After the mini-scandal the Associated Press stirred up last week when it sent DMCA copyright notices to Rogers Cadenhead, owner of the Drudge Retort, the usual suspects on the 'net weighed in. Jeff Jarvis wrote a scathing post called "FU AP", and TechCrunch founder Michael Arrington says AP stories are "banned" on his site. The Standard spoke with the Associated Press's VP and Director of Strategy, Jim Kennedy, to get the AP's perspective.
Kennedy really wanted to make it clear that the AP isn't going after everyone who quotes an AP story in a blog post. "Are we going to pursue every blogger? No, that's not the point here," says Kennedy. The AP wants to "limit the amount of original content that gets copied" and the "use of content directly in the blog." Quoting is fine, especially when surrounded by proper commentary, but quoting should be judicious.
Kennedy told me this is far from the first time that the AP has sent DMCA notices, but Cadenhead happened to blog this one, and it turned into a big deal. "The reaction here has caused us to reflect on how we interact with bloggers," said Kennedy. "We need to be careful here. If we let things go and let people do whatever we want, we'd be out of business."
The Media Bloggers Association, an organization dedicated to protecting the rights of bloggers, is very concerned about the developments. Robert Cox, president of the group told me "the MBA's immediate concern was with Rogers Cadenhead, the blogger, and that he not be subject to any further legal threats." He has been in contact with the Associated Press and will be meeting with AP reps this week. "We asked to meet with the AP to see if we could work with them to develop some clear guidelines for bloggers and a better process of notification in the event of a conflict over those guidelines."
"These kinds of legal threats are very upsetting and disruptive," said Cox. After talking to the AP on Friday, "I was able to call Rogers on Friday and tell him he could relax in the knowledge that the AP was not planning any further legal threats."
"The AP is the gold-standard when it comes to journalistic practices in the United States," Cox told us. "AP's posture in seeking to balance their legitimate need for copyright protection and bloggers legitimate right of fair use will reverberate around the media landscape. It is therefore critical that AP come up with a sound policy that balances those needs."
On Friday, a series of blog comments left by Kennedy noted that the AP has "licensing deals" with several blogs. When asked for an example, he mentioned The Huffington Post. We're not sure if that's the best example of a "blog", as the site has more than forty employees and hundreds of contributors.
More news, commentary, and predictions from The Industry Standard:
- AP targets bloggers over story excerpts
- Analysis: Pricing bits and bytes in a world of free
- Analysis: Communications: Why do we accept less than 99.999%?
- Analysis: The real problem with Google's Blogger service: Neglect
- Special Feature: Where are they now? The Industry Standard tracks down 10 dot-coms from the Web bubble of the late 1990s
Comments
I think Jim Kennedy's quote in the third paragraph should read "If we let things go and let people do whatever THEY want, we'd be out of business". Hope I haven't breached AP's quote limit ...
I think the the AP is out of control. "Anything you say can, and will, be used against you..." I know this is a quote meant for law enforcement, but let's be realistic, it applies to everyone at anytime, even for the AP. I believe Bloggers have the right, per the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to use any quote from any source, so long as it is properly anotated and due credit is given to the source of the quote. Bloggers have the right to thier opinions of any topic, and quotes are necessary for clarity, reference, and validation.
I don't blog.
However, starting with AP taking down their Bluepage a while back (I think blogging had something to do with that) things have pretty much gone to hell (noun) or gotten hellish (adjective).
Neither party can be blamed. Have you watched the network news lately? Anyone with an IQ above 71 is immediately insulted. There is a vortex when it comes to credible news.
I have looked at AP's copyright prices, they may be fine for the media market and thats as it should be; bloggers are not for the most part in the commercial sector and rightfully need a different pricing structure.
One might surmise that AP's failure to capitalize on this fledling market might reflect their inablity to
adapt to a changing market.
Hey AP, congratulations on completely defeating your purpose- destributing ACCURATE news to people. If a blogger says where it's from, why SHOULDN'T he or she use it? Particularly since most bloggers will link back to the original site.
I don't know if I can take AP seriously after this. . .
Exactly what I was thinking JJ. In the US, at least, quoting with proper annotation? TOATLLY covered under the first amendment. Can't say the same for blogs located in countries without Freedom of Speech protections, but shouldn't we be setting an example of Free Speech instead of limiting it?
A paper that is part of the AP censors blogs that are critical of the paper. The paper says its policy is to publish all court records. When it was posted on their blog they don't with proof they don't they took down the blog.No violation of their policy, just caught in a lie.
http://blogs.yankton.net/blog/1935?page=3
A 2nd dui conviction with jail time was kept out of the paper. One would think child abuse and identity theft would be news not something to hide.
http://southdakotagov.info/5.html
""The AP is the gold-standard when it comes to journalistic practices in the United States," Cox told us. "
Well, fool's gold -- unless Cox is sucking up for the purposes of playing kissy face.
No question that the AP's making a strategy move .
At AP's annual meeting they name
iCopyright Named Licensing Agent for Reuse of Associated Press Content Published Online
AP has determined that they consider to be fair-use to be exactly four words. More than that and you pay $12.50 - $100. This is pretty hypocritical considering that AP journalists help themselves routinely to much more than four words from blogs and websites in the name of "fair use".
AP takes this a step further and under the license pricing and terms of use for iCopyright they place language that raises eyebrows and limits free speech.. Pretty unusual for an entity that lives and dies by freedom of speech protection.
iCopyright License Excerpt:
Derogatory and Unlawful Uses: You shall not use the Content in any manner or context that will be in any way derogatory to the author, the publication from which the Content came, or any person connected with the creation of the Content or depicted in the Content. You agree not to use the Content in any manner or context that will be in any way derogatory to or damaging to the reputation of Publisher, its licensors, or any person connected with the creation of the Content or referenced in the Content."
------
I think that any reasonable person would see a strategy in play and is very much at odds with rights they flaunt daily.
AP is large and may not be a monopoly in the strictest sense, perhaps oligopoly or cartel is a better description.
Is the AP behaving ethically and morally? Are they being a good citizen? Many say they're not.
AP's strategy and behavior raises lots of questions and concerns:
The Poynter Institute on it's blog asks: AP v. Bloggers: Hurting Journalism?
Pajama's Media Asks: Is the Associated Press Good for America?
Perhaps the question we need to ask is: "Is the AP evil?
This is going to be an interesting court case, because it will go to court. Paying to excerpt a few words is absurd and won't stand up without a total revision of the Copyright Act. What's more, linking to is not "using" or "publishing" AP content.
I'm not surprised Associated Press calls the issue "Hot News Misappropriation," because it would be next to impossible to claim "harm" from copyright infringement by someone quoting selectively and linking to already-published articles.
But while it's a stronger claim, "Hot News Misappropriation" could be very difficult to prove in the case of selective quoting and linking. This concept applies most strongly "before" news hits the public realm, or at least simultaneously with publication. That's when the news has the most value, because stealing it at that point CAN cause harm. Imagine stealing a reporter's story and printing it before it hits the press. Or linking to it in the seconds and minutes (not hours) after the story is distributed by AP. That's Hot News Misappropriation, as has already been defined in the courts.
(Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. But I have managed intellectual corporate properties for years, hiring some of the best intellectual property lawyers to handle the actual legal work.)
Post new comment