Pajamas Media

41 Comments

Mary:

Well, this blogger stands firmly in your corner, Mr. Ledbetter. I’m so glad Pajamas Media is covering this! FYI, there’s a petition at http://www.unassociatedpress.net/ boycotting the AP that I encourage all bloggers to sign.

Now’s a good time for Glenn Reynolds’ (instapundit.com) “Army of Davids” to step forward. The (Dis)Associated Press needs to learn a lesson.

P.S. I disagree about major news coverage being hard to find — generally speaking, I can find original content from either Reuters, UPI or dead-tree bigs on just about anything.

Chin up — and good luck!

Jun 16, 2008 - 9:16 am MikeT:

There is a larger issue here. As wrong as the AP was in this particular case, there are many bloggers who “write” blogs that are largely just unlicensed reproductions of the AP and other parts of the MSM. I can’t count the number of times that I’ve seen a whole hell of a lot more than just 12% being excerpted; 50-75% wasn’t that uncommon.

There is a responsibility to not only excerpt properly, but to add/generate a lot of original content that many bloggers just don’t respect.

Jun 16, 2008 - 10:17 am AJ:

The AP and al-MSM is a joke. Yes, most Americans still read those, but sentient Americans who care about their nation, do not. They are a juvenile, lazy embarrassment. It’s amazing how bloggers, who all have real jobs, STILl beat the AP to the story accurately.

Jun 16, 2008 - 10:23 am Mary:

MikeT, granted. Good point.

I would think, however, that blog “protocol,” such as it is, pretty much ensures that those who engage in that stuff are marginalized and even taken to task. I know I do that in comments whenever I see it. Plagiarism does not a good blogger (or anyone) make.

I dunno, though. Perhaps that’s naivete. I wish I could see some hard numbers (or even a reliable sampling) of how egregious the misuse really is.

Jun 16, 2008 - 1:34 pm Roark:

The AP is a dying leftist press vestige trying to hold onto its once well-nigh singular newspress power, but then the internet happened and they got spanked. And it was a spanking they’ve had coming for a looooooong time.

Jun 16, 2008 - 1:38 pm -32-:

So the AP is NOT a non-profit oranization… ref: copyright violations claim.

Jun 16, 2008 - 4:04 pm LwC:

So a major generator (and thus owner) of content demands that either bloggers pay them for that content or not use it. What happens to to the blogosphere now?? They have to get off their butts and leave mommy’s basement and actually do their own reporting and/or generate their own content (take their own pictures)? Or pay for the product they want to use. Sounds like free enterprise to me.

Jun 16, 2008 - 5:32 pm Rob:

AP is the Titanic of the news business.

Man the life boats!

Jun 16, 2008 - 7:43 pm Concerned Citizen:

LwC…AP’s copyright protection ends where everyone else’s First Amendment rights begin. Sending legal “hate mail” in bulk to “little guy” bloggers is a form of copyright abuse, where a copyright is used to stifle free speech. Federal judges take a dim view of this kind of behavior.

If AP keeps this up, some clever bloggers with some good legal representation will file a declaratory claim in federal court to get an immediate court opinion on whether or not a particular blog post is indeed fair use or not. AP risks losing this big time and they won’t have a leg to stand on. This shouldn’t take more than a few months for the initial ruling and will effectively put an end to AP’s nasty campaign. It’s going to be an important ruling for the sake of free speech.

Oh, and one other point. These bloggers who sit in “mommy’s basement” have called AP to the mat for promulgating lies with doctored images and worse. I’d say they are pretty valuable to maintaining freedom of the press and keeping the media honest.

Once again proving that freedom isn’t granted, it’s earned!

Jun 16, 2008 - 7:52 pm Fidel, MD:

Don’t forget, the AP was recently taken to task for STEALING a bloggers comments - whole cloth, and without attribution.

Their excuse? Along the lines of the blogger should be happy that they’re getting the exposure.

AP stories themselves are rehashes (usually not even that) of other closer to real news gathering ventures stories. Like a self-licking ice cream cone, the AP steals and reports, and newspapers pay and use AP ‘content’….and bloggers can pound sand.

Jun 16, 2008 - 8:06 pm Pat:

I don’t understand copyright law, but full property rights are necessary for freedom, so those who violate them - whether AP or bloggers - must be punished.

Bullying by the AP, however, seems fully consistent with its business model of producing ever more mind-numbing stories that masquerade as news. Their so-called journalism is among the most subjective, scare-mongering, ignorant harangue about non-essentials out there. Here is just one example from this month: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ap-clueless-about-economic-news/

Out of allegiance to the requirements of reason - essential facts, proper context, logic, integration - I already avoid reading AP and encourage all other rational individuals to do the same. Until AP improves its product, it’s only hastening its demise toward becoming totally irrelevant “oldspeak” ballast.

Jun 16, 2008 - 9:45 pm Aviv:

Meanwhile, Reuters opts for technical solutions to prevent copy-pasting.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30220_Shocka!_Islamic_Terrorist_Conviction_Upheld#rss

Jun 16, 2008 - 10:46 pm John Samford:

“Only a concrete “medium of expression” can be copyrighted, facts, ideas, procedures, processes, systems, methods of operation, concepts, principles or discoveries cannot themselves be copyrighted.”

From here;
http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/copyrights/

It doesn’t look like AP can do anything except bluff. Unless, of course, they want to claim their work is fiction. I’m not sure what the test for fiction is, but I would guess that about 1/2 of AP’s stories would pass. IMHO, If there are any facts, then there can be no copyright protection.

Most of it is covered here;
http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html

Article 10

(1) It shall be permissible to make quotations from a work which has already been lawfully made available to the public, provided that their making is compatible with fair practice, and their extent does not exceed that justified by the purpose, including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of press summaries.

(2) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union, and for special agreements existing or to be concluded between them, to permit the utilization, to the extent justified by the purpose, of literary or artistic works by way of illustration in publications, broadcasts or sound or visual recordings for teaching, provided such utilization is compatible with fair practice.

(3) Where use is made of works in accordance with the preceding paragraphs of this Article, mention shall be made of the source, and of the name of the author, if it appears thereon.

FROM;
BERNE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF
LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORKS (Paris Text 1971)

Not sure AP has a leg to stand on here.
I think they figure since they can hire scads of lawyer types to hound their chosen victim into the grave and beyond if necessary, They are counting on bullying bloggers into submision. I’ll bet they don’t say a word to Powerline, which is a blog ran by Lawyers, including at least one Law Professor.
No, AP will go after the little guys that can’t afford to defend themselves.
It would be nice if a bunch of Bloggers could get together and do a class action against AP. Put them out of business, or at least put a crimp in their bottom line.

Jun 17, 2008 - 12:30 am John Samford:

“there are many bloggers who “write” blogs that are largely just unlicensed reproductions of the AP and other parts of the MSM.”

Don’t need a license. Once it goes out over the wires it’s public domain. Now if you are getting it before it’s released, shame on you.
If you can cut and paste it, then it is public domain.

“Article 10bis

(1) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction by the press, the broadcasting or the communication to the public by wire, of articles published in newspapers or periodicals on current economic, political or religious topics, and of broadcast works of the same character, in cases in which the reproduction, broadcasting or such communication thereof is not expressly reserved. Nevertheless, the source must always be clearly indicated; the legal consequences of a breach of this obligation shall be determined by the legislation of the country where protection is claimed.

(2) It shall also be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to determine the conditions under which, for the purpose of reporting current events by means of photography, cinematography, broadcasting or communication to the public by wire, literary or artistic works seen or heard in the course of the event may, to the extent justified by the informatory purpose, be reproduced and made available to the public. ”

From the Berne Convention.

I’m sure that the Lawyers at AP have included a disclaimer on all their works say that the work may not be reproduced without permission.
Yet that happens automatically on the internet everytime someone clicks on the article or refreshes the page.
Remember, we are not all looking at the same AP story, It is reproduced on your monitor and my monitor, as well as EVERY other monitor that is being used to look at that story.
So the technology in use DEPENDS on the ‘illegal’ reproduction. Since AP knows this, logically, they have to be giving you the right to quote it when they put it out on the net. Otherwise, it wouldn’t work.

Jun 17, 2008 - 12:45 am Cindy Sue Causey:

My reaction was the same as yours, well TechCrunch’s, when I first heard about this recently :: In Unity and Support, I decided I’d be dogged if I’d reference anything of theirs ever again..

Near immediately, the absolute Reality of attempting to live by that us-n-them move hit when all one has to do is surf a few minutes of news to find out it seems to more and more and more be coming ultimately from only one source.. :sigh:

Cyber hugs from Talking Rock..

Jun 17, 2008 - 4:04 am Mary:

LwC said: “They have to get off their butts and leave mommy’s basement”

********

It’s that kind of attitude that helped launch Pajamas Media and give it its name! Remember the snooty reference to bloggers as “guys sitting around writing in their pajamas?”

Hmm. Future blog consortiums might want to consider calling themselves “Basement Bloggers” or “Mommy’s Minions.”

John Samford, thanks for your scholarship. You summed it up best: “If you can cut and paste it, then it is public domain.”

Jun 17, 2008 - 6:12 am SFC Cheryl McElroy US ARMY (RET):

Well, the word nazis at AP had better add me to their list. I’ve cited some of their articles, too.

Bring it.

Jun 17, 2008 - 7:37 am John Samford:

“War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them
all they want.”
- General William T. Sherman

It looks like AP wants war. How many lawyers are also bloggers? Is it time to lawyer up, man the barricades, load the catapults, sharpen our swords?

Associated Press
450 W. 33rd St.
New York, NY 10001 (Map)
Phone: 212-621-1500
Fax: 212-621-5447

Targeting information.

http://companies.jrank.org/pages/4111/Associated-Press.html

Jun 17, 2008 - 8:51 am LwC:

I’m aware of the history of Pajamas Media. But I think the simplistic summation “If you can cut and paste it, then it is public domain.” is over broad and won’t hold up in court. Especially since access to the content is not being denied.

You can copy and paste the URL to the image/story/site and add your own comment about what the reader will find there. While it may not have always been the case, many sites now offer permalinks specifically aimed at blog use. The main purpose in copying text and/or images is to preclude the reader’s need to go the content originator’s site– they can go to read the source material, but they don’t have to, the essential bit’s already in front of them.

Yes, I recognize that a permalink is only “perma” as long as its owner maintains it. But I believe the power of the internet is linking– not copying. The entire issue is moot if sites link rather than copy– sorry, “quote” — other’s content.

Jun 17, 2008 - 9:09 am Redoubt:

There’s a game being played right now… one with smoke and mirrors and slight of hand.

First of all, the AP comes out of nowhere and attacks a single blog.
After allowing enough time for word of this action to spread and create the uproar that followed, the AP switches gears. Now they are the benevolent mega-corpo-media… a misty vision of Miss Congeniality if you will, that wants to write a new set of rules, for them and by them.

Next, they use a group of media bloggers, Media Bloggers Association, (oxymoron?) to create the illusion of genuine negotiations but where the sole effort will be the trashing of the Fair Use Doctrine.

It’s a really grand scheme because if the majority of the blogsphere can be convinced to voluntarily abandon Fair Use in favor of this new matrix, they… the MSM in general, and the AP specifically, will have crippled those hated bloggers.

To combat this effort, bloggers need to reinforce their support for use of the Fair Use Doctrine and make sure they clearly state that they neither recognize nor support any faux agreement between the AP and the Media Bloggers Association.

…

Jun 17, 2008 - 6:21 pm Mary:

LwC, couldn’t resist the comparison. I’ll always and forever groove on the underdogs in media.

And I will grant that wholesale, egregious copy-paste of entire stories is simple theft. But I’m not sure to what extent that takes place.

In my experience, bloggers, by and large, want to advance an argument using existing news content as a trigger. It’s implicitly recognized that a portion of content is all you need to bolster a point — followed by a LINK to the source of the original find.

To that end, most bloggers with any credibility at all DON’T simply foist off entire pieces. I, for one, ignore such sites. I want to know WHY a blogger finds something relevant — quickly — and then I check their links.

This is the kind of stuff that should be labeled “Well, DUH.” Ignorant bloggers are winnowed out by the credibility filter fairly quickly, in my opinion. I think it’s very sad we have to set up “standards” to winnow out the weasels.

Jun 17, 2008 - 6:38 pm John Samford:

LWC, you are missing a critical difference between a quote and a cut n’ paste. The attribute. Put a HT: with a name after the C’NP and presto-chango, it’s a quote and protected by reams of law,
That said, never forget the law isn’t a line so much as a string. It can be and is adjusted to the point where one can walk pretty much where one wants without stepping over the string/line. That is what Lawyers do, argue over where the string should be.
Judges decide who has the superior string position. Juries (under those legal systems that use juries) decide if the line/string was crossed. That slack in the string is called ‘justice’.
There is no need to set up standards, since those standards already exist in the form of what might be the worlds oldest international treaty. We are just debating the relative position of string and feet.

I disagree with LwC. The law distinguishes between fact and fiction in writing. LwC wants to treat an AP story as if it was a work of fiction. I won’t argue against that, since so much of their work IS fiction. AP’s entire existence is based around selling FACTS to news organizations that then package and re-sell those facts. Yet AP is claiming the rights of a fiction writer.
IMHO, to sell fiction as fact is FRAUD.
So AP has to decide. Fact or Fiction? If they are selling facts, they have to live with the laws concerning facts, which means no copyright protection. Fair usage applies and ANYONE can C’NP so long as they attribute.
This really needs to go to court. Let the system work like it was designed to.
AP doesn’t want to go to court. That would be VERY awkward for them. They want to use the threat of court to intimidate bloggers. Not sure where the string lies on that.
One would think that Lawmail was at least against the ethics code (stop laughing, that wasn’t a joke) of the legal profession. I’ll bet a clever Lawyer could stretch the laws against torture to cover that.

Jun 18, 2008 - 3:35 am John Samford:

Want to do in the AP? Let the class action suit be the holding attack. While that is going on attack their bank accounts by examining their corporate structure and determining where a boycott would have the greatest affect.
I’m trying to get a professional to look at that now. If several thousand bloggers were made aware of this threat to them and would be willing to give a few minutes a day to fighting AP, we could bring them down in a few months. A year at most.

Jun 18, 2008 - 4:36 pm Mary:

I’m in, John Samford. Having had to work with AP’s um, “product,” has left me feeling lightly coated with slime for years.

As SFC Cheryl said, bring it.

Jun 18, 2008 - 5:01 pm Dave Surls:

The AP is full of crap. They can take my picture and use it to sell newspapers, and they don’t have to pay me a share or ask my permission, as long as they’re doing it for news reporting purposes.

That’s because my ordinary intellectual property right to my own image doesn’t exist in that case because we’ve deemed that news reporting is important enough to set aside the issue of property. And the same thing goes for people who are using AP articles or photos for news reporting purposes.

AP can’t take a picture of my mug, sell it to a newspaper, then demand that some blogger pay AP before they replicate said picture of my image. If it belongs to anyone, it belongs to me.

When it comes to words, AP quotes people every day of the week, and they don’t pay them dime one, and they don’t have to ask permission to do so…and if they can do that, then so can we, when it comes to THEIR printed words.

It’s time the Justice Department stepped on these maggots, made them stop threatening people (there’s a word for what they’re doing, and the word is extortion, and it happens to be illegal), and taught them that the fair use laws aren’t there to give them a monopoly on news reporting.

Jun 18, 2008 - 6:34 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments: