AP wants to charge $2.50/word quoted. Isn't there a "Fair Use" rule for copyright?

[Whack-a-Mole]

In an attempt to generate new revenue, the Associated Press has partnered with iCopyright to charge licensing fees for quotes as short as five words.

When linking to articles, news aggregators and bloggers commonly include excerpts to provoke discussion.

SOURCE: http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/05/associated-press-excerpts-may-cost-2-50-per-word/

(Fortunately that is CNN so I guess I do not have to pony up $97.50 to quote that)

I am curious how the Fair Use rule works under copyright and if this flies in the face of that?

If AP pulls this off can they come after the Straightdope anytime someone here quotes an AP article? (I presume they’d sue the SDMB as it’d be difficult and probably not worthwhile to chase down individual posters…the SDMB I guess would have to turn around and sue its members to collect…IANAL though.)

I agree with the opinion in the article that I would bet the traffic driven to them by having numerous sources quote snippets is likely more valuable than trying to collect on this but I suppose that is a debate and not a GQ item.

[Squink]

[Quotes from Wikipedia are still free:]
(Associated Press - Wikipedia)

Fair use controversies

In June 2008, the AP sent numerous DMCA take down demands and threatened legal action against several blogs. The AP contended that the internet blogs were violating AP’s copyright by linking to AP material and using headlines and short summaries in those links. Many bloggers and experts noted that the use of the AP news fell squarely under commonly accepted internet practices and within fair use standards.[8] Others noted and demonstrated that AP routinely takes similar excerpts from other sources, often without attribution or licenses. AP responded that it was defining standards regarding citations of AP news.[9]

[BMalion]

They are mostly after the bloggers who quote the entire story, post it, and profit from the links ads on their site. I don’t believe they care about a message board membership discussing a story.

[ivn1188]

The AP is probably in the wrong. However, they are by no means prohibited from attempting to charge people for using the quotes, etc. Nor are they prohibited from rattling their chains and sending quasi-scary demand letters and DMCA takedowns.

They couldn’t come after the SDMB (and have a chance of winning), but they could come after you for quoting an AP article. You would simply prove up fair use and win. It’s basic legal strong-arm tactics, like the RIAA did or like DirecTV did – nuisance and publicity suits (though it doesn’t appear the AP has sued anyone yet).

ETA: The fair use rule, in very very brief, allows you to take short exerpts for commentary or criticism. There isn’t a bright-line rule, but short quotes are almost definitional of fair use.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@BMalion

They are mostly after the bloggers who quote the entire story, post it, and profit from the links ads on their site. I don’t believe they care about a message board membership discussing a story.

Well…people who quote the whole article are already violating copyright laws. AP could go after them today without any fuss. This seems to reach a good deal further and notes charges for quotes as short as five words.

[Troy_McClure_SF]

The AP is, well, not too bright on such matters (followup).

[scarbrow]

I guess I still don’t understand the controversy. The AP will sell you a license if you need it. Is the AP also supposed to provide free legal advice? Fair use is too complicated for any automated system that I can imagine.

[Kent_Clark]

@Whack-a-Mole

I am curious how the Fair Use rule works under copyright and if this flies in the face of that?

Let’s go to the source: Title VII, Section 117 of the U.S. Code

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

[ivn1188]

@kunilou

Let’s go to the source: Title VII, Section 117 of the U.S. Code

Unfortunately, the codification of fair use in the statute doesn’t quite mesh up with the reality. The AP wants people to pay for a fair use of their copyrighted work.

Think of it as similar to the “Linux License” that SCO tried a few years back – if the AP can FUD a few people into paying, they’re making money they wouldn’t have otherwise.

[Oakminster]

If AP tried to sue to collect from a legit fair user, they’d have to change the name of the company to Ociated Press, cause they’ll lose their Ass…

<rimshot>

[Whack-a-Mole]

@kunilou

Let’s go to the source: Title VII, Section 117 of the U.S. Code

I looked that up but that “test” is decidedly vague and seems open to a great deal of interpretation.

[Markxxx]

DMCA notices are very common. I have several parody websites I run and I get them about once a year.

I simply explain why they are incorrect, why my site is covered under pardoy and fair use and the affirm the fact I am well prepared to take them on in court to prove this as well as counter sue for the court costs and such.

They always back down. Now whether I’m right or the people don’t want to persue me 'cause I’m such small change, I don’t know.

But I’m sure AP will bully people into submission.

Fair use isn’t a simple thing. It isn’t a matter of five words is OK and six isn’t. You can even have the same thing with two results.

For instance if Judge Adam, says something is fair use, it is. In another location the exact same thing can be tired by Judge Eve who says “No it’s not fair use, take it down.”

Fair use also applies differently to different sites. For instance, my sites are all non-commerical. There is no attempt to make any money off it. Not even a Google ad. Judges tend to see this as parody or fair use.

But if I ran ads on the site or was making money off it, I’m not so sure a judge would see it as fair use.

Kind of like if I’m having a garage sale and put out my karaoke machine and start singing, that is one thing, if I do it and charge people to listen to me sing, that would be another.

So fair use isn’t just a simple thing. In the end the only true test is to sue someone and take it to court and keep appealing till you get to the Supreme Court or more likely one side runs out of money.

AP is most likely trying to scare people into taking things down. But in AP’s defense, there is no need to cut and paste their article when it’s so easy to link to it. The bloggers and such are just trying to use those words to get found in Google.

Reminds me of when the humour writer W Bruce Cameron (8 Simple Rules For Dating My Teenage Daughter), said “I don’t even mind when people reprint my articles verbatum, what kills me is they always try to pass it off as their own original work.”

[Hellestal]

@Whack-a-Mole

I looked that up but that “test” is decidedly vague and seems open to a great deal of interpretation.

Yeah, it’s wide open to interpretation. Even with those four tests, “fair use” is a slippery term that means different things to different people, and anybody who attempts to assert any hard guidelines is, more likely than not, speaking out their ass.

With that said, there’s no actual doubt about whether you can excerpt segments from news reports to comment on them. Song lyrics are protected rather heavily because of the density of expression and the brevity of the medium, but news is supposed to be based on factual information, and quoting factual information will always be given more leeway because its importance is not based on the peculiarity or uniqueness of the expression but rather on the underlying content. Even with the ambiguity of “fair use”, the AP can’t possibly enforce this as stringently as they claim. Quoting short excerpts is allowed now and it will continue to be allowed, and they’re not going to change that.

But they might just convince a few naive folks to cough up a small fee, don’tchaknow?