FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » AP redefines fair use

   
Author Topic: AP redefines fair use
Threads
Member
Member # 10863

 - posted      Profile for Threads   Email Threads         Edit/Delete Post 
Link

Be careful of what you quote from the AP.

quote:
* 5-25 words: $ 12.50
* 26-50 words: $ 17.50
* 51-100 words: $ 25.00
* 101-250 words: $ 50.00
* 251 words and up: $ 100.00

Oh, and it gets better. The AP claims that it can revoke the license at any time if it feels you're saying something negative about the Associated Press: "Publisher reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time if Publisher or its agents finds Your use of the licensed Content to be offensive and/or damaging to Publisher’s reputation."

Lawyers: is this really legal on the AP's part? It seems utterly ridiculous in general.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sterling
Member
Member # 8096

 - posted      Profile for Sterling   Email Sterling         Edit/Delete Post 
"Fair Use" has been an ever-increasingly gray area in the age of the Internet. I fear it's time for a showdown, and I don't have a whole lot of faith in the current powers coming down in favor of their constituents.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
What about when you quote an article that has the rights to an AP article? Places like AOL and Yahoo frequently use AP articles. Can those not be quoted either, or does AOL get a piece of the pie?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ketchupqueen
Member
Member # 6877

 - posted      Profile for ketchupqueen   Email ketchupqueen         Edit/Delete Post 
Good grief.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shigosei
Member
Member # 3831

 - posted      Profile for Shigosei   Email Shigosei         Edit/Delete Post 
Huh. Well, that makes the AP pretty much immune from criticism, doesn't it? If I see a mistake in an article, I can't quote it to demonstrate why it's wrong! I guess I could link to an article and (using an example from the linked Techdirt post) say "Look at the sentence beginning 'Now, these are the...'"

What about when they quote people in the article? Do they then own those words? Could I be charged money for quoting myself being quoted in an AP article?

Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not really familiar with the background that is referred to on the blog that you linked (something about an AP suit against the Drudge Report), Threads, but here's my common-sense assessment of the situation.

The AP produces news articles that are then published by many, many different newspapers and online news portals. The publications that use AP content pay a license fee for it. This is normal, totally proper and has been going on for a long time. Most often a publication just uses an entire AP article.

The AP also allows people to pay a license fee to publish excerpts from their content. This is in case you want your news publication to use part of the content but not all of it. This sort of use is not subject to "fair use" doctrine - it's simply publishing copyrighted content under a license. This is still completely normal and proper.

As a condition of the publication-under-license of AP-produced content, the publisher is not allowed to disparage the AP. Sounds fine to me.

Now, let's say that you don't just want to publish news that was produced by the AP. Let's say you're writing a critique of AP reporting. THAT's when fair use doctrine becomes relevant, and their licensing scheme becomes totally irrelevant. No one need fear that an essay about AP reporting that quotes excerpts from articles will inspire the AP to sue them for copyright violation, under normal circumstances.

This is about using the AP as your news source. Why should bloggers get to publish the news that the AP produced for free? They can either rely on common knowledge or go get their own news, if they don't want to pay a license.

Bloggers have been getting a free ride in some cases - turning their blogs into news portals without having to pay anyone for the copyrighted content they publish. And for the most part, they don't quote AP articles in some scholarly way, or for satire, or for any other fair use. They want to report the news and then comment on the news, not on the AP or on the article itself.

AP isn't trying to redefine fair use. They are setting conditions for publishing their articles in a straightforward manner, even if excerpted. Fair use is still safe.

Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Quoting five to twenty-five words of an AP article, even a paragraph or two, is virtually certainly fair use, especially if even a little commentary accompanies it. The AP is (maybe was; there have been reports they're reconsidering) acting like someone needs to pay no matter how little they quote.

We can tell that they weren't okay with current standards of fair use because they went after Drudge for quoting small excerpts with significant commentary, trying to get him to pay up.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post 
OK, without looking into the details of the actions by the AP I'll table my assertion that the AP isn't trying to redefine fair use.

Still, the fee structure makes sense to me. If someone just wants to publish the news, and wants to use the AP's copyrighted material, they should have to pay a license fee.

Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
If you're referring to how blogs commonly use news stories, then you're supporting a reduction in fair use allowances.

Keep in mind that most blogs are not out to publish the news, they're out to publish their thoughts on the news.

I'd be interested in hearing what you consider just wanting to 'publish the news'.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post 
Putting news excerpts on a site for the purpose of attracting search engine traffic and generating ad revenue.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
What do you mean by "for the purpose of"?

I mean, pretty much all public sites hope the things they post attract search engine traffic, and having google ads is practically assumed on blogs with decent readership.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post 
Is it that unclear what I'm saying? I mean, if you copy AP content so you can get people to look at your site, you probably ought to be paying a license fee.

I'm on the fence whether I think adding some commentary to the news excerpts actually constitutes a fair use (in my own mind, not in a legal sense). Someone worked to produce that article, and it seems there's a little cottage industry around exploiting that content to generate ad revenue. People love it, I know. Does that make it correct? Or will it eventually lead to stifling original reporting because people don't look at sites that paid their license fees, they look at sites where people publish excerpts for free? I'm not sure on this one.

But aside from the way blogs and other sites most commonly use copyrighted news content, all I'm really saying is that IF a site just publishes excerpts in something other than a fair use situation, they should pay a license fee.

Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
The right to comment on things, and especially news, is considered an extremely important one by the courts for obvious reasons, and it is considered to imply a limited right to excerpt, again for obvious reasons.

As far as stifling original reporting, I think that idea is exaggerated. While blogs are popular, they have nothing on more major news sites, and those create and/or pay for news.

Not to mention that the presence of the AP itself stifles original reporting by the subscriber newspapers [Wink] .

Yes, if they aren't covered by fair use, then a license fee is required to avoid copyright infringement. There is no doubt about that.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_raven
Member
Member # 3383

 - posted      Profile for Dan_raven   Email Dan_raven         Edit/Delete Post 
By the shear size of AP's historical library of articles, is it possible to write 5 words that they haven't already written?

Could they bill me for this sentence?

Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sharpie
Member
Member # 482

 - posted      Profile for Sharpie   Email Sharpie         Edit/Delete Post 
EFF's look at the AP situation. I was thinking of summarizing their points, but linking seemed more... appropriate [Big Grin] .
Posts: 628 | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Valentine014
Member
Member # 5981

 - posted      Profile for Valentine014           Edit/Delete Post 
So, Threads. Looks like you are already in the red for about $25.
Posts: 2064 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Nato
Member
Member # 1448

 - posted      Profile for Nato   Email Nato         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Shigosei:
Huh. Well, that makes the AP pretty much immune from criticism, doesn't it? If I see a mistake in an article, I can't quote it to demonstrate why it's wrong! I guess I could link to an article and (using an example from the linked Techdirt post) say "Look at the sentence beginning 'Now, these are the...'"

Seems like an absolutely clear argument that any law protecting the AP's right to insist on these fees tramples on the public's right to free speech. The AP doesn't define what fair use is, but they might be able to bully you into shutting up.

Most of the AP's newspapers are suffering big time because of low readership. Internet news is better, quicker, simultaneously more broad and personalized, biased and balanced. The content produced by the old media still has great value, and the money they must pay their reporters, writers, etc. needs to be covered...Much of the content produced by bloggers builds on traditionally produced content, adding value to it that would not exist without the either contribution. Much of this blogger-added-value is only possible if they don't have to pay to write it... Media is going to have to change to survive the way things work now. I don't think the pledge drive is going to die out. (Not surprisingly, the public stations are producing some of the best journalism that exists today, absolutely against the trend of the media congloms that benefit from Congress's fight to repeal the FCC rule against market-multiple-outlet-ownership. Bill Moyers, Frontline, etc. I'm not surprised that the AP would succumb to the temptation to try to bully the public like this. It helps them (big media) maintain a fragile semi-monopoly on news and stifles criticism that would weaken this in a time when it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to criticize the media. They are NOT taking it upon themselves to do self-regulation. (See: Scott McClellan's meaty assertion that the media was complicit in the exaggeration that led to the invasion of Iraq being the only possible outcome. The media is not touching this allegation besides a few scattered blips.) Tim Russert is a fine example of the sort of news coverage we should be having a conversation about: Rove leaked Plame's identity to Russert to Russert after Novak had been leaked to. Novak separately came to Russert (who was DC bureau chief), and then Bush came on Russert's show to say he wouldn't stand for someone in his cabinet doing something illegal and he would certainly want to know if somebody in his cabinet had leaked that information. Russert said nothing. (Keep in mind that we now know Bush personally declassified that information, so while he was saying that anybody who had done a leakin' crime would be punished, he knew it had not been a crime (if you could correctly say he had the right to out a CIA agent for political reasons).


Eh, I meant to make just a quickie post, but now I'm deep into it. The AP has no right to define fair use.. They can demand what they want like a bully ("you wanna use MY playground, kid?!? Lunch money...now!"), but they can't enforce it (At least, if they sue anybody or even send takedown notices, I hope that a strong fair use right is secured in court, and a rational free speech defense is looked at--the free speech angle was ignored in Eldred..) One of the many paradoxes of copyright law is that the public awareness of the importance of the intersection of intellectual property and freedom of speech is expanding rapidly, just as the political conversation moves radically in the opposite direction, in courts (Eldred v Ashcroft and beyond), and especially in Congress (the "Pro-IP Act" is wild! And Canada and France are gettin' up in the strict IP laws this month too).

The bottom line for me sometimes is utilitarian. There is value in the AP articles, and there is value in the bloggers' commentary. Our commentary here at Hatrack too. We often get deep enough into analysis, that we've got to quote 35 words from an article just to parse out the sentence well enough to argue over interpretation. Anything that gets in the way of really dealing with the content of the news is a restriction on free speech that hurts our ability to make an informed democratic choice on anything.

Anyone who says I can't say something 25 words long because they have a copyright on it hates democracy... Anyone who extracts protection money and holds the fear of a lawsuit over the heads of somebody trying to critique the "news" is a terrorist extortionist, am I wrong?

Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2