6 comments

• 

  Paul Colford

  1 year ago

  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
  reply
• 

  billenator

  1 year ago

  In reply to Jim Kennedy of the AP:
  
  I think the unsaid meaning here is bloggers are free to particpate in the news conversation of the day as long as you pay the AP. It's pretty clear from recent lawsuits that the Associated Press feels entitled to own the news. The AP has enjoyed a monopoly for probably much too long I fear and is behaving like a bully.
  
  The facts of the news are in the Public Domain the facts of the news are Publici juris and no business may own the rights to fact not even the AP.
  
  It is also clear that the AP has made the "Strategic" decision to use the faulty and nebulous doctrine of Hot News misappropriation as web 2.0, the internet, modern communications , technology, and public perception threaten their very existence.
  
  I think it will be very interesting to see how current and future case law will further impact and erode AP's business.
  reply
• 

  Mahmoud Al-Qudsi

  1 year ago

  The same thing was done to SnappedShot a while back, but for political reasons. SnappedShot was using images by the AP to protest the Israeli occupation of Palestine - the AP demanded they remove all photos pertaining to the Palestine-Israel conflict for "copyright" reasons.
  
  Example with pictures stripped: http://www.snappedshot.com/archives/932-How-Peo...
  
  Author's article on the legal threats:
  http://www.snappedshot.com/archives/1692-And-Th...
  reply
• 

  Cletus

  1 year ago

  Dastardly AP. They must be an agent of the Zionist conspiracy
  reply
• 

  crosbie

  1 year ago

  Copyright infringement, even with a potentially successful defence of fair use, remains copyright infringement and is thus still subject to the DMCA.
  
  If you're upset that this renders 'fair use' impotent, complain to those who drafted and enacted the DMCA.
  
  I think you'll find AP can continue to be a bully and will do so.
  
  You have a choice:
  1) Be bullied/Acquiesce/Pay up
  2) Pursue fair use in court (it cannot be asserted any other way)
  3) Avoid the bully
  4) Abolish copyright
  reply
• 

  billenator

  1 year ago

  Crosbie: Your make sense and I bet the AP is willing to bet that most people will choose #1, #3 .. #2 and #4 are too painful or expensive for most people to fight
  reply