Yesterday I mentioned the Main Stream Media Meltdown of the AP filing DMCA takedown notices against against Rogers Cadenhead and his community site Drudge Retort.
Shelley Powers left a comment that made me think.
“Rogers did not post enough information for any of us to form a knowledgeable opinion. What he’s done is trigger a pile on.
AP could be wrong,could be right — but we don’t have all sides of the story,we don’t even have the 7 posts,or have read all the communications.
I would think that people would appreciate getting all sides of the story before forming an opinion,wouldn’t you?”
He did post enough information on his site. The links are at the bottom of the page.
DMCA Takedown Request is here:
The Alleged Infringement is here:
AP is working under the theory that it is infringement based as far as I can see on the last sentence of the Copyright Office Fair Use definition:
“Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.”
This sentence should have special meaning for Shelley from the Lane Hartwell Copyright dustup.
Which strictly interpreted would give the AP the ‘right’,as every bit of AP work does have the All Rights Reserved Disclaimer. This however does not give them a free pass relating to Fair Use.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism,comment,news reporting,teaching,scholarship,and research.
Source:US Copyright Office Website
As far as the AP side of the story,this note has appeared on numerous blogs. I stole this from Matt Ingram
AP wants to fill in some facts and perspective on its recent actions with the Drudge Retort,and also reassure those in the blogosphere about AP’s view of these situations. Yes,indeed,we are trying to protect our intellectual property online,as most news and content creators are around the world. But our interests in that regard extend only to instances that go beyond brief references and direct links to our coverage.
The Associated Press encourages the engagement of bloggers —large and small —in the news conversation of the day. Some of the largest blogs are licensed to display AP stories in full on a regular basis. We genuinely value and encourage referring links to our coverage,and even offer RSS feeds from www.ap.org,as do many of our licensed customers.
We get concerned,however,when we feel the use is more reproduction than reference,or when others are encouraged to cut and paste. That’s not good for original content creators;nor is it consistent with the link-based culture of the Internet that bloggers have cultivated so well.
In this particular case,we have had direct and helpful communication with the site in question,focusing only on these issues.
So,let’s be clear:Bloggers are an indispensable part of the new ecosystem,but Jeff Jarvis’ call for widespread reproduction of wholesale stories is out of synch with the environment he himself helped develop. There are many ways to inspire conversation about the news without misappropriating the content of original creators,whether they are the AP or fellow bloggers.
Jim Kennedy
VP and Director of Strategy for AP
Posted by:Paul Colford | June 13,2008 11:43 AM
I have problems with the communication reportedly from the AP saying the words are from Jim Kennedy,VP and Director of Strategy,but is posted by someone calling themselves Paul Colford.
There is no disclaimer that Paul is writing for Jim,and this begs the question of whether or not Jim has his own email address or just a title. Jim Kennedy does work for the AP in that position according to the Media Center at the American Press Insitute. Paul Colford appears to be another Director of Media Relations at the AP according to this:
So the question beyond authenticity of authorship is the rambling assertion that they like bloggers,yet assert that licensing is the only true path to news nirvana.
The other nugget is the concept of “hot news misappropriation“,put forth by AP’s Intellectual Property Governance Coordinator Irene Keselman,whom if her LinkedIn profile is true is a part timer as she lists her own business as well but whose website seems to be MIA.
hot news misappropriation
It was bullshit yesterday and is bullshit today. Take for example the current situation. Every one of the alleged infringements were from sites that is paying the AP for content. The AP in reality has no standing here as it is no longer ‘hot news’. None of the infringements were sucked from the AP site. One could wonder if the AP wants to knock the RIAA off the top spot as the most reviled organization online.
Fair Use is an important part of our society,and is vital online.
Everything that is published in the United States is covered by copyright,and is also available for Fair Use. There is still no definite answer as to which percentage of an item consists of Fair Use,as some items cannot be easily chopped up into discrete bits such a photos,but a portion of a textual piece has been for many years even before the internet,has been used for criticism,comment,news reporting,teaching,scholarship,and research.
The only argument we are having is the percentage.
The AP cannot be allowed to win this one.