We're not going to pay AP's extortion fees and we're not going to allow them to control free speech!

Recent AP vs fair use threads ^ | June 17, 2008 | Jim Robinson

[Jim Robinson]

This is our Boston tea Party.

The Associated Press wants to levy a $12.50 and up license fee (aka extortion fee) on any blogger who quotes more than 4 words from one of their propaganda pieces. This is an outrageous attempt to control the blogosphere and free speech itself. To hell with their license fee and to hell with the AP. Any AP article that gets posted to FR will be jettisoned into the harbor posthaste.

Please do not post any AP material to FR excerpted or not.

[fanfan]

Something is wrong here. How do they prove a string of 5 words came from their work?

On FR, we have to link to the story unless it's a vanity.

And who has authority to make you pay?

That is a good question.

[jazusamo]

Thanks for the heads up to this. Like Smooth says, it won’t affect me either, especially from now on.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From Hot Air:

AP wants $2.50 a word to excerpt its stories now?

************************EXCERPT************************

osted at 5:03 pm on June 17, 2008 by Allahpundit

And you thought their PR on this subject couldn’t get any worse. Must be nice to have an exemption from the same federal fair use statute every other content provider in America is governed by.

The AP’s disharmony with bloggers may have only just begun, as the alternative it’s now offering to being served with takedown notices involves paying an up-front sum for excerpting online articles — as few as five words…

The pricing scale for excerpting AP content begins at $12.50 for 5-25 words and goes as high as $100 for 251 words and up. Nonprofit organizations and educational institutions enjoy a discounted rate.

This scale is likely only a temporary solution, as it raises a truckload of questions. For instance: Suppose a news source holds a press conference, and makes a statement to several attendees including an AP correspondent. Does the citation of that quote count as an excerpt of an AP story? What if Reuters cited the same quote? Or worse, what if Reuters cited the quote differently, and a blogger noticed the difference and excerpted both for comparison? If the AP citation turned out to be in error, would the blogger still owe?

Here’s the link to a tollbooth for a random AP news alert piece. If you want to see it on an actual AP article, click the little copyright house icon near the top here, then click “Republish in a Print Publication or Other Media” followed by “Republish Excerpt Only.” What’s their game here, seriously? They’re turning themselves into laughingstocks and blogosphere pariahs while drumming up business for Reuters and AFP. If they’re trying to establish some sort of bright line beyond which excerpts can’t go without triggering infringement, then why not just lay down some reasonable-ish policy — two paragraphs maximum, say — and wait for someone to violate it, then sue to see if a court will enforce it? (Suspected answer: Because the court probably won’t and the AP knows it.) I’m mystified by their thought process.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

I know I'm just one person but when the media gods decide that we can't post their stuff here anymore they get a funny result. I don't go to their sites anymore. Some I used to go to daily until they dropped the hammer specifically on us. The LA Times and The Onion are two examples. I don't think I've navigated to either in years.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks for the ping....this is truly UGLY!

[Borges]

Even just links to newspapers carrying an AP story? Some stories don’t get by anyone except AP.

[Rebelbase]

So I guess any article that starts out “An unnamed source in the....” is verboten now?

[SF Republican]

Sure pick it up. If a newspaper is in the vending machine, if you want to read what is in that paper, should you pay for it?

[Publius6961]

That would be the kiss of death for FR since we love to discuss Darwin Awards and guilty or not guilty comments.

Not really.
Where do you think the AP gets their content. We can go directly to their sources.

The only original content they have are opinions, and they are worthless anyway.
I see perhaps a bit more work digging toward original sources. AP is not likely ever to be an original source.

[roamer_1]

If you really want to stab them Jim, then start your own...

FreeRepublicPress... under the creative commons or something... Surely there are enough qualified FReepers with editorial experience, and there is a fresh-faced cub reporter in every town imaginable, right here among the FReeper population.

A nice newspaper-like site, sell some ad space, you know the drill...

Dissin’ them just doesn’t seem to be enough...

[cherry]

say what you really mean, Jim.......LOL

[NoGrayZone]

Only if you pay up....(and of course, SF gets a cut).

[VOA]

Please do not post any AP material to FR excerpted or not.

Works for me.
I'm still steaming over their recent story about oil companies being
given the green light "to annoy" polar bears.

AP is just American-journalism-school Propaganda.

[xtinct]

AP must be in cahoots with the Obamassiah War Room which was established to quell Free Speech.

[presently no screen name]

I said THE BENCH. You are like AP - you twist and insert to suit yourself. And you call that work? HA!

BUY YOUR PROPAGANDA HERE! Get 4 words for $2.50!

[fanfan]

You can always say something like this in response to one of their propaganda pieces:

“According to the Associated Press in an aricle published on June 17, 2008, partly entitled ‘It’s all America’s fault’ (notice it’s less than five words) America sucks. They’re now reporting that the war is lost and we should surrender to the terrorists immediately. Actually, they claim it’s all Bush’s fault. They’re also saying that the Osama-Obama/Clinton ticket is unbeatable and we should just cancel the election and let them take office early.”

(and post a link to back up your critique)

---

This is even better!
We don’t have to post their drivel, but we can paraphrase their drivel, and post a link!

Ohhh!
The sound of Schadenfreude in the afternoon. :-D

[presently no screen name]

Yeah! LOL!

[ClancyJ]

Do you pay for quoting a Time Magazine article? Do you pay for quoting a newscast on TV?

[Borges]

Virtually all breaking news is on AP first. It takes a while for other sources to put their stories up.

[RonDog]

Hey, Jim? What about AP photos?

Looks like PHOTOS are also a problem for the folks at AP:

AP Beginning New Crack Down on Blog Critics? Shuts Down Blog With Legal Threats
Newsbusters.org ^ | 3/1/08 | Warner Todd Huston

Posted on Saturday, March 01, 2008 8:12:13 AM by Mobile Vulgus

AP Shuts Down Blogger With Threats of Legal Action

Well, here is what might be a landmark case for the blogosphere, for the Internet, and for the future of our new media, citizen journalism. The AP has just sent a cease and desist letter to Brian C. Ledbetter telling him to stop using their copyrighted images on his website, snappedshot.com.

Snappedshot.com is a site predicated on criticism of photo-journalism. In pursuit of his criticism, Mr. Ledbetter uses photos from across the web that he thinks are doctored or misleading in some way. He then reports his opinion on the bias he sees therein.

Because of this pending legal action, snappedshot.com is now been placed on hiatus until the situation can be cleared up.

So, here is the issue facing us, folks: can we use copyrighted material under the commonly observed fair usage rules without getting hauled into court? After all, Mr. Ledbetter was not making money from his website and he used those photos in order to critique them, not to enrich himself. That would seem to be the very definition of fair use, would it not?

Now it comes down to whether use of the AP's photos in order to do social commentary and criticism is fair enough to be considered fair use?

Worse, if this tactic works, can it not be used by every mainstream news source out there to silence criticism of them?

CLICK HERE for the rest of that thread