June 17, 2008
[Here's more][1] about the AP's interest in harassing bloggers who quote from their stories..I see the AP attempting to largely enforce these rules being about as cinchy as preventing file sharing in music or movies - and I don't really understand why they're trying to do this in the first place. The AP is a brand, like anything else, and their brand is cited in blogs with extreme frequency (which seems like it'd be a good thing). Plus, bloggers are an irritable sort that have been bristling pretty mightily at this idea. This is definitley one way to have them turn on you. [Here's][2] a good blog from Markos Moulitsas of the [Dailykos][3] basically telling them to suck it. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the state of media - or like Moulitsas, media law - to make what I think are smart assertions here. I kind of see where they're coming from... they don't want their material to be abused and they prefer links to quoted passages, but when it comes to blogging? I don't know. It does seem like fair use to me and more than anything, like trying to take on a hurricane with an umbrella. [1]: http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/010341.html [2]: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/17/12241/5981/719/537292 [3]: http://www.dailykos.com
Comments
lawrence.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy.
smerdyakov (anonymous) says...
I can understand them wanting to draw a line /somewhere/ ... there are a ton of blogs out there that simply wouldn't exist if it weren't for primary sources, from which they "quote" from liberally. For example, this guy:http://www.americablog.com/2008/06/pro-bush-biographer-to-release-pro.htmladds virtually nothing to the source:http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11099.htmlHe just quotes it at length on his own site, thereby depriving the originator of value. This fails at least 3 of the 4 tests for Fair Use ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use ).Where I think the AP f*ed up was where they drew the line. 38 words is just too few words in many cases to describe what is, presumably, being linked to (f I understand their new policy correctly). <--That sentence is 38 words.I'm waiting for some of the primary sources NEWSPAPERS WHO SUPPLY MOST OF THE AP'S MATERIAL to cry foul on this. The very premise of the AP is that they use papers like the Journal-World's coverage and never even cite the creator, much less run a blurb under 38 words and link to the original source.
June 17, 2008 at 2:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bloozman (anonymous) says...
smerdyakov is right on the money. The Associated Press is a cooperative, funded by news outlets (primarily newspapers) to share news and the cost for AP's own reporting staff. Bloggers who use it without being a member are, literally, stealing a product owned and manufactured by AP members for their subscribers.
June 17, 2008 at 4:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smerdyakov (anonymous) says...
OK, just found this...http://license.icopyright.net/user/offer.act?gid=3&inprocess=t&sid=36&tag=3.5721?icx_id%3DD90VCFA01&urs=WEBPAGE&urt=http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/APNEWSALERT?SITE%3DAP%26SECTION%3DHOME%26TEMPLATE%3DDEFAULT%26CTIME%3D2008-05-29-11-08-34...and a 4-word limit before a $12.50 fee kicks in is LUDICROUS. To say nothing of fair use, I could inadvertently infringe on any number of AP stories with, say, this phrase..."and was sued for the"...5 words which are surely in many AP stories. Of course this is a ludicrous example. No more ludicrous than the new AP policy though. Ludicrous. And dim-they're going to price themselves right out of business. And this comes a year+ after even the nytimes' premium content went free? Geesh...
June 17, 2008 at 4:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dolores2175 (April Fleming) says...
I agree that copying entire stories shouldn't be standard practice, but a paragraph is fair game as far as I'm concerned, if you're using it to demonstrate a point or if it fits in the larger context of something else a writer's trying to discuss. Even if you're adding the link though, 38 words is just bare bones and the four words thing is completely retarded. I tried finding the story without success, but I did hear recently on NPR an interview with a Cincinnati newspaper editor about the spiraling costs of using the AP, and having seen some of their own stories ripped off by the AP almost directly. A ton of that stuff doesn't have a byline, and to me would seem impossible to track down. News business = hard times.
June 17, 2008 at 4:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smerdyakov (anonymous) says...
Funny cuz it's true: http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/06... news business wouldn't be in such hard times if they'd just embrace the new times, the new technology and stop insisting on yesterday's model.
June 18, 2008 at 10:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smerdyakov (anonymous) says...
Gotta love sound thinking: http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008... boycott talk misunderstands the AP and its journalistic breadth if not depth, and amounts, frankly, to pure hissyfits 'cause some bloggers can't have their way."
June 18, 2008 at 10:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justthefacts (anonymous) says...
The AP and a lot of old school media are afraid of blogs. They sniff at them as not real journalism (and a lot are not). But what it really sounds like is turf battles. Blogs have their place, and so does standard media outlet sources. Checks and balances (in this day and age of instant info, people are much more able and likely to do some fact checking of their own!) is always a good thing. Unless you want to have a strangle hold on the information - and minds - available to others. Fair use rules were never intended to prevent the flow of information not being used for $$ making purposes. The main stream media had better be careful about their elitism and snobby attitudes. The young people who grew up using the internet a lot are not likely to turn to an older source of information that has done all it could to prevent them from obtaining information elsewhere. So, AP - embrace the bloggers. Take them in. Use them. Make them your friends. Or be aware that this is a war you may lose big time.
June 18, 2008 at 10:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Snoop (anonymous) says...
This is an obscenely retarded issue. Bloggers draw interest to topics they care about. If a news agency has content of interest to a particular blogger the vast majority link back to the original story, which means hits to that site. When you have big bloggers with millions of readers being directed to stories written by these agencies that story is getting far more eyes directed to it than it would from simply being printed on fishwrap. The AP just wants to control content and their message. The war with bloggers goes back to AP Defends Photo as "Fake but Accurate" and this comprehensive post "A comprehensive overview of the four types of photo fraud committed by Reuters, August, 2006"Links: http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog... and http://www.zombietime.com/reuters_pho... Bloggers are exposing the fact that these news agencies engage in political bias, fraud and deceit in their coverage on issues so this to me is more a pissing contest that frankly AP won't win in the long run.
June 18, 2008 at 11:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )