Comments on: Jeff Jarvis Gets It — Plus, You Got Any AP Articles That Need Fisking?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 07:51:40 +0000

Who gives a damn what AP thinks in regard to fair use. It’s FAIR use. Blogger or Commercial Entity, (or both) if its fair use then there is nothing stopping you. People get upset when you clearly take more than allowed. Both Publishers and Bloggers alike get equally pissed. Publishers have lawyers, bloggers have the media bloggers association and the dozens of other blogs, and help pages created to help bloggers get their copyright material taken down. Same issue.
I think of it like a grocery store. It’s okay to grab a sample off of the free sample table. It’s not okay to walk out with an entire grocery cart of it. If you are going to take a cart full of stuff, YOU NEED TO PAY, assuming you have permission… except that does not fit into my cool analogy.
If its fair use, for the most part I don’t think people are bitching. It’s when you take the whole article, excerpt out the heart and soul of an article, copy a whole article/blog and e-mail it to a bunch of people, stuff like that, people get angry, AND RIGHTFULLY SO! AP does not give a damn about people quoting articles and discussing them. Nor do I think they want to squash all criticism. They just want what’s fair, and walking out of the grocery store full of food is not fair. Taking an entire article/blog or excerpting the heart and soul of it is not fair. Now what’s considered the heart and soul of an article/blog is a gray area. Hey speaking of gray area’s take a look at fair use in general, that is also part of the problem.

By: h2u

h2u — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:10:49 +0000

We are protected by fair use.

So why would commercial entities be exempt from fair use? And how is a blogger who runs ads NOT a commercial entity?

This is a slippery slope, Corky. I think AP is truly of the belief that excerpting any of their content ought to bring them revenue. Fair Use be damned.

Ultimately, I see no reason why a CEO quoting 5 words — the iCopyright line-in-the-sand — from an AP article should have to pay a dime. Fair Use is Fair Use, and as long as credit is given there should be no obligation to pay for information.

Because, as the meme goes, information YEARNS to be free.

By: Corky Boyd

Corky Boyd — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 20:41:32 +0000

addendum to my prior post.

Cox points out that icopyright is primarily for a commercial entity who wants to republish an article. An example might be–publishing a glowing article of a CEO in their Annual Report, or an oil company republishing portions of an article in an advocacy ad.

We are protected by fair use.

By: Corky Boyd

Corky Boyd — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 20:33:44 +0000

h2u

The reason they probably won’t is “fair use”. They can try anything, but this wasn’t what was in play with The Drudge Retort. They received a takedown order after posting complete articles and failed to respond in a timely manner. Hopefully it will be resolved by tomorrow.

I am no fan of AP for thier distortions and failing to properly address serious bias issues. But I think a lot of folks are misreading what happened here. The Media Bloggers Assn. is our best friend. They will see that the little folks won’t be pushed around. They have access to top, top legal talent on a pro bono basis.

AP knows this.

By: h2u

h2u — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:19:14 +0000

Of course, the buttons and functionality of AP's icopyright are intended for business users having nothing to do with bloggers such as selling reprint permissions to corporate clients (a common practice) but that's not stopped reports that the updated reason for my meeting with AP is to find a new way of sharing AP content, which now involves a fee per excerpt based on its word length.

Corky, I read that post from Rob Cox, too. But after reading his last paragraph, quoted above, I'm left wondering: what's to stop AP from requiring bloggers to use iCopyright at some point in the future? He claims that it's there for corporate entities who wish to excerpt AP content -- yet visiting the iCopyright site, one sees no specific indication that bloggers are exempt from paying. Here's the link: iCopyright

By: Corky Boyd

Corky Boyd — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:10:22 +0000

This may have been blown out of proportion, that’s the take of the Robert Cox writing for the Media Bloggers Assn. He was involved in the give and take between Drudge Retort and AP, talking to both of them to resolve the problem. Rather than paraphrasing it read it here:

http://www.mediabloggers.org/robert-cox/backstory-on-ap-drudge-retort-issue

By: Steve Verdon

Steve Verdon — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:05:34 +0000

Patterico,

I realize we’ve had major disagreements in the past, but in this case I completely agree with you. As an individual, and a non-lawyer, getting a letter from a lawyer is very threatening. This whole thing is just amazingly short-sighted on the part of AP and the NYT.

By: Jem

Jem — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:00:54 +0000

Good response Patterico. While I still content that Drudge Retort infringed badly, you are correct that the AP went way to far in several ways, including the commenter takedown, and such behavior is scary to a lot of bloggers that aren’t in the legal profession and can’t afford AP’s legal team. AP knew this and abused their position of power.

By: Scrapiron

Scrapiron — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:25:26 +0000

“If the AP had any common sense”.

Have you noticed how “uncommon”, common sense is? Hardly any in the MSM.

By: Scrapiron

Scrapiron — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:22:56 +0000

“You Got Any AP Articles That Need Fisking”?
All of them.