Is the Associated Press Trying to Destroy Fair Use?
Last year I was interviewed by the Associated Press for a story about Marshall University in West Virginia adding Pagan holidays to its list of excused absences. Since I was proud of being interviewed on the subject, I quoted myself being quoted in my blog.
“By specifically including pagans, Marshall is taking an important step toward recognizing the validity of their beliefs, said Jason Pitzl-Waters, an authority on paganism who edits the Wild Hunt Web site, a blog about religion, politics and culture. ‘That’s part of the struggle for modern pagans,’ said Pitzl-Waters, a pagan. ‘Even though modern paganism has been in the public since the 1950s, a lot of people still see it as a rebellious teenage activity, not necessarily something you do as a religious observance’ … ‘What binds [modern Pagans] together isn’t our theology, necessarily,’ Pitzl-Waters said. ‘What binds us together is a sense of communal practice and togetherness.’”
I thought that in excerpting the above quote I was protected by the copyright principle of Fair Use.
“The Copyright Act says that “fair use…for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.” So if you are commenting on or criticizing an item someone else has posted, you have a fair use right to quote.”
But now the Associated Press would want me to pay them $50 in order to quote them quoting me.
“In the name of “defin[ing] clear standards as to how much of its articles and broadcasts bloggers and Web sites can excerpt” the Associated Press is now selling “quotation licenses” that allow bloggers, journallers, and people who forward quotations from articles to co-workers to quote their articles. The licenses start at $12.50 for quotations of 5-25 words. The licensing system exhorts you to snitch on people who publish without paying the blood-money, offering up to $1 million in reward money (they also think that “fair use” — the right to copy without permission — means “Contact the owner of the work to be sure you are covered under fair use.”).”
Not surprisingly, this new policy has shocked and angered the blogging community, and the AP is now sitting down with the Media Bloggers Association in order to negotiate some guidelines. However, any deal struck may well fly in the face of our already established rights and freedoms as journalists.
“I suggest it’s better described as yet another attempt by a big media company to replace the established legal and social order with with a system of private law (the very definition of the word “privilege”) in which a few private organizations get to dictate to the rest of society what the rules will be.”
I personally think this payment scam is a horrible idea by the AP which flies in the face of established copyright law. Even worse, if you do pay them, you aren’t allowed to criticize AP reporting!
“You shall not use the Content in any manner or context that will be in any way derogatory to the author, the publication from which the Content came, or any person connected with the creation of the Content or depicted in the Content. You agree not to use the Content in any manner or context that will be in any way derogatory to or damaging to the reputation of Publisher, its licensors, or any person connected with the creation of the Content or referenced in the Content […]“
If I followed their new rules, I would be restrained from saying anything “derogatory”, and you know who gets to decide what’s derogatory don’t you? This whole thing is a farce, and until I am directly threatened with legal action I will take no action to change my established quoting and blogging methods. I can only hope that the backlash will make the AP realize that they don’t get to tell the rest of us how to apply copyright law.
16 responses so far
If your forced to pay, which than why do you even bother to have freedom of the press, you should pay them in pennies.
~Illisse
That cannot possibly be legal. It violates freedom of the press and established copyright law. It’s a campaign of intimidation; go after small blogs that cannot afford big lawsuits. Can you spell ACLU? I knew you could.
Even better — EFF (eff.org). This is exactly what they do — and they are very good at it.
To the best of my knowledge you automatically own the copyright on your own words Jason. The only part of the quote that AP owns are the following words -
said Jason Pitzl-Waters, an authority on paganism who edits the (Wild Hunt) Web site, a blog about religion, politics and culture.
said Pitzl-Waters, a pagan.
Pitzl-Waters said.
That’s exactly 25 words if one considers Pitzl-Waters to be one word and subtracts the name of your blog which you also own copyright. If nothing else AP are overcharging you.
I would suggest contacting some professional writers associations as well as the civil rights and liberties groups. You might also want to do some research in to “fair use” jurisprudence.
Oh dear I do hope that my comment is within “fair use” guidelines.
What is the deal with everyone trying to get rich off of copyright lately?
–Phae
You may quote me…….”AP, UP YOURS!”
I’ll say what I damn well please about anything I damn well want, and I am NOT going to pay ANYBODY for the priveledge. My forefathers and I PAID for that priveledge, thank you!
I already see corporate copyrights as more expansive than individual copyrights, since an individual only owns the rights for their lifetime and a finite period of time after that (rather, their estate owns that part). The fact that a corporation can own a copyright indefinitely depending on how long the corporation exists is in my view treating a corporation BETTER than the law treats individuals.
In any case, AP’s claim has yet to be tested in court, and they’re apparently ticking off a lot of news sources who already pay them, with this little tizzy fit over fair rights. It’s absurd, in my opinion.
“I already see corporate copyrights as more expansive than individual copyrights, since an individual only owns the rights for their lifetime and a finite period of time after that (rather, their estate owns that part). The fact that a corporation can own a copyright indefinitely depending on how long the corporation exists is in my view treating a corporation BETTER than the law treats individuals.”
Very good point Barbara. One that I have thought of in the past but had let slip. It should be noted that copyright was originally designed to protect individual artists’ rights from undue exploitation.
What’s better is that they are forcing you to pay for what amounts to you quoting yourself. <shakes head sadly>
The Carpetbagger Report that Jason links to doesn’t give much information or context, and includes in the comments (seemingly intended as a joke) a nasty little comment featuring racism and sexual violence.
You’ll get far more information, good links, and nuanced commentary on this and other issues from Making Light, the blog by Teresa and Patrick Neilsen Hayden.
http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/
Their coverage started on the 16th with the posting, “The Associated Press wants to charge you $12.50 to quote five words from them.” It is always worthwhile to check the comments on their blog, as their postings customarily attract perceptive commentators.
This Media Bloggers Association seems to have come out of nowhere, and craves negotiation with the AP on behalf of bloggers. Trouble is, as Atrios says, “[T]he AP is full of shit here and there’s nothing to talk about. If they want to take this to court, they can, but there are no guidelines to be negotiated here. They don’t write copyright law or get to determine its precise boundaries. It isn’t for them to determine what is legal fair use and what isn’t.”
Here’s some basic information on the Fair Use provisions of the copyright laws:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107—-000-.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~cnew/research.htm
http://www.utsystem.edu/OGC/Intellectualproperty/copypol2.htm
If I recall correctly, the EFF (Electronic Freedom Foundation) is already representing someone against AP. I say hold out until they sue you and then approach the EFF to represent you. They’re just panting to take this on.
There’s also some extended (and heated) comment over at http://www.dailykos.com,
a 900 pound gorilla in the blogosphere that AP will not find easy to intimidate. BTW, the “Media Bloggers Association” represents nobody.
you know what I say to all this?….I am not very educated so this will be blunt and not contain sugar coated pleasantries….blow me!!! I will write what I want, when I want and where I want…so if they want to move their big legal team in to action, let em!!!
I served five years in the Army to protect my right to free speech, dont like what I write? dont read it! if it hurts your feelings? I wont apologize, but when and if I do decide to “blog” I will either find someplace that will allow me to write what I want or I will buy my own god damn space and write totally annoying crap about media companies and their delicate sensibilites and challenge them to stand up and fight on something other than a jerk like me, typing *snort*
[...] by the current state of mainstream news reporting, pointing out how “old media” has been petty and hostile towards emerging new-media solutions and [...]
I would have gone with 'Go f*u*ck yourself', but then people tell me I have a predilection for really pissing people off. What can I say? It's a gift from the gods. It would be a shame not to use it.