Next time a mod slaps your hand

[MattyT]

Please consider this....

 

A.P. Cracks Down on Unpaid Use of Articles on Web

[SDS]

I don't see how they can win a fair-use case for headlines and blurbs. Especially with most news sites running RSS feeds which gives explicit approval to link and quote such articles.

 

However, it is a situation worth watching.

[Lori]

I think you're correct about any fair-use ruling, Scott. Indeed, the guidelines I follow when I edit posts here come right out of the AP Stylebook section on media law. (Pages 368-9 in my 2004 edition, to be specific.)

 

Mixed feelings on this. Looking at it from TBD's point of view -- although I'll note that this is merely my own opinion; only Scott can speak on behalf of the site -- a link and SHORT excerpt here actually provides value to the AP, because we're (hopefully) sending traffic to one of their affiliates. If they were to begin demanding money for every link, I might see that as reason to stop allowing any mention of their stories here, and that's not a solution I would contemplate with great joy.

 

On the other hand, as a working sports writer who has seen some stories reprinted without my permission, nothing pisses me off more than seeing a blog cut/paste entire pieces without asking -- attributed or not. So if the AP wants to go after those offenders, more power to them.

[KRC]

I think you're correct about any fair-use ruling, Scott. Indeed, the guidelines I follow when I edit posts here come right out of the AP Stylebook section on media law. (Pages 368-9 in my 2004 edition, to be specific.)

 

Mixed feelings on this. Looking at it from TBD's point of view -- although I'll note that this is merely my own opinion; only Scott can speak on behalf of the site -- a link and SHORT excerpt here actually provides value to The AP, because we're (hopefully) sending traffic to one of their affiliates. If they were to begin demanding money for every link, I might see that as reason to stop allowing any mention of their stories here, and that's not a solution I would contemplate with great joy.

 

On the other hand, as a working sports writer who has seen some stories reprinted without my permission, nothing pisses me off more than seeing a blog cut/paste entire pieces without asking -- attributed or not. So if The AP wants to go after those offenders, more power to them.

 

I agree with everything you have said.

 

You are an author. You have felt what it is like to have your work stolen. The same has happened to me. More needs to be done to prevent that type of thing, but to take it to the extreme of not allowing links, that is overboard.

[DC Tom]

I think you're correct about any fair-use ruling, Scott. Indeed, the guidelines I follow when I edit posts here come right out of the AP Stylebook section on media law. (Pages 368-9 in my 2004 edition, to be specific.)

 

Mixed feelings on this. Looking at it from TBD's point of view -- although I'll note that this is merely my own opinion; only Scott can speak on behalf of the site -- a link and SHORT excerpt here actually provides value to The AP, because we're (hopefully) sending traffic to one of their affiliates. If they were to begin demanding money for every link, I might see that as reason to stop allowing any mention of their stories here, and that's not a solution I would contemplate with great joy.

 

On the other hand, as a working sports writer who has seen some stories reprinted without my permission, nothing pisses me off more than seeing a blog cut/paste entire pieces without asking -- attributed or not. So if The AP wants to go after those offenders, more power to them.

 

I agree with everything you have said.

 

You are an author. You have felt what it is like to have your work stolen. The same has happened to me. More needs to be done to prevent that type of thing, but to take it to the extreme of not allowing links, that is overboard.

[SDS]

I think you're correct about any fair-use ruling, Scott. Indeed, the guidelines I follow when I edit posts here come right out of the AP Stylebook section on media law. (Pages 368-9 in my 2004 edition, to be specific.)

 

Mixed feelings on this. Looking at it from TBD's point of view -- although I'll note that this is merely my own opinion; only Scott can speak on behalf of the site -- a link and SHORT excerpt here actually provides value to The AP, because we're (hopefully) sending traffic to one of their affiliates. If they were to begin demanding money for every link, I might see that as reason to stop allowing any mention of their stories here, and that's not a solution I would contemplate with great joy.

 

On the other hand, as a working sports writer who has seen some stories reprinted without my permission, nothing pisses me off more than seeing a blog cut/paste entire pieces without asking -- attributed or not. So if The AP wants to go after those offenders, more power to them.

 

Well, the latter has always been the case since day 1 back in the 90's.

 

What I see as AP's play here is that they want to use the threat of lawsuits to remove competition to portals that they want to run themselves. In essence, double-dipping. Get revenue from any aggregation and then get revenue from the articles views themselves.

 

However, their sabre rattling would imply they want to destroy the foundation of the internet - the ability to reference other material elsewhere under long-established fair-use laws. Personally, I don't think that dog will hunt, but like Getty Images and the RIAA - small guys won't have the cash to hire lawyers to defend themselves against suits from the AP.

 

Which, probably means we need to go to an LLC here fairly soon.

[Nanker]

I think you're correct about any fair-use ruling, Scott. Indeed, the guidelines I follow when I edit posts here come right out of the AP Stylebook section on media law. (Pages 368-9 in my 2004 edition, to be specific.)

 

Mixed feelings on this. Looking at it from TBD's point of view -- although I'll note that this is merely my own opinion; only Scott can speak on behalf of the site -- a link and SHORT excerpt here actually provides value to The AP, because we're (hopefully) sending traffic to one of their affiliates. If they were to begin demanding money for every link, I might see that as reason to stop allowing any mention of their stories here, and that's not a solution I would contemplate with great joy.

 

On the other hand, as a working sports writer who has seen some stories reprinted without my permission, nothing pisses me off more than seeing a blog cut/paste entire pieces without asking -- attributed or not. So if The AP wants to go after those offenders, more power to them.

 

 

I agree with everything you have said.

 

You are an author. You have felt what it is like to have your work stolen. The same has happened to me. More needs to be done to prevent that type of thing, but to take it to the extreme of not allowing links, that is overboard.

[Beerball]

I agree with everything you have said.

 

You are an author. You have felt what it is like to have your work stolen. The same has happened to me. More needs to be done to prevent that type of thing, but to take it to the extreme of not allowing links, that is overboard.

Finally an original thought provoking statement.

[Lori]

Well, the latter has always been the case since day 1 back in the 90's.

 

What I see as AP's play here is that they want to use the threat of lawsuits to remove competition to portals that they want to run themselves. In essence, double-dipping. Get revenue from any aggregation and then get revenue from the articles views themselves.

 

However, their sabre rattling would imply they want to destroy the foundation of the internet - the ability to reference other material elsewhere under long-established fair-use laws. Personally, I don't think that dog will hunt, but like Getty Images and the RIAA - small guys won't have the cash to hire lawyers to defend themselves against suits from the AP.

 

Which, probably means we need to go to an LLC here fairly soon.

I see their point of view -- their reporters (like Wawrow) are providing the original content, so why should aggregators be allowed to slap an ad on a page full of links and make money? But you're absolutely correct -- not only was that barn door left open a long time ago, the horses are several states away by now.

[Bullpen]

Finally an original thought provoking statement.

 

Jesus H. Keyriste, we got ourselves a friggin triple play here!!!

[Wraith]

I think you're correct about any fair-use ruling, Scott. Indeed, the guidelines I follow when I edit posts here come right out of the AP Stylebook section on media law. (Pages 368-9 in my 2004 edition, to be specific.)

 

Mixed feelings on this. Looking at it from TBD's point of view -- although I'll note that this is merely my own opinion; only Scott can speak on behalf of the site -- a link and SHORT excerpt here actually provides value to The AP, because we're (hopefully) sending traffic to one of their affiliates. If they were to begin demanding money for every link, I might see that as reason to stop allowing any mention of their stories here, and that's not a solution I would contemplate with great joy.

 

On the other hand, as a working sports writer who has seen some stories reprinted without my permission, nothing pisses me off more than seeing a blog cut/paste entire pieces without asking -- attributed or not. So if The AP wants to go after those offenders, more power to them.

It's interesting that the article puts almost no emphasis on reprinting w/o permission, lack of proper credit, or plagiarism.

 

It certainly makes it seem like the sole intent here is to squeeze revenue out of linking to articles. I can't see how a judge will rule in favor of this during the inevitable lawsuit, but even if it were, how is this a sound business decision? How will this result in anything more than a sudden drop in web traffic to AP news stories as they now will undoubtedly not show up in a Google search (and we all know how important that is). It's amazingly counter-intuitive.

[stuckincincy]

I think you're correct about any fair-use ruling, Scott. Indeed, the guidelines I follow when I edit posts here come right out of the AP Stylebook section on media law. (Pages 368-9 in my 2004 edition, to be specific.)

 

Mixed feelings on this. Looking at it from TBD's point of view -- although I'll note that this is merely my own opinion; only Scott can speak on behalf of the site -- a link and SHORT excerpt here actually provides value to The AP, because we're (hopefully) sending traffic to one of their affiliates. If they were to begin demanding money for every link, I might see that as reason to stop allowing any mention of their stories here, and that's not a solution I would contemplate with great joy.

 

On the other hand, as a working sports writer who has seen some stories reprinted without my permission, nothing pisses me off more than seeing a blog cut/paste entire pieces without asking -- attributed or not. So if The AP wants to go after those offenders, more power to them.

 

I've found that "fair use" is a moving target, so to speak. I generally use what I was told in college - 150 words or less, with unambiguous crediting to the author and publisher, where to find the complete text, and these days, posting the internet link.

 

I generally excerpt, that is, separately quote this or that portion of a publication that is of import or interest, to encourage folks to click on the citation.

 

 

I, as you seem to imply, see benefit to the author/publisher in disseminating their work.

 

I admit dismay over the court decision of several years ago that allowed for the copyrighting of slogans. I took that as a bite into free usage of the English language.

 

Sad news: The Ann Arbor News "downsized" today, going on-line with a 2 day per week printing. The beat goes on..or perhaps off, would be a better description.

[SDS]

if anyone does any additional searches on this, please post any interesting articles/opinions here (oh the irony)... Thanks.

[The Poojer]

I agree with everything you have said.

 

You are an author. You have felt what it is like to have your work stolen. The same has happened to me. More needs to be done to prevent that type of thing, but to take it to the extreme of not allowing links, that is overboard.

[Lori]

Sad news: The Ann Arbor News "downsized" today, going on-line with a 2 day per week printing. The beat goes on..or perhaps off, would be a better description.

Actually, let me correct that if I may: after 174 years, The Ann Arbor News published its final edition yesterday. The Thursday/Sunday paper is affiliated with AnnArbor.com, a derivative -- but separate -- entity.

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index....ng_ends_de.html

[stuckincincy]

Actually, let me correct that if I may: after 174 years, The Ann Arbor News published its final edition yesterday. The Thursday/Sunday paper is affiliated with AnnArbor.com, a derivative -- but separate -- entity.

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index....ng_ends_de.html

 

Thanks.