Associated Press Sues Bloggers For Quoting News

This would certainly harm the way most bloggers (and newsvine) act.

Hopefully we'll still be able to quote as long as we link to the entire article.

I don't think the AP will win this one. What is interesting to me is that they would even try it. I wouldn't be surprised if this has more to do with preventing citizens forums from going in 'unacceptable' directions using info from the AP.

AP considers that the Drudge Retort users' use of AP content does not fall within the parameters of fair use. The use is not fair use simply because the work copied happened to be a news article and that the use is of the headline and the first few sentences only. This is a misunderstanding of the doctrine of "fair use." AP considers taking the headline and lede of a story without a proper license to be an infringement of its copyrights, and additionally constitutes "hot news" misappropriation.

That is pretty heavy, and, yes, basically contradicts the whole concept of "fair use", but I seriously doubt this would have any impact on Newsvine.

Speaking as somebody who has been involved in intellectual property lawsuits, the M.O. of big corporations is to single out a few small fish (without deep pockets for legal defense) to skewer.

From the presence of AP stories always as the Newsvine lead story, Newsvine (now MSNBC/NBC/GE) obviously has a revenue sharing deal with the AP and seeded articles are never AP articles anyway since those articles are all already on Newsvine.

Basically Newsvine content is bought-and-paid-for AP content. Seeded articles, such as this one from AlterNet.org, are the alternative views -- the alternative to the mainstream corporate media. This is about silencing alternate views, such as AlterNet.org; Newsvine has become mostly mainstream. AlterNet.org and other alternate news outlets aren't going to use these tactics to silence themselves...

Freedom of Speech you said? Where? Please tell me!
There are too many of us and "United We Stand"
I suggest we do like D'Artagnan; "One for All, All for One" Although, I suppose he would have said "Tous pour Un, Un Pour Tous"
Would translating quotes enter in the Fair Use copyright laws?

Watch out, Killfile!

AP is dead wrong on this - this is why they take on little sites, to try to intimidate people who can't afford to fight back.

You cannot copyright facts. Headlines are basically the condensed facts of a story. I'd love to take them on.

try this one...

"TVNewsLies.org"

they have a whole lotta stuff on our govt, its about how they control what we watch on TV,
and sometimes they feed us false information...remember weapons of mass destruction?

and yet, ...well..
go and check out that website for yourself, and read on...
and they also sell dvds, books, and things like that..check it out..

knowledge will do some people wonders..

Fear-mongering by the MSM, should we be surprised?

They want to stop citizens from telling each other what is going on.

Sorry, never going to happen. They would have to cut out all of our tongues and cut off all of our fingers. (we'd still find a way).

This is really interesting in view of their placement on Newsvine which gives them front page daily. Which hand is feeding whom? Careful not to lie in a den of theives.

I think we should cease and desist in seeding anything with an AP quote in it and be careful not to use them as a source in an article or comment.

You cannot copyright facts. AP is on shaky ground. Like the RIAA, they may buy more trouble than they bargained for if someone fights back.

What do they think they're protecting? Any blog or reference only brings readers. What do they want?

Ah, the AP. Another media dinosaur too uncreative to develop and adapt a new business model.

We already get AP news direct and hot off the wires -- there is no need for anyone here to seed an AP story. I have seeded Reuters and UPI occasionally, altho it does duplicate the AP stories at times.
Just keep on what you're already doing --digging up the unheralded, little-known or lesser-known news sources or write your own stuff. I think we have a pretty good variety here so just keep on keeping on. No need to panic, folks.

I wouldn't know the difference between copyright infringement and information sharing. Isn't all of this a virtual conversations over news clips? Would they sue me if I rip a page out of the newspaper and read it aloud in the public square and start a discussion? Isn't information a true grasp of democracy?

The Fair Use arguments are far from over and settled.

AP is a business. The product they put out happens to be the NEWS. News gathering is a business. Why shouldn't they be concerned about their product being grabbed by others willy nilly who've not spent a dime gathering it? I imagine the concerns AP has goes into the future and what it means to it as a functioning business if its product continues to be treated as freebies for the taking.

Without news-gathering businesses, successfully paying their overhead, there will be no news, just a lot of hot air speculating on what is thought to be going on. Right, that goes on already. But does anyone want THAT as their source of NEWS?

If they can sue for someone discussing the news, why can't they be sued for reporting an auto accident. It would see to me that if I have an accident and they report it, I should be compensated for the article. If I didn't have the accident, then they would not have any news to report.

Just thought that would lighten things up a little bit.

I hope those people did give credit where credit was due, or this could make a rough time for everyone.

I know bloggers are for the most part not exactly making CEO salaries, so it would be nice for a lawyer focused on free speech issues to come in pro bono and fire off cross-complaints against the AP for attempting to undermine Fair Use laws for the sake of its bottom line -- and possibly going after bloggers because of their non-mainstream views. Drudge Retort is a terrific little site guaranteed to raise the blood pressure of knuckledragging righties.

The Internet -- and blogs -- are forcing media to come to grips with new business models. AP would better serve their own bottom line -- and future -- by investing in a team that would make it a true 21st century primary-source news provider rather than attacking bloggers on weak legal grounds.

Drudge Retort is a terrific little site guaranteed to raise the blood pressure of knuckledragging righties

Drudge Report is more appealing than the AP for their bias. I don't remember a good news for the "righties" in a very long time, they cherry pick their negative articles.

My new "signature":
Note: I feel enriched having read something, then looking for information about that something, I was then creatively stimulated to blog about it.
Fair Use Policy - The first factor is about whether the use in question helps fulfill the intention of copyright law to stimulate creativity for the enrichment of the general public, or whether it aims to only "supersede the objects" of the original for reasons of personal profit. To justify the use as fair, one must demonstrate how it either advances knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new. A key consideration is the extent to which the use is interpreted as transformative, as opposed to merely derivative. Source

I'm not sure how many folks may have seen this follow-up story: AP to Meet with Blogging Group to Form Guidelines

let them sue. the news belongs to everyone. AP should be glad people are talking about "their stories". Sheesh. talk about **Freedom of Speech**. So we should just read the news and not talk about it? to heck with AP. I write or talk about what I want when I want. Unless this is not America anymore?

Another update in the saga -- AP, blogger resolve dispute over copyright