AP wins big: Why a court said clipping content is not fair use

paidcontent.org ^ | March 22, 2013 | Jeff John Roberts

[PastorBooks]

Link only due to the subject of the article.

[PastorBooks]

Bad news. A NY judge decided that a website that posts clips from articles is against copyright.

This is against the way the internet works and will obviously lead to more court cases, but for now the newspapers have something new to sue over.

"Buggy whip makers, unite!"

Here we go again... :(

[PastorBooks]

The link didn’t copy over:

http://paidcontent.org/2013/03/22/ap-wins-big-why-a-court-said-clipping-content-is-not-fair-use/

[PastorBooks]

Here is discussion on Hacker News:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5428979

[Hardraade]

So Drudge is going out of business?

[muawiyah]

Drudge publishes URLs with story titles. Easy way to protect yourself from Drudge is DO NOT PUT IT ON THE NET.

[PastorBooks]

I think that this has to lead to more court cases higher up. The way blogs work — you quote a little and give a link — and has been recognized as falling under fair use. The danger is lawsuits in the short term until a higher court can rule differently.

[Dallas59]

Ok. Then it may come down to reading the article then posting your own summary of it without any links to the "copyrighted" stuff.

That way hardly anyone would visit the website to read the real story. Dear news sites...Foot>Gun>Shoot.

[bigbob]

I don’t see a problem with this. If a site steals content, everyone should agree that’s wrong. If if they tease and refer to the originator, it should be a win-win for both. I’m no more apt to see an ad on another site than on Drudge, where he does exactly this.

For example, if FR limited the content to a “headline” and a link, it’d be fine by me. I seldom read articles that are posted in threads anyhow, I’ll nearly always click through to the original source anyhow.

[Chad N. Freud]

I consider FR ongoing education.

Surely there is some provision in copyright law for scholars to quote from primary sources, as long as proper attribution is attached.

[BfloGuy]

I’ll nearly always click through to the original source anyhow.

I do, too. But we're a distinct minority here.

I'd wager that the "click-through" rate at FR is about the same as Meltwater's customers. Didn't they provide a link in their service? That seems very, very low for companies you'd think would want to read the full context of the story they're mentioned in.

I don't find the decision particularly troubling. I think we've lived through the Golden Age of the Internet -- people actually want to make money now. I don't blame them [my personal opinions of the AP and the NYT notwithstanding].

[PastorBooks]

I saw this comment on the Hacker News discussion: “A blog that excerpts a bit of a news story but adds some analysis would be transformative and thus not infringing.”

Apparently the decision says that an article can be quoted if there is commentary/discussion of the quoted text in a way as to add to the topic.

The could cause a real problem for many blogs, especially ones that have a history of posts going back years. It would be near impossible to edit hundreds or thousands of posts.

[mrsmith]

http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=1403

They don’t like the jusge at the robing room!

Ruling seems too harsh. Though this aggregator is making big bucks the ruling would hurt ‘commentators’ if more leeway is not allowed.

[Tunehead54]

Ping! Careful ... fair use decision ...

[BuckeyeTexan]

I read parts of the decision. I think FR has a legitimate fair-use claim based on all four parts of the four-part test used by the courts.

[Mike Darancette]

This should help keep the voter information level low.

[PastorBooks]

While this case was about an automated aggregator, could it open the door to copyright lawsuits against forum owners over article clips posted by users? Newspaper publishers have tried this before.

[PastorBooks]

Here is a summary of the finding:

Sorry Fair Use, Court Says News Clipping Service Infringes On AP Copyrights
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130321/13345322408/court-finds-meltwaters-news-clipping-service-infringes-ap-copyrights.shtml

This is a link to the decision:

S D N Y 1 12 Cv 01087 156 (PDF)
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/626405/s-d-n-y-1-12-cv-01087-156.pdf

[GOPJ]

Ok. Then it may come down to reading the article then posting your own summary of it without any links to the "copyrighted" stuff.

Interesting - 'writing' can be copyrighted - but NOT an idea. So there's a job for a good re-write man - and a link could be provided to the original... it's totally legal. You've stumbled across a newspapers' worst nightmare...

Oh - and the whole article doesn't have to be re-written - just the first few paragraphs - then add a link. Genius.

[abb]

One pissant federal district judge rules differently from dozens of other court rulings concerning fair use. Ain’t gonna stick. It’s like trying to stop the tide from coming in.

[Publius Valerius]

Don’t bet on it. This service was ripping off AP. Companies like this are going to lose, as they should. Fair use isn’t a license to steal for profit.