Forum Moderators: not2easy
Copyrighted, The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
It's my understanding that the AP can print such a copyright to protect their content and can further claim rights to a news story if they've secured rights to it in the first place.
The new copyright doesn't seem to be doing either of those things, instead, the AP seeks to copyright the information and seeks to prevent others from writing about the same story or distributing the same story.
My concern, if I'm standing next to an AP reporter and we both witness the same event, and we both go write about it, the new copyright would seemingly put my story in clear violation of their copyright. I thought claiming rights to public events, especially by just writing about them, wasn't legally binding. Has that changed?
The copyright copied above was found at the bottom of an article discussing a legal case and contained material mostly found in public court records which everyone has a right to. I find the new copyright overly broad and aggressive.
edit:correction, the copyright was at the bottom of AP articles, in paragraph form attached to the stories, but the stories were found on partner sites so I can't be sure if the copyright belongs to the AP or to the partner sites.
an example: [finance.yahoo.com...]
with news services heading to a pay model perhaps attention to copyright regulations needs to be increased.
...the AP seeks to copyright the information and seeks to prevent others from writing about the same story or distributing the same story.My concern, if I'm standing next to an AP reporter and we both witness the same event, and we both go write about it, the new copyright would seemingly put my story in clear violation of their copyright. I thought claiming rights to public events, especially by just writing about them, wasn't legally binding. Has that changed?
Aha, you have the wrong end of the stick. The copyright notice relates to the unique nature of the written story - the words themselves, the order they're in, the view and opinions presented by the writer - not the event. AP, like everyone else with unique content, wishes to protect the work it creates.
You witness an event. I witness an event. You write up your version and post it online and I copy it. I don't ask permission, I just lift it straight from your site. I'm guilty of copyright theft.
You write your version and I write my version and we have two uniquely written stories about the same event. Both are protected by copyright laws. No problem.
Hundreds of journalists at AP write thousands of unique news stories every day and tens of thousands of websites owners just copy them word for word without asking permission.
That's AP's big problem and the one they're trying to sort out. They just want to stop unethical webmasters from lifting their content and using it as if it were their own.
Syzygy
The information contained in the AP News report may not be published,...
The information inherently doesn't belong to the AP, their written coverage does but the event itself can't be protected and the new wording implies it does. The old copyright was clear in protecting the article, the new one seems to attempt to protect the entire subject of the story... doesn't it?
Even in instances where 'exclusive rights' have been negotiated, it doesn't stop others from reporting on such events. You merely shift your focus from the event to the reportage of it: "According to AP,..."
News wires do this all the time with the stories of others. It's something the BBC does more and more. It's cheaper than sending your own journalists to investigate and the story has already been written for you :-)
Syzygy
The information inherently doesn't belong to the AP, their written coverage does but the event itself can't be protected and the new wording implies it does. The old copyright was clear in protecting the article, the new one seems to attempt to protect the entire subject of the story... doesn't it?
It's just easier to put a message that basically says "If you take anything from this story you are doing something illegal". The AP doesn't own stories, but they own the unique presentation of those stories which are stolen all the time. They can at least deter a few people with that message, but obviously not everyone.
