Old Media v. the Blogosphere (Fair Use v. Plagiarism, Copyright Infringement)

Posted in GCV - Tech Tips/Blogging/Web 2.0 by Jenn on June 18, 2008

(Updates as they Become Availabe, at Bottom of Post)

This week, the folks at TechCrunch made what might seem like at odd announcement regarding stories from the Associated Press (A.P.):

…Here’s our new policy on A.P. stories: they don’t exist. We don’t see them, we don’t quote them, we don’t link to them. They’re banned until they abandon this new strategy, and I encourage others to do the same until they back down from these ridiculous attempts to stop the spread of information around the Internet…

What is this about?! The A.P. has been around since 1846, and according to its own “about” page,

AP’s mission is to be the essential global news network, providing distinctive news services of the highest quality, reliability and objectivity with reports that are accurate, balanced and informed. AP operates as a not-for-profit cooperative with more than 4,000 employees working in more than 240 worldwide bureaus. AP is owned by its 1,500 U.S. daily newspaper members. They elect a board of directors that directs the cooperative….AP has received 49 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization in the categories for which it can compete. It has 30 photo Pulitzers, the most of any news organization.

Because of its size and reputation, the A.P. is often privy to the “scoops” on news that other news organizations need, and that bloggers often link to or editorialize for their readers. The A.P. is very protective of its content. If you go to this story, and look at the bottom, you’ll see the copyright information that accompanies most A.P. stories published directly on its site, or on the sites of news organizations which have been approved to syndicate the information:

© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy…Click here for copyright permissions! Copyright 2008 Associated Press

If you follow the copyright permission information for blog posting, you’ll see that the A.P. would like to charge by the word for any blogger who wants to use an excerpt from an A.P. article for more than one month.

Bloggers don’t do this. Bloggers typically publish using the “Fair Use” laws. Green Country Values’ Fair Use notice is in the right sidebar, and an example of the one Ft. Hard Knox (the national affiliate of Green Country Values) is using is here):

The various parts of this project contain some copyrighted material for which use has not been authorized by the copyright owners. We believe that this not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.) If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Fair Use notwithstanding, we will immediately comply with any copyright owner who wants their material removed or modified.

Some general guidelines apply. For example it is generally acceptable in the blogosphere to quote a short excerpt from another source, making sure to link to the original source. What constitutes and “excerpt” varies, from about 250 words, or 10% to no more than 40%. Even in the open-source environment of the blogosphere, it is still very poor form to either copy and paste an entire article to your blog without the original author’s permission, or to “plagiarize” another author, by using his or her writing, and claiming it as your own.

Here are some points to clarify how Ft. Hard Knox has handled common cross-posting issues:

Press releases, whether published on a website, or e-mailed to the blogger may be re-published as “non-contributory.” This means that you can simply publish the press release under your own name, as the author. You will need to use your own judgement about whether you want to copy and paste it, or modify it to your writing style.
Many bloggers have understood agreements about cross-posting (which is the blogosphere’s version of “syndication”). For example, FHK has made arrangements with a couple of bloggers to cross-posts intro’s to all of their blog articles here, with links to the originals, to help those bloggers promote their content. Also, FHK routinely has bloggers e-mail us articles for posting on FHK if appropriate. We also have standing agreements with a few bloggers to cross-post articles they’ve written occassionally, as the content applies to the goals and readership of the FHK project.
FHK participates in a couple of weekly “blogbursts,” on which one blogger e-mails a post to an entire of list of bloggers who, in turn, post the article, and link to everyone else who has posted that article.
FHK has a running “Blog Honor Roll,” on which we list the title and an excerpt of posts by bloggers elsewhere on the web. This is used to promote the other bloggers, and encourage link exchanges.
U.S. Government and State Government information posted on the web is paid for by taxpayers, and is therefore, generally available for use and re-posting by bloggers in the United States. (Remember, “of the people, by the people, and for the people”? That includes bloggers! Hat-Tip to Dr. Bill for this tip.)

These cross-posting techniques are covered under “fair use” laws in the blogosphere, but might be considered “plagiarism,” or “copyright infringement” by the old media.

Currently, there is a struggle going on, and the A.P., a giant in old media and a group of bloggers are currently in the process of trying to work out an agreement on these matters. From the tone of the legal department at the A.P., it sounds like the press giant is trying to educate bloggers to go along with the older way of doing things. By doing this, it will be alienating itself from the blogosphere, as more and more bloggers take the posture of TechCrunch, and “ban the A.P.”.

Also see:

Hat-Tip to Leslie Carbone for some of the great links in this post.

Update #1 Work Bench has listed the seven “takedown requests” sent to the Drudge Retort from the A.P.. As you will see, they are mostly feed links, and excerpts posted by users, mostly linking directly to main stream media outlets.

James Lewin, of Podcasting News: New Media Update has some good information specific to podcasting bloggers, including links to legal resources.

(Hat-tip, EFG, at Kansas Meadowlark)

Update #2 Warner Todd Huston weighs in a the Publius Forum:

…[F]rankly, I don’t care what the AP thinks they are going to charge for using snippets of their stories. I will NOT abide by this nonsense of 5 words or $12.50 a word after no matter how many “rules” they claim to have written. I will continue using parts of their stories in my criticism no matter what they say.

Here’s the thing, if we abide by the AP’s desire to severely limit our usage of snippets of their reports they will have effectively eliminated any criticism of them…(more)

Update #3 Michelle Malkin says if the A.P. wants to start charging by the word, they owe her some money! See: Hey, Associated Press: You owe me at least $132,125!

Fried Green Onions has commentary: AP Wants Change In Blog Excerpting, Just Not Sure what

Also, OkieDoke has a slightly different perspective: AP has a point, but not with me

(Also on FHK, COA)