Associated Press outlining 'fair use' guidelines for bloggers
Hi everyone
I just came across this article in the NY Times: The Associated Press to Set Guidelines for Using Its Articles in Blogs
Apparently last week the AP asked the Drudge Report to remove some text from the site and there was an uproar from some bloggers, which caused the AP to retract its position with Drudge:
"The quick about-face came .... because a number of well-known bloggers started criticizing its policy, claiming it would undercut the active discussion of the news that rages on sites, big and small, across the Internet."
What are your thoughts on this? I'm only an occasional blogger and I do not consider myself a traditional journalist - though I have worked for a major newspaper website in the past.
Should bloggers be held to the same "fair use" standards as professional journalists? (My assumption is that many journalists blog but that not all bloggers are journalists.)
Thanks in advance for sharing your viewpoint.
I just came across this article in the NY Times: The Associated Press to Set Guidelines for Using Its Articles in Blogs
Apparently last week the AP asked the Drudge Report to remove some text from the site and there was an uproar from some bloggers, which caused the AP to retract its position with Drudge:
"The quick about-face came .... because a number of well-known bloggers started criticizing its policy, claiming it would undercut the active discussion of the news that rages on sites, big and small, across the Internet."
What are your thoughts on this? I'm only an occasional blogger and I do not consider myself a traditional journalist - though I have worked for a major newspaper website in the past.
Should bloggers be held to the same "fair use" standards as professional journalists? (My assumption is that many journalists blog but that not all bloggers are journalists.)
Thanks in advance for sharing your viewpoint.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by a-migraineur on -
This is an interesting turn of events. As a published author, I understand that AP objects to having whole stories printed on blogs. I wouldn't want my whole article printed on the web without my permission. I agree with the statement AP made in the NY Times article to limit the use of their articles " when we feel the use is more reproduction than reference, or when others are encouraged to cut and paste.” because the Internet seems to encourage bloggers and students to blindly cut and paste information and not give a reference. In academia, that is called plaigarism. Plaigarism is another topic altogether. In academia, the plaigarist is disciplined. On the Internet, nothing happens.
Cutting and pasting also discourages the use of paraphrase. When authors can paraphrase an article well, it is and indication that they understand the topic. As an editor and a writing instructor, I see this frequently.
That said, I think that Rogers Cadenhead's statement that the AP policy "go all the way down to one or two sentences of quoting" is overkill.
-
Permalink Reply by Stephanie on -
I think it makes sense that the AP is fighting back against this cutting and pasting of articles onto blogs, but in my opinion as long as the content is attributed to the original source and author then it is not plagiarism and should be allowed. As a college student I am constantly lectured by professors about plagiarism and the extreme consequences that one would face, often expulsion, if caught plagiarizing another's work. But I believe that as long as the blogger makes it clear that it is not their own work, and attributes the work to the author, it should be allowed.
-
Permalink Reply by clarice connors on -
I think the over-arching fear of the AP is not only the theme of various forms of plagiarism, but also the increasing popularity of blogging and, as previously stated by a-migraineur, the current tendency of blogging to be unmonitored and unrestricted.
However, I daily watch the evening news and stories pop up frequently broadcasting inappropriate blogging, false information or slander leading to certain blogs being eradicated. Starting with the AP, there seems to be a cross-media need to keep an eye on blogging to the point of paranoia, which I think will lead to agitated issues of freedom of speech; however, to assuage the potential storm, I agree with Stephanie that credit needs to be placed where it is due.
-
Permalink Reply by Dianne Rees on -
I think one of the issues is that there's a lot of confusion about what "fair use" means. People think that as long as they attribute the source of an article they've cut and pasted, they're off the hook (ie, they're not plagiarizing then, so it must be ok). The problem is that copyright laws are triggered and the minute an author has written something, he/she (or the company that's hired the author, like AP) has rights to control the distribution/copying of what's been written. Even if you've acknowledged the source of a work, you still may have violated someone's copyright. The difference is that while plagiarism is a violation of ethical and professional standards, a copyright violation winds up having legal consequences.
There are times when you are able to do some amount of copying (that's when "fair use" comes in--it's a defense to a charge of copyright infringement). Unfortunately, there's generally not a bright line that lets you know when you're protected by the fair use doctrine and when you're not.
Some things to consider:
- What's the purpose and character of the copying? Is it to obtain some commercial benefit or is it for a nonprofit educational purpose? For example, are adsense words being inserted into that blog? Are you allowing ads on your site?
(Commercial uses are less likely to be considered fair.)
- Is your work/blog content a parody of the original work? Educational?
(Copying to create educational materials or to parody a work is more likely to be considered fair than copying to obtain a commercial benefit. The more transformed a work is, the more likely the copying that's done will be considered fair.)
- Is one copy going to be made or a thousand?
(More limited copying is more likely to be considered fair. The internet, of course, can distribute copies of works to millions of individuals.)
- What's the nature of the copied work?
(If there's some social value to the work being disseminated, a court may be more lenient in considering whether the copying is fair or not.)
-How much is being copied? What's the importance of what's copied to the original work as a whole?
(A general rule of thumb is that the more you copy, the less likely the copying will be considered fair. Taking a quote or two is different from cutting and pasting whole sections.)
- Another consideration is the effect of the copying on the potential market or value of the copy. In distributing the copied work, is someone less likely to buy the original work? Will the value of the original work decrease?
(If your main purpose for copying without seeking permission is to avoid paying a license fee, a court is not likely to look upon your conduct favorably. )
All of these factors are taken together when considering fair use. That's why it's hard to figure out what's fair sometimes--it's really a balancing act.
More than you ever wanted to know...the ex-IP lawyer in me came out.
Bottom line: since the internet readily allows you to link to content (which generally doesn't raise copyright issues), it's always safer to link to the article than to copy it even if you think you are protected by fair use.
-
Permalink Reply by Janeen on -
I do think the AP over reacted but I can see their point. As a former cutter and paster, it was just sometimes easier than paraphrasing (and I'm not a well read blog so I'm pretty sure no one would care). But the Drudge Report is well known and it's also been quoted on several news programs that I've watched. They should really do their own work. As will I from now on.
© 2009 Created by Marie
