My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

May 2005

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        

« Eye-Opening Days | Main | New Music Service Needs More Tunes »

February 15, 2005

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834207e7e53ef00d83422f20853ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Newspaper Objects to Fair Use:

» Blogosphere Backlash from Duophony
Michael Barone is sceptical about the political effectiveness of the blogosphere: So what hath the blogosphere wrought? The left blogosphere has moved the Democrats off to the left, and the right blogosphere has undermined the credibility of the Republ... [Read More]

» Hypocrisy Knows No Bounds from Little Happy Bunnies
Further evidence that Newspapers only like the First Amendment when it benefits them. The Tulsa World is threatening a lawsuit against a blogger for having the audacity to voice his opinion. What's worse, they are challenging his right to "Fair... [Read More]

» Periódico contra blogger, primera ronda from Las penas del Agente Smith
Leo en el blog de Dan Gillmor que un periódico ha amenazado a un blogger con demandas legales si no retira las citas de artículos de su sitio, así como los enlaces no autorizados: Denseness in the copyright sphere is too common a phenomenon, but ... [Read More]

Comments

Charlie Prael

You sound surprised. I thought it was pretty much a given that "fair use" only applied when a corporate entity was using someone else's material. When a corporate entity (and you can include universities in that definition) starts _providing_ the material, that's something entirely different. Which, you might note, ties back in to the MSM's dislike of blogs. Citizen-journalism is an evil thing, 'cause it doesn't have those corporate ties.

Tim Hadley

In skimming, it looks to me like some of those quotes are rather long. Even when one is quoting for comment and criticism, all four fair use factors still apply. If the court concludes that the weblog author has quoted beyond the scope necessary to effectively comment upon or criticize the newspaper reporting, the weblogger could lose.

Larry Lessig's right, in a very practical sense, when he says fair use is no more than the right to hire a lawyer to defend one's use of material. It's very wishy-washy, though part of that is because it's hard to draw bright lines in this territory.

I don't see where the paper gets off complaining about linking, though, since that sends people to their website (which they should consider a good thing). I suppose their website TOS might prohibit "deep linking." That's foolish on their part, but might give them a leg to stand on legally.

(Note: No one should rely on this rambling comment to help resolve any particular legal problem. This is not legal advice.)

Dan Gillmor

Tim, some of the quotes are rather long. But when the paper says no quoting even "in part" that's just nutty, in addition to the linking foolishness.

Alison

So they're turning down free advertising?

Anna

They're turning down freedom of speech.

Brian Carnell

I don't get this, and I don't care how long the quotes are. Newspapers routinely do tihs to each other. I can't tell you the number of stories I have read in Newspaper A which was simply a bad rewrite of a story in Newspaper B, and usually with attribution.

I've read entire stories that are little more than paragraph after paragraph of "The New York Times reported today that ..."

Hell, the major networks simply rip off and readaloud the major stories of the day, almost always without any sort of attribution.

The only difference between a blogger going beyond fair use and ABC going beyond fair use is the size of their law team.

Norm Jenson

Sites like common dreams and truth out both reproduce entire articles from a variety of media sources on a daily basis claiming fair use for educational purposes ... Is it your opinion that they are violating copyright law and if so how is it that we hear nothing of suits preventing them from continuing the practice.

Tim Hadley

I agree that trying to limit quoting even "in part" is ridiculous. I had missed that part of the paper's attempt to claw for absurd levels of control.

Daniel Conover

I think most senior newspaper people would find Tulsa's position ridiculous. The general rule of thumb is 1. cite us; 2. don't sell our stuff; 3. have a nice day.

Brian Carnell

"Sites like common dreams and truth out both reproduce entire articles from a variety of media sources on a daily basis claiming fair use for educational purposes ... Is it your opinion that they are violating copyright law and if so how is it that we hear nothing of suits preventing them from continuing the practice."

I've often wondered about Common Dreams. Back in the late 1990s, someone posted the full text of an AP story, and I got a nasty e-mail from AP about copyright. I'm surprised someone hasn't gone after CD, especially given how newspapers reacted to the Free Republic doing basically the same thing.

Brian Brown

Um, I've been quoting my local newspaper (a Gannett-owned cookie cutter) using the quotes as the basis for ridicule/criticism on the community website I created. Should I be worried about getting sued?

One of my articles uses a large part of an Op-Ed, broken down sentence by sentence, allowing me to respond to each point the editor tried to make. I feel quoting as much as I did was absolutely necessary to the submission, but are they going to drop the hammer on me? I also linked directly to their Op-Ed piece.

I am so screwed. Here is the article:
http://www.iburlington.com/article.php/ymca_free_press

The comments to this entry are closed.