The Observation Deck

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/06/17/as ... s-exp.html

In the name of "defin[ing] clear standards as to how much of its articles and broadcasts bloggers and Web sites can excerpt" the Associated Press is now selling "quotation licenses" that allow bloggers, journallers, and people who forward quotations from articles to co-workers to quote their articles. The licenses start at $12.50 for quotations of 5-25 words. The licensing system exhorts you to snitch on people who publish without paying the blood-money, offering up to $1 million in reward money (they also think that "fair use" -- the right to copy without permission -- means "Contact the owner of the work to be sure you are covered under fair use.").

This is going to be interesting for bloggers and for people who enjoy discussing things on the internet.

I can't wait to see how this is going to work!

"I can't wait to see how this will work."

that's $12.50

"I can't wait to see how this will work."

more money?

Im not sure I agree with people being up in arms about this. Why should Joe Blogger be able to use AP sources to get material for his site which he will then sell to advertisers, without compensating the people who did the original work?
From the article it doesnt appear that the AP is charging to LINK to its stories.
I cant just put up Beatles songs on my website. This is sort of the same thing isnt it?

Nice Post DL, That should be fun. One day it will come to the point where you will be fined even for talking to a co-worker about the funny skit you saw last night. Go america!!!!

Also, good to know you can do whatever you like with the quote you paid for.

It gets better! If you pay to quote the AP, but you offend the AP in so doing, the AP "reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time if Publisher or its agents finds Your use of the licensed Content to be offensive and/or damaging to Publisher's reputation."

Dee Martinez wrote:From the article it doesnt appear that the AP is charging to LINK to its stories.

Just wait and see it will happen.

I doubt the AP would allow an author to claim that anything was "attacted". But that is more relevant to the other thread about the difference between the role of editors in traditional journalism and the loose translation that bloggers adopt to define their activity.

"Fair use" as I undestand it doesnt involve putting an entire song file on your website. Thats what the Napster case was all about. A movie reviewer can put up a clip of "Get Smart" but would be taken down immediately for making the whole film available online.

If a blogger says "gas prices have gone up by 10%" thats one thing, but if you say "according to Associated Press reports, gas prices have gone up by 10%" you are using the APs credibility, its "brand" you might say, to justify his own content, without contributing anything to the AP. Remember that AP isnt an opinion site. It doesnt sell books and doesnt have talk shows. You can link to Ann Coulter 1000 times a day and shed be delighted. Fact gathering is APs business.

Now if the AP objects to links to its site (and I dont think you can link directly to the AP, only a "member" site) I think that would be pretty stupid on their part. As you say, I guess well see.

Shawn Juris wrote:I doubt the AP would allow an author to claim that anything was "attacted". But that is more relevant to the other thread about the difference between the role of editors in traditional journalism and the loose translation that bloggers adopt to define their activity.

I think this is why I take journalism topics seriously. I do occasoinally deal with the media in both professional and nonprofit work and "news" is a serious thing to me.
Despite the mistakes made in "traditional journalism" there ARE rules and standards (the comment someone else made about "what do you need to go to journalism school for" doesnt just insult journalists, it insults ANYONE who went to college to learn a profession). The rules arent always applied evenly (what profession bats 100 percent?) but they are there for all to see.

Bloggers and citizen journalists (and the LO is somewhere in between depending on the issue and the phases of the moon) dont really tell you what the rules are, or even if they exist. Hence, Jim can say an unnamed "reporter" said she wouldn't write for the Observer unless Jim gave her $20. Well, there it is for all to see and probably 90% of the people reading that bought the story. Truth? Maybe. How would we know?

If "traditional journalism" runs the risk of being a selective priesthood, the other side runs the risk of being No Name City, where anything goes. I know the "traditional" media spend a lot of time in self-relfection on things like fairness and accuracy. Do bloggers and "citizen journalists" do the same?

This will be interesting. A few points come to mind.
1. To get around this, just paraphrase the quote, by writing something "an AP story on Lakewood mentions how Jim O'Bryan was spotted running down Warren Road dressed like Barbara Bush." Then give a link to the story.

2. If you don't quote a portion of the AP story verbatim, there's no way they can charge you.

3. The AP or AP subscriber CAN charge for access to the story, but there's nothing I know of that would allow them to charge a blogger for linking to their story.

4. I don't think it's in the AP's interest to be really assertive in protecting their IP in cases like this. The AP should be happy when bloggers use their stuff and refer readers to AP stories. If the AP comes down heavy, bloggers will start quoting Reuters or something else.

5. I can well imagine the AP being inspired by the RIAA taking on P2P, but the news mavens need to understand that wire copy can and is being replaced by a zillion bloggers and doesn't have the same money value as Madonna and Metallica songs.

6. We need a fresh, comprehensive look at "fair use" by someone at the level of the Supreme Court.

Well thought, Mr.McClain. Consider this perspective.
Im an AP wage slave, maybe making $30,000 a year. I interview Bob Barr, who says "Republicans are screwed up." It runs on the wire. Next day, 50 bloggers are screaming "Barr says Republicsan are screwed up" and using MY material. None of those 50 bloggers has ever talked to Bob Barr, yet their sites have paid ads on them, simply because they sat thre in their pyjamas and Googled my quote.

If your that AP wage slave, arent you running to your bosses saying WTF? It was only a matter of time before the AP caught on to the scam. At some point we have to respect the grunt work of the people (who spent tens of thousands to get their "worthless" journalism degress) in the field.

Thats where I found Mr Hutchinsons comments in the other thread so odious. Journalism isnt a hobby. To get a paying job, you need to show a resume, usually with a degree and/or experience. And once you get the job you are challenged and managed by editors on a daily basis. Its not a game. Its WORK. No less demanding than what YOU do for a living.

Its the same with music. If Im Paul McCartney and I never came up with the words and the tune for "Yesterday" youd have nothing to put on your website.
Why do I get shafted?

Joe

I believe you nailed it. AP is being inspired by the RIAA, and their recent activity. Maybe a little by Bill Gates who found if you scan famous works of art and post them, you then own the digital copyright no matter who owns the art, which makes no sense.

I also believe it comes after a certain amount of frustration, that people lift whole stories with no credit. This then stops people from going to AP sites that have paid their fees to AP.

Had the blogosphere actual used only links and a short pull to get readers interested this might not have ever come up. Here at the LO we have postings about the use of copyrighted material and how we do not want it posted, and the board managers have been pretty good at notifying those posters and asking them to provide links instead of the full article.

Dee

I never printed the person's name because it had nothing to do with the point of the story. However 4 people did call and ask if I was talking about them. It is a favorite subject of mine with "real" writers. Who I generally believe to be better in training than off the street writers, and have proven that most times.

Still once again we had a week where not just the "professional reporter" but the paper they worked for, use bias against Lakewood to suit their agenda for the region. Which would seem to underline, a better written story with a ton of bias where non is claimed is at best even with a story written by someone that claims their bias or at least never claims to be unbiased. Many would think worse.

4th Estate sold their souls, hence the 5th, 6th and now NinthEstate®.


.

Dee Martinez wrote:Well thought, Mr.McClain. Consider this perspective.
Im an AP wage slave, maybe making $30,000 a year. I interview Bob Barr, who says "Republicans are screwed up." It runs on the wire. Next day, 50 bloggers are screaming "Barr says Republicsan are screwed up" and using MY material. None of those 50 bloggers has ever talked to Bob Barr, yet their sites have paid ads on them, simply because they sat thre in their pyjamas and Googled my quote.

If your that AP wage slave, arent you running to your bosses saying WTF?

Well, maybe so Dee. But the AP wage slave isn't going to get any more if the 50 bloggers pay their tithe to the AP. And if AP quotes get pricey, well there are plenty of wage slaves at the other wire services and wireless services yet to be.

I have a journalism degree myself and while it hasn't exactly been a Pullman car on the gravy train, I wouldn't call it "worthless."