Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
Gertie Keddle

A.P. Cracks Down on Unpaid Use of Articles on Web

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Gertie Keddle

A.P. Cracks Down on Unpaid Use of Articles on Web

By RICHARD PEREZ-PENA

Published: July 23, 2009

NYTimes

Excerpt:

 

Taking a new hard line that news articles should not turn up on search engines and Web sites without permission, The Associated Press said Thursday that it would add software to each article that shows what limits apply to the rights to use it, and that notifies The A.P. about how the article is used.

 

Tom Curley, The A.P.’s president and chief executive, said the company’s position was that even minimal use of a news article online required a licensing agreement with the news organization that produced it. In an interview, he specifically cited references that include a headline and a link to an article, a standard practice of search engines like Google, Bing and Yahoo, news aggregators and blogs.

 

Asked if that stance went further than The A.P. had gone before, he said, “That’s right.” The company envisions a campaign that goes far beyond The A.P., a nonprofit corporation. It wants the 1,400 American newspapers that own the company to join the effort and use its software.

 

“If someone can build multibillion-dollar businesses out of keywords, we can build multihundred-million businesses out of headlines, and we’re going to do that,” Mr. Curley said. The goal, he said, was not to have less use of the news articles, but to be paid for any use.

 

Search engines and news aggregators contend that their brief article citations fall under the legal principle of fair use. Executives at some news organizations have said they are reluctant to test the Internet boundaries of fair use, for fear that the courts would rule against them.

 

Mr. Curley declined to address the fair use question, or to say what action The A.P. would take against sites that use articles without licensing.

 

“We’re not picking the legal remedy today,” he said. “Let’s define the scope of the problem.”

 

Article

 

Apparently we're not even going to be able to link to AP stories.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob the nobody

The AP doesn't want any readers do they

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc

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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
katnapper

Bye bye AP. Hello Reuters and AFP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cobalt-blue

They seem to be cutting their own wrists here. But hey, they're biased anyway, so I say let them collapse under their own stupidity. I've never heard of a company that wrote articles that DIDN'T want them read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
katnapper

And the really stupid thing about it is half the time it is hard to tell that the article is AP. I have almost posted a couple of them lately but caught myself because there will be a sentence in it that says something to the effect "___ told the associated press" and then in the small print at the bottom it will say "the associated press contributed to this report". They are purposely not identifying themselves so that they can charge. Also not all of their photos are marked so that they are easily discernable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shaky McSelfie

I understand the need to protect intellectual property in order to make money, but I'm not sure this is the right solution. This reminds me of how the music industry cut off it's nose during the 90's because they took a hard ass approach to internet music downloading. Somehow, I think the AP will not get what they want form this move.

Edited by Slang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knivek

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.

Edited by knivek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pict
Executives at some news organizations have said they are reluctant to test the Internet boundaries of fair use, for fear that the courts would rule against them.
This is where they're going to screw up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
USNJIMRET
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.

Not that this is a democratic site, but I'd vote for that.

I avoid AP stories as much as possible.

Don't need to try and weed out the facts from the bias and willfull omissions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator T
Mod note: Take this article as fair warning then. There will be no more use of the Associated Press here at RN. Find someone else who's covering the story. No links, no titles, no articles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
random_stuff
Mod note: Take this article as fair warning then. There will be no more use of the Associated Press here at RN. Find someone else who's covering the story. No links, no titles, no articles.
No problem...

 

At some point they'll probably claim intellectual property of all words that have "ap" in them, so when you eat a Granny Smith, you have to pay them a royalty.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crabby Appleton

I think this will be problematic for everyone. Since AP is so large, they have the resources to cover stories that other organizations cannot even hope to cover. As long as other organizations are willing to let AP do the legwork, they will become increasingly more dependent on the AP, and increasingly at risk for increases in AP licensing costs. The problem with monopolies is that they are less likely, due to a lack of competition, to provide the best services and products, and a monopoly in news sources is hardly likely to provide good, reliable, unbiased coverage. Further, smaller news organizations, blogs, and commentary sites, like RN, who do not have the resources to pay licensing fees will literally be prevented from commenting on news stories. If that is not censorship, it is darned close, and I wonder if AP's strategy would hold up in court. It would seem that some sort of fair use policy of news stories would make more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shaky McSelfie
I think this will be problematic for everyone. Since AP is so large, they have the resources to cover stories that other organizations cannot even hope to cover. As long as other organizations are willing to let AP do the legwork, they will become increasingly more dependent on the AP, and increasingly at risk for increases in AP licensing costs. The problem with monopolies is that they are less likely, due to a lack of competition, to provide the best services and products, and a monopoly in news sources is hardly likely to provide good, reliable, unbiased coverage. Further, smaller news organizations, blogs, and commentary sites, like RN, who do not have the resources to pay licensing fees will literally be prevented from commenting on news stories. If that is not censorship, it is darned close, and I wonder if AP's strategy would hold up in court. It would seem that some sort of fair use policy of news stories would make more sense.

Your right. We may have to start threads with, hey did you hear the one about.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee
Mod note: Take this article as fair warning then. There will be no more use of the Associated Press here at RN. Find someone else who's covering the story. No links, no titles, no articles.

 

Alternatively, why don't we just find out what it would cost to 'license' AP articles, then calculate how that would factor into membership costs and see if it's "worth it" ?

 

I really don't have any heartburn over AP's position - I don't expect anybody to do anything for free.

Edited by Adam Smithee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crabby Appleton
Alternatively, why don't we just find out what it would cost to 'license' AP articles, then calculate how that would factor into membership costs and see if it's "worth it" ?

 

I really don't have any heartburn over AP's position - I don't expect anybody to do anything for free.

There is a problem, however, in shutting down discussion of the events of the day. If this policy were to stand, doesn't it mean, quite literally, that a person or an organization would have to pay to express an opinion about events that only AP has covered?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pict

I'd take a guess they're doing it because their biased crap is being torn to shreads on the web. They don't like it, I say boycott their garbage and make them suffer.

Edited by pict

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee
There is a problem, however, in shutting down discussion of the events of the day. If this policy were to stand, doesn't it mean, quite literally, that a person or an organization would have to pay to express an opinion about events that only AP has covered?

 

Nothing is stopping anybody from discussing any event. But if I want to quote an AP writer regarding that event, wherein AP has spent time and money covering that event and putting the quotable text together, then why shouldn't they be compensated for it ?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ilja
And the really stupid thing about it is half the time it is hard to tell that the article is AP. I have almost posted a couple of them lately but caught myself because there will be a sentence in it that says something to the effect "___ told the associated press" and then in the small print at the bottom it will say "the associated press contributed to this report". They are purposely not identifying themselves so that they can charge. Also not all of their photos are marked so that they are easily discernable.

Yeah, I've quote from AP article before without even realizing it until someone else pointed it out to me. Geeze, AP. I personally wish all the news organizations that subscribe to them would just quit after this. Let them do their own dang speading of their 'news'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crabby Appleton
Nothing is stopping anybody from discussing any event. But if I want to quote an AP writer regarding that event, wherein AP has spent time and money covering that event and putting the quotable text together, then why shouldn't they be compensated for it ?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedMoonProject
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. :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc
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?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
katnapper

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
exsailorette

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...