3 ms·

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

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.

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.