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.

When it happens we should all rally behind that poor soul.

{^_^}

So perhaps quoting the AP isn’t a good idea anyway, well if facts are important that is.

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…

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?

doubleplusundead on June 20, 2008 at 6:01 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.

the AP drew the line at excerpting the headline and the lede paragraph, since “a large percentage of the value bias of what they deliver is carefully packaged in that content…

By the way, Jim Robinson has banned AP at Free Republic.

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.

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

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.

Exit question: Which lucky website will find itself the bearer of the golden ticket to federal district court?

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.”

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

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.

Exit question: Which lucky website will find itself the bearer of the golden ticket to federal district court?

My bets on Lucianne.com to be the lucky winner. Mrs Goldberg is still hated by the left because of her involvement with Monicagate.

Just stupid.

Limerick on June 20, 2008 at 5:17 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.

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.

Exit question: Which lucky website will find itself the bearer of the golden ticket to federal district court?

Khalid Sheik Mohammed?

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

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.