5 ms·

This is a hugely important decision. Any blog that excerpts a bit of a news story is now guilty of copyright infringement, and it will be seen as infringement f

This is a hugely important decision. Any blog that excerpts a bit of a news story is now guilty of copyright infringement, and it will be seen as infringement for profit (hampering a fair use defense and increasing penalties) if the blog has ads or a tip jar.

itafroma 14y ago
That's a hyperbolic interpretation of this, to say the least. The issue was that Meltwater was copying the essential portions of AP's works (e.g., the lede) such that there wasn't any need to ever read the original articles. That's a far cry from merely "excerpting a bit of a news story." If you're a blog who reposts the core parts of news stories and gives no incentive for users to actually read the original story, then yes, you're probably infringing, but that was true before this ruling. If you're excerpting a small portion of a news story for the purposes of critique, context, or comment, this ruling doesn't void that fair use, either.
- Tangaroa 14y ago
  According to the article, the judge decided that news reporting -- what blogs do -- is not transformative but is competitive with the AP. Taking enough of an excerpt to get the gist of the story -- what reputable blogs do -- is taking "the heart" of the copyrighted work, which is now infringement according to the article. Blogs that add their own criticism and commentary, which rewrite the story in their own words, reduce the incentive to read the original story. The blog acts as a news site and a substitute for the original story, which according to the article strengthens a claim of copyright infringement. The circumstances in which criticism and commentary would justify a fair use defense just got tightened, as did the amount of an article that is considered a sufficiently small portion to be fair use.
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    According to the article, the judge decided that news reporting -- what blogs do Woah, hold up on that false premise there. reporting consists of gathering information and telling people about it by writing original content. Some blogs do this, but many just recycle incoming news and slap their own brand on top of it. And there are far more editorial blogs that basically consist of some blogger's opinion about the news than there are blogs engaged in actual newsgathering. If you're just quoting extracts of AP stories without doing any research, you're not reporting. And if you're rewriting, you're not infringing, because facts themselves are not copyrightable.
    - Tangaroa 14y ago
      According to the article, the judge created a new standard that it is copyright infringement for a one-sentence clipping to be on a website that is a substitute news source in the sense that people go there to read the news. Any news and opinion blog qualifies under this new standard. This ruling changed copyright law and fair use. Adding your own original content, if it leads people to read your blog rather than click through to the AP article, enhances the claim of copyright infringement because your blog is now competing with the AP as a substitute source for news. Your original content no longer enhances your fair use defense, as it did before this ruling, but now enhances the copyright holder's claim of infringement. RTFA! We're not talking about what Meltwater did. We're not talking about blogs that mindlessly copy and paste content. We're not talking about what used to be considered fair use before this new ruling that changed the law. We're talking about the new standard laid down by Judge Denise Cote that would make copyright infingers of every ordinary blogger who played by the rules of what the rules were last week. That new standard is that if people might view your blog as a place to read the news, you are guilty of copyright infringement if you quote as much as a single sentence of another person's news article. RTFA!
      - anigbrowl 14y ago
        I did read the article, and think your interpretation of what is says is quite wrong. I also read the opinion, in which discussion of the issue starts around page 28. It does not support your argument at all. That new standard is that if people might view your blog as a place to read the news, you are guilty of copyright infringement if you quote as much as a single sentence of another person's news article. LOL no. This is so far off the marks that I think any attempt at explaining it is going to be waste of time. If you seriously disagree, I invite you to cite to the opinion in making your argument. For example, on the 'transformative nature of the work' test (p.32) the court had this to say: Neither the purpose nor use of the Meltwater News Reports,nor its excerpts from the Registered Articles in the NewsReports, is transformative. Meltwater uses its computer programs to automatically capture and republish designated segments of text from news articles, without adding any commentary or insight in its News Reports. Meltwater copies AP content in order to make money directly from the undiluted use of the copyrighted material; this is the central feature of its business model and not an incidental consequence of the use to which it puts the copyrighted material. Thus, it is not surprising that Meltwater’s own marketing materials convey an intent to serve as a substitute for AP’s news service. This directly contradicts your claim that adding your own original content enhances the claim of copyright infringement. In fact, the exact opposite is true.
dmethvin 14y ago
> Any blog that excerpts a bit of a news story is now guilty of copyright infringement It wasn't "a bit" at all, read the article. News stories are written in pyramid style, with the most important summary being in the lede, the first paragraph. That is what was being copied, as well as the title and any mention in the article that contained whatever keyword the user used for the search. In this case the copier was also charging users directly for the content, it wasn't some indirect thing. Your summary seems both inaccurate and alarmist.
- greyman 14y ago
  Exactly! In case of news stories, taking the headline and lede technically seems like a quoting, but in reality it is grabbing the substantial part of the original work. Moreover, when a journalist works on a story, he needs to compile much more information and interview much more sources that finally will appear in the news story, so there is much more hidden work, which the scraper don't need to do. I personally applaud this decision, and I am also a bit surprised that EFF would support the scrappers. I also like this quote and think the Judge is exactly right: "Judge Cote rejected the fair use claim in large part because she didn’t buy Meltwater’s claim that it’s a “search engine” that makes transformative use of the AP’s content. Instead, Cote concluded that Meltwater is more like a business rival to AP: “Instead of driving subscribers to third-party websites, Meltwater News acts as a substitute for news sites operated or licensed by AP.”
rayiner 14y ago
That's not the case at all. The decision rests of Meltwater's use not being transformative. They basically told there clients: "here is the article where you were mentioned, with the key excerpts." A blog that excerpts a bit of a news story but adds some analysis would be transformative and thus not infringing. It might very well be applied to blog-spam, that simply excerpts parts of an article without adding anything. Good riddance to that.
badgar 14y ago
Comments like yours are great reminders of why real legal counsel is so valuable.

itafroma 14y ago

That's a hyperbolic interpretation of this, to say the least. The issue was that Meltwater was copying the essential portions of AP's works (e.g., the lede) such that there wasn't any need to ever read the original articles. That's a far cry from merely "excerpting a bit of a news story." If you're a blog who reposts the core parts of news stories and gives no incentive for users to actually read the original story, then yes, you're probably infringing, but that was true before this ruling. If you're excerpting a small portion of a news story for the purposes of critique, context, or comment, this ruling doesn't void that fair use, either.

Tangaroa 14y ago
According to the article, the judge decided that news reporting -- what blogs do -- is not transformative but is competitive with the AP. Taking enough of an excerpt to get the gist of the story -- what reputable blogs do -- is taking "the heart" of the copyrighted work, which is now infringement according to the article. Blogs that add their own criticism and commentary, which rewrite the story in their own words, reduce the incentive to read the original story. The blog acts as a news site and a substitute for the original story, which according to the article strengthens a claim of copyright infringement. The circumstances in which criticism and commentary would justify a fair use defense just got tightened, as did the amount of an article that is considered a sufficiently small portion to be fair use.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  According to the article, the judge decided that news reporting -- what blogs do Woah, hold up on that false premise there. reporting consists of gathering information and telling people about it by writing original content. Some blogs do this, but many just recycle incoming news and slap their own brand on top of it. And there are far more editorial blogs that basically consist of some blogger's opinion about the news than there are blogs engaged in actual newsgathering. If you're just quoting extracts of AP stories without doing any research, you're not reporting. And if you're rewriting, you're not infringing, because facts themselves are not copyrightable.
  - Tangaroa 14y ago
    According to the article, the judge created a new standard that it is copyright infringement for a one-sentence clipping to be on a website that is a substitute news source in the sense that people go there to read the news. Any news and opinion blog qualifies under this new standard. This ruling changed copyright law and fair use. Adding your own original content, if it leads people to read your blog rather than click through to the AP article, enhances the claim of copyright infringement because your blog is now competing with the AP as a substitute source for news. Your original content no longer enhances your fair use defense, as it did before this ruling, but now enhances the copyright holder's claim of infringement. RTFA! We're not talking about what Meltwater did. We're not talking about blogs that mindlessly copy and paste content. We're not talking about what used to be considered fair use before this new ruling that changed the law. We're talking about the new standard laid down by Judge Denise Cote that would make copyright infingers of every ordinary blogger who played by the rules of what the rules were last week. That new standard is that if people might view your blog as a place to read the news, you are guilty of copyright infringement if you quote as much as a single sentence of another person's news article. RTFA!
    - anigbrowl 14y ago
      I did read the article, and think your interpretation of what is says is quite wrong. I also read the opinion, in which discussion of the issue starts around page 28. It does not support your argument at all. That new standard is that if people might view your blog as a place to read the news, you are guilty of copyright infringement if you quote as much as a single sentence of another person's news article. LOL no. This is so far off the marks that I think any attempt at explaining it is going to be waste of time. If you seriously disagree, I invite you to cite to the opinion in making your argument. For example, on the 'transformative nature of the work' test (p.32) the court had this to say: Neither the purpose nor use of the Meltwater News Reports,nor its excerpts from the Registered Articles in the NewsReports, is transformative. Meltwater uses its computer programs to automatically capture and republish designated segments of text from news articles, without adding any commentary or insight in its News Reports. Meltwater copies AP content in order to make money directly from the undiluted use of the copyrighted material; this is the central feature of its business model and not an incidental consequence of the use to which it puts the copyrighted material. Thus, it is not surprising that Meltwater’s own marketing materials convey an intent to serve as a substitute for AP’s news service. This directly contradicts your claim that adding your own original content enhances the claim of copyright infringement. In fact, the exact opposite is true.

dmethvin 14y ago

> Any blog that excerpts a bit of a news story is now guilty of copyright infringement It wasn't "a bit" at all, read the article. News stories are written in pyramid style, with the most important summary being in the lede, the first paragraph. That is what was being copied, as well as the title and any mention in the article that contained whatever keyword the user used for the search. In this case the copier was also charging users directly for the content, it wasn't some indirect thing. Your summary seems both inaccurate and alarmist.

greyman 14y ago
Exactly! In case of news stories, taking the headline and lede technically seems like a quoting, but in reality it is grabbing the substantial part of the original work. Moreover, when a journalist works on a story, he needs to compile much more information and interview much more sources that finally will appear in the news story, so there is much more hidden work, which the scraper don't need to do. I personally applaud this decision, and I am also a bit surprised that EFF would support the scrappers. I also like this quote and think the Judge is exactly right: "Judge Cote rejected the fair use claim in large part because she didn’t buy Meltwater’s claim that it’s a “search engine” that makes transformative use of the AP’s content. Instead, Cote concluded that Meltwater is more like a business rival to AP: “Instead of driving subscribers to third-party websites, Meltwater News acts as a substitute for news sites operated or licensed by AP.”

rayiner 14y ago

That's not the case at all. The decision rests of Meltwater's use not being transformative. They basically told there clients: "here is the article where you were mentioned, with the key excerpts." A blog that excerpts a bit of a news story but adds some analysis would be transformative and thus not infringing. It might very well be applied to blog-spam, that simply excerpts parts of an article without adding anything. Good riddance to that.

badgar 14y ago

Comments like yours are great reminders of why real legal counsel is so valuable.