Posted on 06/17/2008 1:23:48 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Ask the SCOTUS and INS.
Note in particular, this passage:
The contention that the news is abandoned to the public for all purposes when published in the first newspaper is untenable. Abandonment is a question of intent, and the entire organization of the Associated Press negatives such a purpose. The cost of the service would be prohibited if the reward were to be so limited. No single [248 U.S. 215, 241] newspaper, no small group of newspapers, could sustain the expenditure. Indeed, it is one of the most obvious results of defendant's theory that, by permitting indiscriminate publication by anybody and everybody for purposes of profit in competition with the news-gatherer, it would render publication profitless, or so little profitable as in effect to cut off the service by rendering the cost prohibitive in comparison with the return.IMO--thoughIANAL0--a key difference is that competing with the AP would be a problem, but commenting on aspects of the AP work is covered under fair use.
But of course, the way we have allowed the legal system to get out of control, it becomes difficult for even the fair users to defend themselves.
And face a lawsuit for that.
I hope so, because I ain’t the only one posting quite a few AP photos.
Actually, they are Adam Smith tactics, too. The LA Times has every right to allow their work to be used by some and not others, and Jim has every right to not use the AP work. (BTW, when I ran newspapers, they were not AP members, nor did we follow AP style...and that split infinitive was intentional! :-)
You have every right to start your own chain of cooperating news-gathering organizations, allowing you to report on the news without having to pay the AP for their work.
In fact, bloggers should be rejoicing...after all, we've heard for years now how some dude sitting in his pajamas in Wichita can gather information on the very latest happenings in Waziristan as well as a news organization of primary reporters...so here's the chance to prove it!
(My suspicion is that bloggers and FReepers will soon discover that they excel at commentary, criticism, and fact-checking, but not at primary reporting.)
I do not plan to post anything, but if I do, I promise not to post AP stuff.
“Four words” is not a new concept.
It’s pretty hard to claim ownership of such things as:
The president was hospitalized......
The Pentagon announced today....
The Pope stood before....
The Boston Red Sox won.....
I wasn’t implying that the law has remained the same since the 1918 ruling. I was merely pointing out that there are issues that many seem to be forgetting.
Hey, did you see this: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2032646/posts
It looks like God takes care of the Irish and the Robinsons.
There’ll probably be more folks clamoring for original stories than just regurgitated AP stuff.
But note also that this whole business is probably about more than just bloggers. I think it's in part the result of the Google News issue, and with member papers trying to get more of a local focus and using less AP content, with some papers deciding to drop membership. The AP is trying to hold onto revenue in a changing market.
Frankly, I'm very surprised more sites having fought back against FReepers mooching their bandwidth for photos, etc.
LOL! I was just making the same point. GMTA, it seems! :-)
You are more than welcome to send the AP $12.50 per every five words you read of any AP article. Someone posted their address above, so have at it.
BTTT for some poking fun at They Who Shall Not Be Named.
Thanks for the link!!!
**on any blogger who quotes more than 4 words **
This sounds like Gannett.
Can we post the link? Or just forget about AP altogether?
This will not stand. (Their attitude, I mean, not yours!) AP should realize that it is in their interest to be widely read. Oh, well... their loss. Literally. We’re behind you 100 percent, Jim!
“President Bush said today” is four. If you add “that...”
How about this:
The Associated Press today quoted President Bush...Which brings up another question. If the Associated Press quotes somebody, do they own the quote? Wouldn't those quotes rightly belong to that person?
The majority of national and international articles are either written by Reuters or the AP. I guess soon they will charge to link to their articles as it steals bandwidth.
OK Jim, will do - AP stories are just that anyway, just stories mostly.
Is there any way we can jettison AP stories just for fun?
Ping.
Pardon if this has been asked and answered, but...is it legal for AP to charge more to some “consumers” than to others?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.