the key parts of a news story, says blogger Dave Bell.
Lincolnshire blogger, Dave Bell, examined news stories published by his local newspaper, and found that short introductory paragraphs could contain all of the story which mattered.
He has pointed out, on the well-known Making Light blog, and word count alone is particularly misleading in this instance. AP news stories, as do those of other wire services, start with a very condensed version of the story, which is repeated and expanded by later paragraphs, allowing sub-editors at subscribing newspapers to easily fit the story into available space.
Despite the apparently flawed reaction to AP's statement about word counts, which can be particularly misleading, there is much else about their current action which can be criticised. Several professionals working in the US publishing industry, including Hugo-winning editor Patrick Neilsen Hayden, have decribed AP's action as a blatant grab for IP rights not recognised in law. He claims that they want you to sign away your rights, and suggests that at least some of the material AP claims rights over was never their exclusive property in the first place. Furthermore, the terms offered by AP for use of their material has you sign away the right to criticise both AP and the subject of the news story. If AP reports President Bush saying something foolish, he points out, they don't want you to explain what the foolishness is.
(Note to editor: None of this is invented. Go read Making Light.)
"a blatant grab for IP rights not recognised in law'
"Several professionals working in the US publishing industry, including Hugo-winning editor Patrick Neilsen Hayden, have decribed AP's action as a blatant grab for IP rights not recognised in law".
Hell, everyone else is doing it, why shouldn't AP get on the band-wagon!
Re: Word count is red herring, says blogger
In my experience of local newspapers, you can contain all of the story that matters in as few as zero words.