Nevermind

Well, I hope we’ll know more about the standdown in the AP Affair, but I’m glad and not a bit surprised that hostilities have ceased. Fair use and fair comment remain murky, as they were intended. The larger story about the changing architecture, economy, and society of news media also remains.

I’m recording a BBC Radio 4 appearance later today on the topic. The AP chose not to join. Too bad. I think the more openly this discussion is held, the better. It’s complex and not clear cut from any vantage.

  • http://www.techmeme.com/ Gabe

    Just to recap, the last clear thing we heard from the AP, as transmitted through the NYT, was that “direct quotations, even short ones” were not appropriate.

  • http://blog.meritos.nl Rick

    I’m somewhat disappointed that you have so far completely ignored the dubious role the MBA has played in all this, basically collaborating with AP to lend credence to AP’s claims and de facto supporting AP’s strategy of disinformation and intimidation.

  • Bill Enator

    Not A Closed Issue and Questions Remain

    Clearly the AP has a strategy here.

    At AP’s annual meeting they name
    iCopyright Named Licensing Agent for Reuse of Associated Press Content Published Online

    AP has determined that they consider to be fair-use to be exactly four words. More than that and you pay $12.50 – $100. This is pretty hypocritical considering that AP journalists help themselves routinely to much more than four words from blogs and websites in the name of “fair use”.

    AP takes this a step further and under the license pricing and terms of use for iCopyright they place language that raises eyebrows and limits free speech.. Pretty unusual for an entity that lives and dies by freedom of speech protection.

    iCopyright License Excerpt:
    Derogatory and Unlawful Uses: You shall not use the Content in any manner or context that will be in any way derogatory to the author, the publication from which the Content came, or any person connected with the creation of the Content or depicted in the Content. You agree not to use the Content in any manner or context that will be in any way derogatory to or damaging to the reputation of Publisher, its licensors, or any person connected with the creation of the Content or referenced in the Content.”

    ——
    I think that any reasonable person would see a strategy in play and is very much at odds with rights they flaunt daily.

    AP is large and may not be a monopoly in the strictest sense, perhaps oligopoly or cartel is a better description.

    Is the AP behaving ethically and morally? Are they being a good citizen? Many say they’re not.

    AP’s strategy and behavior raises lots of questions and concerns:

    The Poynter Institute on it’s blog asks: AP v. Bloggers: Hurting Journalism?

    Pajama’s Media Asks: Is the Associated Press Good for America?

    Perhaps the question we need to ask is: “Is the AP evil?

  • http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench/ Rogers Cadenhead

    The Media Bloggers Association is involved in this because I asked them for help. I am extremely grateful that Robert Cox of the MBA was able to intervene on my behalf and help resolve the dispute. I talk more about the MBA’s role in this on my weblog (link above).

  • Pingback: AP battle over, copyright war still on » mathewingram.com/work |