News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: A.P. Cracks Down on Unpaid Use of Articles on Web - RightNation.US

Jump to content

A.P. Cracks Down on Unpaid Use of Articles on Web Rate Topic: -----

#21 User is offline   RedMoonProject 

  • The View From Fly-Over Country
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 3,881
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 25 July 2009 - 03:34 PM

QUOTE (knivek @ Jul 24 2009, 09:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The AP further announced today that if a person read an AP news article off the AP web site, and thought about or even had an opinion on the article, or even thought about going to the AP web site, then they would be charged a fee.

Don't laugh, it looks like where they are going. Are the same clowns that came up with Obama's health plan in charge over at the AP?

After reading the article, it really does look like we should declare a complete moratorium on linking to AP stories.

I already have for some time now. I do not link to, quote or mention any AP story on my blog, here or anywhere else. When there are so many other sources of information and news, why bother to prop up the MSNBC of the news service world?

They are dead to me. devil-smiley-073.gif

#22 User is offline   Doc 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 1,378
  • Joined: 06-September 04

Posted 25 July 2009 - 03:39 PM

QUOTE (Crabby Appleton @ Jul 25 2009, 03:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I think you are being a bit too dismissive of what AP is attempting here. If a particular comment was reported only by AP, how can anyone discuss that comment without directly or indirectly referencing the AP report? It appears to me that, taken to its logical conclusion, AP could make the claim that comments made by newsmakers, and even events themselves, can be copyrighted and licensed by AP. If their position does not have a chilling effect on speech, explain what has just happened here at RN.

I've been checking around the net, seeing what others are saying about this, and sounds like you got it right. Also noticed sights like Breibart, etc, have removed not only AP, but all the wires from their sights. Sights like Yahoo news and Drudge still show AP.

5-25 words = $12.50
26-50 words = $17.50
51-100 words = $25.00
101-250 words = $50.00
251 words and up = $100.00

From a private blog, no idea if they are accurate.

If you quote their words, then disagree with them, or do anything they deem offensive to them, they can terminate your contract any time they see fit, then fine you for using their words without a contract.

They also offer rewards of up to $1,000,000 if you turn in someone for quoting AP without an agreement. So, anyone who disagrees with you can get you sued, or at least get you bogged down in court. This would be blogs, email, newsgroups, any form of transmitted media or phrase belonging to the AP.

If you pay the fees to quote the AP, but you offend them in so doing, they reserve the right to terminate your agreement at any time if they or their agents finds your use of the licensed Content to be offensive and/or damaging to their reputation. The blogs further interpret this to mean all AP content, anything owned by them, not just content from the newswire. According to this, for example, the New York Times is an AP company, so they would be under the same rules, requiring the same contract.

So, if you're Sarah Palin, and an AP writer blasts away at you, responding could get you fined. What a coincidence that this happens the same day the one’s approval slipped below %50.

Anyone want to buy a vowel?


#23 User is offline   Doc 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 1,378
  • Joined: 06-September 04

Posted 25 July 2009 - 05:47 PM

AP: On second thought, maybe we like Internet traffic


#24 User is offline   katnapper 

  • Obama: America's first TIC
  • View blog
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 20,643
  • Joined: 22-December 06

Posted 25 July 2009 - 09:54 PM

Warning: Townhall.com news is almost always AP but it is not identified as such.

#25 User is offline   exsailorette 

  • Home
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 3,174
  • Joined: 03-November 04

Posted 25 July 2009 - 11:28 PM

QUOTE (Doc @ Jul 25 2009, 06:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Um Doc, that link is over a year old. The new AP rules are clearly (or at least sort of clearly rolleyes.gif ) spelled out in Gertie's July 24, 2009 article. Unless you were thinking that they're going to change their minds again?

#26 User is offline   Doc 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 1,378
  • Joined: 06-September 04

Posted 26 July 2009 - 04:58 AM

QUOTE (exsailorette @ Jul 26 2009, 12:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Um Doc, that link is over a year old. The new AP rules are clearly (or at least sort of clearly rolleyes.gif ) spelled out in Gertie's July 24, 2009 article. Unless you were thinking that they're going to change their minds again?

Oops. sorry about that! Found it on a google search, didn't notice that it was an old link. sorry.gif


#27 User is offline   Hieronymous 

  • Men with ropes around their necks don't always hang
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 8,740
  • Joined: 16-April 09

Posted 01 July 2011 - 02:10 PM

View PostDoc, on 24 July 2009 - 06:28 PM, said:

I don't understand this.

Seems like a link to one of their articles brings them traffic. Isn't that the goal, to bring traffic to your website then have advertising on the site to finance your company? I understand not wanting whole articles posted because then there is no need to hit their sites. First time I've heard a company complain because Google was listing them. Most companies pay bunches of money for that.

It say's they're a non-profit corp., but then that they want to be paid for every article. How is it possible that the mother of all newswires is non-profit?

If they do make it pay to play, people will stop using them, I doubt many will pay online to read AP articles. Whatever... they mostly print B.S. articles anyway. Maybe the DNC will kick in.

Good catch Gertie

It may be different, as AP isn't a newspaper, but charges newspapers to print their stuff. Plus, I think you have to pay to access their site online. Whatever. They are one of how many news outlets?

#28 User is offline   furrpiece 

  • Liberty is a continuum; not just a result.
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 25,227
  • Joined: 01-March 03

Posted 03 November 2012 - 11:18 AM

I relunctly approach this with the notion that the AP is cutting their own throat, but it's their throat to cut.

My only reluctance would be the suggesting that they can copyright a link to a story. That's ridiculous, and has no legal support that I know of.

A link is an address; it's not content. It's not owned by the AP, written by the AP, or in any way controlled by the AP.

I believe suggesting a link can be copyrighted by anyone steps over the line of public presentation of information. If I write a news story, and sell it to the Houston News, I've released it in public. Giving a link to the news story is no different than pointing a friend to a newspaper rack where they can read the Houston News in on the rack.

#29 User is offline   tcotrel 

  • You know those parking lot attendants....
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 3,654
  • Joined: 01-March 03

Posted 30 March 2016 - 05:51 PM

I assume as this article is from Newsweek via The Guardian, The Media Outlet That Cannot Be Named Or Linked To cannot sue.

But does its citation constitute a violation of Godwin's Law?


This post has been edited by tcotrel: 30 March 2016 - 05:52 PM


#30 User is offline   Political Piper 

  • Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 of USC
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 100
  • Joined: 30-November 16

Posted 25 July 2017 - 03:40 PM

I'll be honest.. I have a YouTube channel, and so I cover a lot of different articles. But I always archive the article I'm going to discuss, especially when it is a CNN/MSNBC, or other leftist corporate media article. It's really easy to do, and this way, they are not getting profit from you or others who click on the link. I think more people should do is. I think it's imperative that independent media continues to grow and exposes the lies of the corporate media.

The only articles I don't archive are from the Daily Wire, and Washington Times (on occasion) Other than that, most articles are archived so the corporate media doesn't continue to get bigger. They already took all the advertisers away from YouTube, which makes it very hard to get profit through adsense.. So in essence, people like me are doing the same thing to them as they did to us.

Share this topic:

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users