AP settles copyright claim with Drudge Retort, “guidelines” for bloggers forthcoming
posted at 4:56 pm on June 20, 2008 by Allahpundit
No money changed hands but Rogers Cadenhead, who owns the Retort, evidently agreed to tweak the offending posts to bring them into compliance with the AP’s guidelines. And what might those guidelines be? He’s not saying. Yet.
I spent around two hours yesterday talking to AP attorneys about their specific objections to the user blog entries in dispute, going line by line through the text to pinpoint exactly where they have intellectual property concerns in the short excerpts that were posted. I won’t reveal the details of this discussion until AP releases the guidelines for bloggers that it promised on Monday…
If AP’s guidelines end up like the ones they shared with me, we’re headed for a Napster-style battle on the issue of fair use…
Although AP will be releasing guidelines, I don’t think the news service will be able to concede any ground to the blogosphere. AP sells headline and lead-only services to customers. Asking the company to concede there’s a way people can share this information for free is like asking the RIAA to pick its favorite file-sharing client.
The post on the settlement at the Media Bloggers Association corroborates that the AP drew the line at excerpting the headline and the lede paragraph, since “a large percentage of the value of what they deliver is carefully packaged in that content and so the publishing of that information without permission was a copyright violation.” If that’s the main guideline, plus whatever reasonable excerpt length they suggest (two or three paragraphs?), it won’t be terribly burdensome for bloggers, but like Cadenhead suggests, they’re going to end up in court anyway thanks to the thousands of user-driven bulletin board news-sharing sites online. AP headlines and ledes are probably copied verbatim a few dozen times a day at Free Republic and Democratic Underground alone. Add in Digg, Reddit, etc etc etc, and you’re looking at a galaxy of lawsuit opportunities. Exit question: Which lucky website will find itself the bearer of the golden ticket to federal district court?
Breaking on Hot Air
State Dept spokeswoman protecting “my building leadership” joins their ranks
Video: Why has Cindy Thomas not been called to testify on IRS corruption?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Likely not any of the sites that agree with it’s bias.
Viewtifulgare on June 20, 2008 at 5:01 PM
Drudge told them to GF??? I’ll see you in court???
Bring it Hacks???
BigWyo on June 20, 2008 at 5:03 PM
Allah, I was a little surprised to see you link directly to the AP earlier. Given the fact that you’ve been (accurately) described as the hardest working blogger around, I would have thought your reaction would have been a little stronger.
I think the best solution for bloggers that I’ve seen is for them to find the news source that originated the AP story, since they either ripped off the story themselves or are acting as an exchange for some local paper. Since most local papers are online now, why not link directly to them?
Nessuno on June 20, 2008 at 5:05 PM
Just off the cuff…
Does this mean that we’re eventually gonna get paid for every keystroke we make…Is the UN behind this??
I owe Viewtifulgare $4,000 now…Money well spent
BigWyo on June 20, 2008 at 5:06 PM
I’d like to see the AP take on the Freepers, Kos, DU, Reddit, Digg, etc. in a lawsuit. That should be interesting…
amerpundit on June 20, 2008 at 5:13 PM
Blue collar numbskull here….
so this means you can link headline but not post any of the content? Like comparing APs words with Reuters?
Limerick on June 20, 2008 at 5:14 PM
Does this also mean that the doctor’s office or barber shop can’t have a newspaper lying around for their clients to read? The client didn’t pay for squat.
Limerick on June 20, 2008 at 5:17 PM
This might be a little off topic, but it’s as good a time as any to share a peculiar thing that happened to me. I recieved a check in the mail from a firm that had collected from a school district in Sweden for using content from my website.
Now, I had never heard of this firm, and when I called them to ask why they were acting on my behalf without my permission, a very nice lady said, well, that’s what we do. Apparently the countries have an agreement between them, and this firm goes after these cases full time.
Just thought it would be interesting for people to be aware of.
RushBaby on June 20, 2008 at 5:20 PM
Let ‘em bring it. Said lucky blogger will Summary Judgment their a**es right back out of the courtroom. The Copyright Act is quite clear on fair use, and it isn’t up to AP to decide what the rest of us are entitled to do:
17 U.S.C. § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
….
Blacksheep on June 20, 2008 at 5:22 PM
Yeah, I have to say, I don’t think that a valid defense for the AP is saying, “Well quoting any portion of our news service isn’t fair use because we’ve monetized every aspect of our news service.”
I mean, the people who buy the AP’s service get the news first. If that doesn’t mean anything anymore, then I’m afraid that particular business model is no longer viable.
apollyonbob on June 20, 2008 at 5:26 PM
Hey AP, if they don’t pursue every violation are they giving up their rights to pursue some?
TheBigOldDog on June 20, 2008 at 5:30 PM
One that’s listed both above and to the right.
steveegg on June 20, 2008 at 5:31 PM
It would be very interesting, but you know there’s only going to be one of those included.
A further hint to my prediction; it will be a site previously bullied by the dead-tree media.
steveegg on June 20, 2008 at 5:33 PM
Exit question: Which lucky website will find itself the bearer of the golden ticket to federal district court?
I can assure you it won’t be a lefty blog……does Michelle have good lawyers????
RobG on June 20, 2008 at 5:39 PM
DU rules in the Late Breaking News forum require that the headline be used as published.
rw on June 20, 2008 at 5:40 PM
Not necessarily, but it’s a factor for courts to consider. “Acquiescence” is a theory that can be used to defend one’s actions when a plaintiff knowingly stood by without raising any objection to infringement of his rights by others. The doctrine is stronger in intellectual property than in most other areas of the law.
Blacksheep on June 20, 2008 at 5:43 PM
Khalid Sheik Mohammed?
Seixon on June 20, 2008 at 5:48 PM
Just a guess here, but I’d think that newspapers would have any major gripes. The big cash cow is not in the seeling of the newspaper, but the selling of the advertisements.
Now, the notion of bars and restaraunts that put up only the front page or the sports sections on display in men’s urinals might be another whole gray area.
ynot4tony2 on June 20, 2008 at 5:48 PM
Monopoly.
Speakup on June 20, 2008 at 5:50 PM
Goody. Now blog administrators will have to worry about malicious commenting as well as spam. Drop a few full cut-n-pastes in a 5-year-old thread, send an anonymous email to the AP and boom, you get your favorite hated blog fined for a few grand.
Just stupid.
spmat on June 20, 2008 at 5:54 PM
My bets on Lucianne.com to be the lucky winner. Mrs Goldberg is still hated by the left because of her involvement with Monicagate.
meci on June 20, 2008 at 5:55 PM
Got it, thanks. I knew it was an issue for IP and thought it might extend to CW law as well. So they are free then to cherry pick their cases.
TheBigOldDog on June 20, 2008 at 5:57 PM
I guarantee one of the reasons they want to keep people from quoting things is because they have too many embarrassments from people quoting things and criticizing it, because then they can’t make an edit(nearly always without a formal correction or explanation) to hide it as easily. They’re hoping to suppress criticism of the AP by scaring people into not quoting them, that’s what is in play.
doubleplusundead on June 20, 2008 at 6:01 PM
Most likely a small one with just financial resources to lose and establish a precedent for the AP, which they would then use as club against bigger blogs.
The Napster analogy is dead wrong, though. No one was sharing “excerpts of songs.”
Karl on June 20, 2008 at 6:02 PM
Oh, sure, a couple of words were left out my last comment, but folks here have imagination.
Karl on June 20, 2008 at 6:03 PM
They’ll try and pick off small sites to cow people into doing what they want, they aren’t going to go after a big, well funded site.
doubleplusundead on June 20, 2008 at 6:05 PM
The difference between AP’s complaint and magazines at the doctor’s office or sports pages in the john is that the latter comprise the actual items someone else has already paid for — they are not being directly reproduced or being used to create a derivative work (like excerpts on a blog) or being indirectly reproduced by means of a link through a third-party commercial web site.
These “actual items” situations are more like the half-priced books arrangement: the “exhaustion of rights doctrine,” which holds that IP rights can only be exercised once per unit sale, generally controls.
There are other, more difficult situations, however, where publicly disseminated media are considered as single license distributions even if widely distributed, such as radio stations being played in a mall game room (which is copyright infringement) or a Blockbusters DVD being shown at a neighborhood party (also an infringement).
In single license scenarios, others can see or hear what you’ve obtained, but only in limited and controlled numbers. For example, it’s OK for your family to watch the Blockbusters DVD with you, but using it for movie night at the church is a non-no.
Blacksheep on June 20, 2008 at 6:07 PM
Drudge Retort?
ProudPatriot on June 20, 2008 at 6:20 PM
By the way, Jim Robinson has banned AP at Free Republic.
Connie on June 20, 2008 at 6:29 PM
Hmmm… good point, but take it a step further.
Fake news or FauxPhotos are posted, and then disected by the blogoshpere…
Loose the ability to post? Loose the ability to disect their erroneous stories…
And lets face it, AP has been the WORST about fake stories and publishing Enemy Propoganda.
This is NOT about money, its about making it impossible to vet their stories.
Romeo13 on June 20, 2008 at 6:36 PM
…So then we can assume that Michelle Malkin’s $136,000 check is in the mail?
landlines on June 20, 2008 at 6:48 PM
Yesterday in LGF’s dead thread spinoffs there were almost 100 links to stories, and none were AP. I submit we show them the folly of their ways, so you won’t find me linking AP anytime in the forseeable future.
Tark on June 20, 2008 at 7:00 PM
AP will end up getting sued 1000x for every suit it brings: where do AP articles come from? (HINT: only rarely from actual reporters)
landlines on June 20, 2008 at 7:08 PM
I’m not so sure that AP really wants to open up this “can of worms” if blogsites go back and attempt to bill AP for every time they quoted some one. AP and their laywers would like us to think they are looking out for their revenue interest, but it’s really about challenging their content. Jamil Hussein ring any bells?
Rovin on June 20, 2008 at 7:14 PM
CBS published a screamer of a story that was published by AP. The “scientist” that claimed earthquakes were more severe because of global warming.
So perhaps quoting the AP isn’t a good idea anyway, well if facts are important that is.
Skeptic on June 20, 2008 at 9:04 PM
All you have to do is add a little non slant to an AP story to get a semblance of truth. How can they copyright an agenda?
BL@KBIRD on June 21, 2008 at 12:30 AM
I want the AP to sue everyone because if they do not, I am going to sue the AP for using selective lawsuits
entagor on June 21, 2008 at 3:24 AM
“Which lucky website will find itself the bearer of the golden ticket to federal district court?” Standard practice indicates the attack will be leveled against a little person who cannot defend herself against the relative infinite AP money.
When it happens we should all rally behind that poor soul.
{^_^}
herself on June 21, 2008 at 5:36 AM
Kos dared the AP to sue him, since he has the funds and means to fight them in court. Let’s hope they do. Kos is dead on target on this one.
rightwingprof on June 21, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Let me state up front I have no love for the AP, but we all shoulld step back and see the whole picture.
Drudge Retort reproduced a number of AP stories in toto. This violates Fair Use in anyone’s book. They were caught, didn’t respond in a timely manner and then were subjected to a takedown order. So far, so good for AP.
But the next step is where AP shouldn’t go. And that is setting definitive guidelines. If for instance they set a limit of 40% of content, it might appear reasonable. However that limit is unreasonable when someones wants to challenge a doctored photo.
The Fair Use statute is vague. It should remain that way for both sides. AP backed off from going to court because they didn’t want to have a judge codify the limits of Fair Use. They could lose big time. But then again we could lose big time.
Yes we stand a threat of being dragged into court, or have our server take down our website. But life is full of risks, that’s what makes it exciting.
Corky Boyd on June 22, 2008 at 9:50 AM