The Associated Press takes on the Internet


Warning: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/whatcro0/public_html/wp-content/plugins/seo-automatic-links/seo-links.php on line 108

Warning: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is no longer supported, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/whatcro0/public_html/wp-content/plugins/seo-automatic-links/seo-links.php on line 318

Social media buttons:

7 thoughts on “The Associated Press takes on the Internet

  1. Matt, I'm going to support AP on this issue. I'm both a blogger and a publisher so I can speak with a foot in both camps.

    As a publisher I employ a team of journalists. That's a cost to my company and if they're getting exclusive quotes or stories then I don't see why anyone else should benefit from taking what would probably amount to the best 35-70 words of their story. I'm sure in your current role you'd not be too happy if someone used a word-for-word quote or paragraph you've written for your publication without any credit to you or your publisher?

    AP charges a lot of money to publishers for access to its service so why should bloggers be immune from paying for pretty much the same thing?

    I'm probably in a minority with this view but it should be interesting to see what those bloggers not involved in the media think about this issue.

  2. I'm sure in your current role you’d not be too happy if someone used a word-for-word quote or paragraph you’ve written for your publication without any credit to you or your publisher?

    But full credit is given along with a link to the original article. That's the whole point. The content is being credited. The AP articles are being linked to. I would have no problem with people using my content and crediting it with links in the way that the Drudge Retort did.

    Look at Digg.com. Articles are linked to the original source.

  3. But is the publisher getting any revenue? In the case you've highlighted Matt the BBC is the author and copyright holder. They've employed the journalist to write the original story. Digg has advertising so gets revenue but doesn't pay for the content.
    Yes, I know that you might argue that traffic may be driven to the BBC site as a result of that use, and the whole AP case rests on whether things like this are considered "fair".

  4. Exactly. It all comes down to whether this is fair use. I know I highlighted a BBC article, but the point was to show the exact same thing that AP has a problem with, which, incidentally, the BBC doesn't.

    The whole problem with fair use is that it's so vague. Does a submission on Digg add value to an article? People discuss it and rate it and visit the source. Surely that adds value. A discussion about a quote adds value to the original quote, which I think makes it fair use.

    I don't see that a quote could violate fair use.

  5. It's really a copyright issue at heart I think. If you want to have a news feed from AP or Reuters on the website of your publication you have to pay. In Thailand the Reuters breaking business news feed in English starts at something like 25,000 per month at the lowest level. There's big money in the content licensing business around the world.

  6. Surely those bloggers not involved in publishing want to comment about this? I guess most don't realise the possible ramifications if AP wins their arguement.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *