RSS
AP Summarizes Other Journalists' Article; Isn't That What The AP Says Violates The Law?
from the that's-odd dept
Marcus Carab points us to a rather horrifying story about a family suing a funeral home after the funeral home put their grandmother's brain in a bag of personal effects and sent it to them. Yikes. But, ignore the story itself for a moment (if you can). What was interesting from our point of view was that the story was written by the Associated Press, and it's basically a rewrite of a story from The Albuquerque Journal. Here's how the AP points this out:
But what I find even more amusing is that if you look at the AP report, it's basically just a quick blurb rewrite of the Albuquerque Journal story. It's only 125 words, and just summarizes what the other paper wrote. Why is that amusing? Because that's exactly what the Associated Press has been claiming bloggers unfairly do to it -- insisting that others simply rewriting its stories in short blurbs are violating the "hot news" doctrine. Apparently, that doesn't apply when the AP does it itself?
The Albuquerque Journal reported on the lawsuit in a copyright story published Wednesday.Now, there are a few things odd about this. First... it's an odd phrase to use: "in a copyright story." Nearly all news stories are covered by copyright, so why even mention it?
But what I find even more amusing is that if you look at the AP report, it's basically just a quick blurb rewrite of the Albuquerque Journal story. It's only 125 words, and just summarizes what the other paper wrote. Why is that amusing? Because that's exactly what the Associated Press has been claiming bloggers unfairly do to it -- insisting that others simply rewriting its stories in short blurbs are violating the "hot news" doctrine. Apparently, that doesn't apply when the AP does it itself?
I have an idea...
Founders, Funders, Farmers, Fools, And Family
App Developer Conversations: Successful Fundraising Techniques
I have a business...
How To Successfully Get Your App Into China
Why 50,000 Monthly Active Users Weren't Enough To Stop This Company From Pivoting, With Spun Co-Founder Scott Lindenbaum
I’m looking for policy...
Developers On Patents: Ron Garret of Awun
Application Developers Alliance Applauds Schumer Plan To Introduce Patent Legislation
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
newspapers...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
"No, what bloggers do is use AP's 25 words or 50 words."
-doubtful so much, now that they are ungoogle-able
and reporting on what has been reported isnt exactly "hot news".
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
"No, what bloggers do is use AP's 25 words or 50 words."
-doubtful so much, now that they are ungoogle-able
and reporting on what has been reported isnt exactly "hot news".
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
You should put an (SP) next to the use of "copyright." It obviously (well at least to me) should be "copyrighted story." It certainly was not a story about copyright.
When I first read it I assumed it was your error. But since it's in the original, you should make that clear.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Marcus Carab points us to a rather horrifying story about a family suing a funeral home after the funeral home put their grandmother's brain in a bag of personal effects and sent it to them.
The original story?
Members of a New Mexico family are suing an Española funeral home after they found their grandmother's brain in the bag of personal effects given to them after her death.
Do you see the difference? Mike is writing his own summary of what a story says, the second one would just be a copy of how the story starts. One required actual effort, the second one required the ability to do a copy / paste.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Well, assuming that the entire article is only 25 or 50 words long, that would be a clear case of copyright infringement. Please note that AP did not invoke copyright infringement, they instead used a so-called "hot news" doctrine. They are trying to say that the actual wording in irrelevant, and it's the *facts* about the story they are attempting to "own".
Now that you have been educated on the matter, do you see the amusement Mike sees? No, probably not. The AP says the facts of a story (a woman's brain was sent back in her personal effects) that are protected by this doctrine, and then they turn around and do *exactly* what they say bloggers can't do.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Or Sic if you really want to get fancy. :)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Theory
Just a theory, but doesn't it kind of seem like the AP thinks that as long as they mention that the article their summarizing is copyrighted that there's no problem. As if they're saying, "look, what we're about to reprint is copyrighted, people, so it's protected....got it? PROTECTED! So don't reprint it on your damn blogs. Now, here is a reprint of the afore mentioned copyrighted article..."
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
No. That's incorrect. The AP has specifically called out sites like Newser that re-summarize the news.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Ummm, AP Member...
Happens all the time.
Not news.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
hypocrites
The MPAA made multiple unauthorized copies of a movie, AP has infringed on this story. I'm sure there are examples within the RIAA to be found as well (can't remember one of the top of my head)
Hypocrisy is no stranger to these people.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
copyrights
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: hypocrites
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ummm, AP Member...
Then why not just use stuff from the story, rather than point out that the story is covered by copyright?
Not news.
To you. To others... seems like it is.
Thanks for contributing.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: copyrights
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Ummm, AP Member...
Sometimes they start with a retooled story, then they have someone actually go out and report the story. Once they do that any reference to the original paper is gone.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: copyrights
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
(see comment #1 from
http://techdirt.com/articles/20100107/0251577648.shtml)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: hypocrites
Really, dude. Even your snarky (?) comments are getting pretty lame. Time for a break?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Theory
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: hypocrites
Enjoy.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Ummm, AP Member...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ummm, AP Member...
However, in the case you're mentioning here, there is already a contract in place between the two entities which allows for exactly what you're saying is hypocritical. It would be hypocritical if their was no agreement in place or if they took a Reuters story and did the same thing to it.
In the case of bloggers, etc, there is no such agreement, however I'm sure they would be more than happy to negotiate something.
Again, I don't think AP is moving in the right directing, but faulting them for something they are contractually allowed to do isn't a very good argument for your case of fair use.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
As for the odd phrasing, it looks like a brain fart on the part of the AP staffer who wrote the article.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Ummm, AP Member...
Then why not just use stuff from the story, rather than point out that the story is covered by copyright?
The wording is somewhat odd but that's how they decided to do it. I'm no fan of the AP and they've done some douche-bag things in the past, but in this case you've accused them of something they didn't do Mike. AP is authorized to use content (summarized or verbatim) from the Albuquerque Journal, so there is no hypocrisy in them being upset about unauthorized summarizing of AP stories (even though that unauthorized summarizing is likely fair-use).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Mike's presentation creates signal.
Just quoting the story creates noise.
The signal to noise ratio on information is key.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Usage
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
The Albuquerque Journal Pays To Allow AP to Rip Them Off
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
There has been significant mention that AP routinely takes summaries from others while denying others the same right. AP has a history of threatening and suing under their "Hot News" theory.
AP claims that it robs them of a quasi-copyright that they have on facts.
Nice huh.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: hypocrites
people who, in the media, are against smoking in public places getting caught smoking in a public place.
You call that hypocrisy.
So now we have people who are always complaining about 'the pirates/content thieves' and they are being caught doing the exact same thing that they are accusing those 'pirates/content thieves' of. (please note the quotation marks, I don't think that piracy==theft.)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment