4 ms·

The AP's position seems really silly at first, but the link they provide is actually worth reading. If what they say is true -- namely that 1) this isn't target

The AP's position seems really silly at first, but the link they provide is actually worth reading. If what they say is true -- namely that 1) this isn't targeted at bloggers or anyone else using the content in a way that can be reasonably assumed to be fair use; and 2) this is a simple way to license content you have reason to believe may not qualify for fair-use protection -- then I think this seems fairly reasonable. EDIT: Just want to make the logical fallacy explicit. The fact that the form allows you to pay for 5 words does not imply that the AP expects you to pay for 5 words.

chc 16y ago
Except that's disingenuous, because the AP has suggested that bloggers and Google and basically anyone else who reprints AP text should pony up the fee. They don't explicitly say so in detail, but they've had a pretty consistent campaign of FUD about it. For example, their document on the question "Do I even need to pay to excerpt your story?" prominently notes that "the safest course is always" to pay the fee, and suggests that if you're publishing the excerpt "on the Web," that "is cause for serious reflection before assuming 'fair use'" — particularly if you are "choosing not to exercise an affordable and accessible licensing mechanism." Think I'm reading too much into a CYA legal document? Take a look at this story, where AP president says that they want to be paid for "any use of news articles," even as little as citing a headline: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/business/media/24content.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/business/media/24content.h...
- dionidium 16y ago
  ..."the safest course is always" to pay the fee Well, this has got to be true, right, since there's no reliable way to tell if your usage is fair a priori?
  - chc 16y ago
    It's definitely true, but in a document linked right from the payment page, it's rather self-serving. Taken in context with the rest of the document and the AP's utter silence on what might possibly count as "fair use" in its eyes, the message it sends is more than just cautious legal advice. It's tantamount to someone running a protection racket pointing out that you're less likely to get hurt paying his fee than fighting it: He's right, but it doesn't legitimize his demands.
- kd0amg 16y ago
  Think I'm reading too much into a CYA legal document? Definitely not, without even reading your link. If it were "How to keep Them from suing you," I'd call it a CYA document. This, on the other hand, is "How to keep Us from suing you."
danieldon 16y ago
this isn't targeted at bloggers Except for the part where they actually already have famously targeted at least one blogger.

chc 16y ago

Except that's disingenuous, because the AP has suggested that bloggers and Google and basically anyone else who reprints AP text should pony up the fee. They don't explicitly say so in detail, but they've had a pretty consistent campaign of FUD about it. For example, their document on the question "Do I even need to pay to excerpt your story?" prominently notes that "the safest course is always" to pay the fee, and suggests that if you're publishing the excerpt "on the Web," that "is cause for serious reflection before assuming 'fair use'" — particularly if you are "choosing not to exercise an affordable and accessible licensing mechanism." Think I'm reading too much into a CYA legal document? Take a look at this story, where AP president says that they want to be paid for "any use of news articles," even as little as citing a headline: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/business/media/24content.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/business/media/24content.h...

dionidium 16y ago
..."the safest course is always" to pay the fee Well, this has got to be true, right, since there's no reliable way to tell if your usage is fair a priori?
- chc 16y ago
  It's definitely true, but in a document linked right from the payment page, it's rather self-serving. Taken in context with the rest of the document and the AP's utter silence on what might possibly count as "fair use" in its eyes, the message it sends is more than just cautious legal advice. It's tantamount to someone running a protection racket pointing out that you're less likely to get hurt paying his fee than fighting it: He's right, but it doesn't legitimize his demands.
kd0amg 16y ago
Think I'm reading too much into a CYA legal document? Definitely not, without even reading your link. If it were "How to keep Them from suing you," I'd call it a CYA document. This, on the other hand, is "How to keep Us from suing you."

danieldon 16y ago

this isn't targeted at bloggers Except for the part where they actually already have famously targeted at least one blogger.