Apparently If You Work For The AP, You're Not Allowed To Criticize Newspaper Management

from the keep-quiet,-peon dept

Want yet another example of the Associated Press’ out-of-date approach to things (as if there weren’t enough already)? The organization apparently officially reprimanded a reporter, Richard Richtmyer, who made an offhand comment on his Facebook page, mildly criticizing the management of McClatchy, a large newspaper chain (and, of course, an AP member). On the whole, the comment (about trouble at McClatchy) was pretty benign:

It seems like the ones who orchestrated the whole mess should be losing their jobs or getting pushed into smaller quarters. But they aren’t.

Apparently that was enough to get an official reprimand letter put on file (though, the union is now protesting this). However, it shows the way the AP still views the journalism business, where actually expressing some sort of opinion is somehow seen as an offense. In this case, it wasn’t even in his capacity as a reporter, which makes the whole thing even sillier. I’m going to trust someone who is free to tell me their opinion over someone who has to pretend he has no opinion, any day.

Filed Under: criticism, richard richtmyer, social networks
Companies: associated press, facebook, mcclatchy

La Russa & The AP Claims Twitter Settled Lawsuit… Twitter Sets The Record Straight

from the that's-not-quite-right dept

Last week, St. Louis Cardinals manager Tony La Russa sued Twitter over a fake account made in his name. La Russa had no case. Multiple lawyers chimed in, and I’ve yet to hear from any who thought he had even a remote chance to win this case. However, the AP reported that Twitter settled, deleted the account and agreed to donate an undisclosed sum to a La Russa-backed charity. This seemed like a really bad idea, because it would just encourage others who had fake accounts opened up to sue. Hell, if someone were really sneaky, they could get a friend to open up a fake account, and then go and sue Twitter to get some settlement money. Giving in to bullies with no legal basis can come back to haunt you.

But… Twitter is claiming the story is not true. It does say that it deleted the account, but that’s because of the terms of service violation — not because of any settlement. Instead:

Reports this week that Twitter has settled a law suit and officially agreed to pay legal fees for an impersonation complaint that was taken care of by our support staff in accordance with our Terms are erroneous. Twitter has not settled, nor do we plan to settle or pay.

With due respect to the man and his notable work, Mr. La Russa’s lawsuit was an unnecessary waste of judicial resources bordering on frivolous. Twitter’s Terms of Service are fair and we believe will be upheld in a court that will ultimately dismiss Mr. La Russa’s lawsuit.

Now that is a lot more like it. In the meantime, it’s worth noting that La Russa still doesn’t seem to recognize the case still has no chance:

“There is a law against improperly using a person’s name without authorization and it wasn’t authorized.”

I’m curious (a) which law he’s talking about specifically and (b) how this was “improper use.” The account was clearly a parody (and said so in the bio). There was no implied endorsement of anything or other misuse of La Russa’s name. And, even if La Russa’s statement was true, the liability would certainly be on whoever created the account — not Twitter. While the details of what actually happened still aren’t clear… I’m guessing that after Twitter deleted the account, La Russa simply assumed they “settled.” Most likely, his lawyers will drop the lawsuit, but it would be interesting to see if Twitter pushes to keep the lawsuit in place in order to try to get a favorable ruling and use it to prevent other, similar, frivolous lawsuits.

Oh, and in the meantime, isn’t the Associated Press supposed to fact check things like “Tony La Russa and Twitter have reached a settlement in his lawsuit against the social networking site” and “Twitter has agreed to pay legal fees and make a donation to his Animal Rescue Foundation” both of which appear not to be true? The AP keeps telling us that only its “professional” journalists get things right — whereas those “amateur” bloggers out there screw up the news all the time. Or did the AP figure that it could get away with not fact checking, since it could just threaten to sue any blogger who quoted its erroneous report?

Filed Under: cybersquatting, lawsuits, misappropriation, tony la russa, trademark
Companies: associated press, twitter

Wait, Is The Newspaper Business Thriving Or Falling Apart?

from the depends-on-who-you-talk-to-apparently dept

It would appear that the folks in the newspaper business don’t quite have their talking points set. Yesterday, we showed the letter from the Newspaper Association of America all about how the newspaper business was supposedly thriving despite what you may have heard. But clearly, not everyone in the industry agrees. A whole bunch of folks have sent in the Ars Technica article about the AP’s supposed plans to go after sites that copy their articles, but we’d avoided posting it — because there really weren’t many new details beyond what they’d said before. However, reader Mark pointed to a rather interesting (and surprisingly honest) quote from the AP about why it wants to crack down on sites reposting some of its content:

“We need the money. The industry is falling apart.”

So, on the same day, the NAA claims that the newspaper industry is thriving and profitable… and the AP insists its running out of money and the industry is collapsing. It would be great if, I dunno, one of these reporters could maybe dig into the actual numbers to figure out what’s actually happening. Or is that not what the press does?

Filed Under: failing, journalism, newspapers, thriving
Companies: associated press, naa

The Intellectual Property Asshole Competition

from the have-fun-with-it,-people dept

Now this ought to be fun to watch. We’ve written plenty of stuff about the ongoing legal fight between artist Shephard Fairey and the Associated Press. And, every time we write about it, someone always points out that Fairey is often just as bad as the AP. Despite being an “appropriation” artist, who regularly uses the works of others in his own work (something we think is great), he’s also been known to legally threaten others for doing the same with his own work. So, it looks like someone has decided to poke both with a stick, to see who gets provoked first. That someone is artist Evan Roth. ChurchHatesTucker alerts us that Roth has launched his “Intellectual Property Asshole Competition” where he is selling, via his website, hand-painted version of both the Mannie Garcia/AP photo and Shepard Fairey’s poster… and will see who is the first to send him a cease and desist. While we never think it’s a good idea to infringe for the sake of infringement, this ought to be fun to watch.

Filed Under: appropriation, cease and desist, competition, copyright, eric roth, shepard fairey
Companies: associated press

Shepard Fairey Points Out That The AP Used His Image Without A License

from the getting-down-and-dirty dept

In the latest skirmish between the Associated Press and Shepard Fairey over copyright concerning his iconic poster of Barack Obama, Fairey has filed new counterclaims against the AP, including that the AP used the photo of Fairey’s poster without getting a license. He also lists out a number of other images of artwork that the AP did not get a license to use, but which it uses within photos, and then states:

The doctrine of unclean hands and basic principles of equity prohibit The AP from contending that Counterclaim Defendants’ Obama Works infringe The AP’s copyrights when The AP itself exploits the copyrighted work of Fairey and other artists without permission and in a manner that is far less transformative than the Obama Works, as illustrated but not limited to, the photographs listed above.

It seems this battle is getting nasty. Of course, while making these claims may feel good, it’s hard to believe that they’ll be all that compelling. The AP will clearly claim that its photos of these pieces of artwork were fair use, as part of news commentary. But, that’s probably part of the point being raised by Fairey’s legal team. It’s unlikely to believe that the AP really abused Fairey’s copyright or the copyrights of these other artists, but if it can get the AP defending its acts on fair use principles, then they can easily use the AP’s words against it, in explaining why Fairey’s image is also covered by fair use.

Filed Under: copyright, fair use, shepard fairey
Companies: associated press

AP Exec Claims That Its Moves Look Stupid To The Untrained Eye… Not Clear On What The Trained Eye Thinks

from the so...-uh,-please-explain... dept

The Associated Press has been doing a ton of questionable moves of late, that certainly look like a clueless organization committing suicide — but, wait! Jim Kennedy, who oversees strategic planning for the AP, claims that only “to the untrained eye, it looks like we’re stupid.” But, of course, he fails to explain what it looks like to the trained eye — because most of the “trained eyes” we’ve spoken to also seem to think that the AP is being stupid. At best, the AP says: “We’re looking forward to a totally new space where we have to get ready to do things in a totally different way. We’re trying to be smart business people and we’re trying to stay in business.” But, that’s not clear at all from its actions. In fact, it looks like the other way around. The actions aren’t about understanding a new space or doing things in a different way. It looks like it’s trying to claw its way back to the “old way” of doing things. And, contrary to what folks believe there, that’s not the best way to stay in business.

Now, on top of this, the AP has released a rather hilarious FAQ, where it tries to define what it’s doing. But, reading through the answers, you get a whole lot of nothing. It claims it’s not trying to set up tollbooths, not trying to kill off links and not aiming this at bloggers. Instead, it says that it’s (again) trying to prepare for a new way of interacting, and is looking forward to “cooperating.” None of this is clear at all. Basically, it looks like the AP still thinks that it gets to define how news on the web will work. The folks there apparently don’t comprehend how far past them the internet has already gone. They can try to “negotiate,” but if it doesn’t fit in with what people do online, it’s not going anywhere. Once again, we’re in a situation where the AP thinks it has leverage, and it’s about to discover it has none.

Filed Under: business models, jim kennedy
Companies: associated press

Great Moments In AP Protectionism: Demands Takedown Of Videos It Purposely Shared With Affiliate

from the brilliant-work dept

A bunch of folks are submitting the latest and greatest in the Associated Press’s attempt to become the RIAA of news. The AP, smartly, has a YouTube channel, where it puts up a bunch of AP videos, with the embed code enabled. An AP affiliate in Tennessee reasonably embedded some of those videos… and were promptly accused of “stealing” the AP’s licensed content and ordered to take it down. There are so many things wrong with this situation it’s difficult to know where to start:

• It’s the AP’s own YouTube channel.
• This radio station is an AP affiliate.
• The AP turned on the embedding function
• When told all of this, the AP exec demanding the takedown had no idea it had a YouTube channel.

This is clearly part the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing… but it’s also a sign of how out of touch the AP remains. When it purposely offers up content for sharing, it did something smart. Demanding that anyone take down content that was specifically designed to be shared in this manner is just amazing.

Filed Under: copyright, embedding, protectionism, takedowns, videos
Companies: associated press

AP Says It's Going To Sue Aggregators

from the this-ought-to-be-fun... dept

Given some of the Associated Press’s recent actions, this won’t come as a surprise, but the AP has now announced that it will start suing any news aggregator that doesn’t share its profits with the AP:

“We can no longer stand by and watch others walk off with our work under misguided legal theories.”

I’m a bit curious what those “misguided theories” are… because copyright law and rules concerning fair use seem pretty clear, and search engines aggregating info and sending people to your site has been ruled fair use before. So, perhaps the AP chairman is talking about some other “misguided” legal theory? Another AP person claims: “This is not about defining fair use. There’s a bigger economic issue at stake here that we’re trying to tackle.” But she neglects to say what that is, other than our old business model sucks, and we’ve got no freaking clue how to adapt to the changing market place, so this is the best we’ve got…

That said, I’m not sure how this is any different than how the AP has acted in the past. While the NY Times claims that this is a shot at Google, that seems unlikely. Google has already agreed to pay the AP — though, the article notes that the AP may claim that the current license deal doesn’t cover AP stories showing up in Google’s regular search results. If that’s the case, then Google should call the AP’s bluff, and block out all AP articles. Then let’s see how various newspaper sites feel. In the meantime, the AP has already sued others, including Moreover and All Headline News. And I know that some of the other top aggregators have already folded and started paying the AP, rather than go through a legal battle. So it’s not clear what’s new here other than unsupported bluster on the part of AP execs to make its member papers think it’s doing something other than squandering money.

Filed Under: aggregators, copyright, fair use, news
Companies: associated press, google

Why Is The AP Invoking The DMCA Over The Obama Poster?

from the dmca-abuse dept

We’ve been covering the ongoing legal brouhaha between the Associated Press and Shepard Fairey over whether or not his iconic Obama poster was copyright infringement of an Associated Press photo — with most of the focus being on whether or not the use was protected by fair use. However, the EFF is noting something quite odd (and quite troubling) in the AP’s countersuit against Fairey: it’s claiming that his post violates the DMCA. That should leave you scratching your head, considering that the DMCA seems almost entirely unrelated to Fairey making a poster. But the AP seems to be claiming that in removing the little copyright notice beneath its photo, Fairey violated section 1202.

As the EFF notes, since Fairey didn’t “strip” the data from the image, but merely appears to have cropped the image for his purposes, it’s hard to see how Fairey actually violated the DMCA here. However, more to the point, the EFF explains why this is likely been thrown into the case by the AP. By invoking the DMCA, it adds much greater potential statutory fines, than for a straight copyright infringement case. That gives the AP a much bigger potential award — which it can use to pressure Fairey into settling. As the EFF points out, such huge potential fines creates a pretty massive chilling effect on others — something all too common with the DMCA.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, fair use, photos, shepard fairey
Companies: associated press

Has Mannie Garcia Changed His Tune About Shepard Fairey's Obama Poster?

from the unfortunate,-if-true dept

The Wall Street Journal is running an editorial by L. Gordon Crovitz, discussing the ongoing legal battle between Shepard Fairey and the Associated Press over Fairey’s iconic poster of Barack Obama that was used during the campaign:

The editorial admits that the legal issues aren’t entirely clear, but definitely seems to lean towards the AP’s side of the story, including making a rather odd assertion that this case is different than cases of people using snippets of songs on YouTube because “there’s no opportunity to license snippets of songs and no harm done” to musicians whose music is used on YouTube. Now, I actually agree that there’s really no harm done by music on YouTube, but I would imagine that some of the musicians engaged in ongoing legal battles against YouTube might disagree with Crovitz — and he’s not using the argument in the way we would. He’s saying that music on YouTube is a different story compared to the AP and the original photographer who “make their livings selling their work.” That may be true, but as I hope Crovitz knows, just because you make a living selling your work, it doesn’t mean that fair use doesn’t apply.

Also troubling is the false implication from Crovitz that since the AP and Garcia make their livings selling their work, this poster somehow diminishes that ability. I can’t see how anyone could make that claim. In both cases, it would seem to have only increased the ability of both the AP and Garcia to make money, rather than decreased it. This particular photo wasn’t exactly a huge money maker for the AP or Garcia — and now it (and they!) are getting a ton of attention because of it.

But, perhaps most troubling may be the quotes Crovitz uses in support of his argument from the photographer, Garcia. As we noted way back when Garcia was first identified by someone else as the photographer, he didn’t mind at all and even seemed flattered:

“I know artists like to look at things; they see things and they make stuff. It’s a really cool piece of work…. I wouldn’t mind getting a signed litho or something from the artist to put up on my wall.”

But, when Crovitz spoke to him, he seems to have changed his tune:

“When I found out, I was disappointed in the fact that someone was able to go onto the Internet and take something that doesn’t belong to them and then use it. That part of this whole story is crucial for people to understand: that simply because it’s on the Internet doesn’t mean it’s free for the taking, and just because you can take it doesn’t mean it belongs to you.”

It’s really too bad if Garcia has changed his tune. It was really great, for once, to see someone flattered that their work inspired someone to do something great with it, rather than becoming litigious.

Filed Under: copyright, fair use, mannie garcia, photos, shepard fairey
Companies: associated press