Forum Moderators: martinibuster
There seems to be no shortage of sites that take feeds, put the content on a site or blog and put AdSense on the page - all the while laughing at or ignoring the terms of the feed provider.
This may result in less competition for AdSense publishers that play by the rules. If they really pursue this, get ready for some new "my account has been closed" threads.
FarmBoy
I think Fair Use should always be considered in situations like this. However, for those sites that blatantly copy AP content and place Adsense on those pages, a price should be paid.
When there is less available ad space because of those "my account has been closed" threads, it will be better for legitimate content providers who run Adsense.
My organization and many others have been denied access to public venues because of actions taken by AP and other large organizations, so it's a logical next step for the struggling dinosaurs to assert ownership of every dot and tittle of what the world's press agents and flacks pound out on a daily basis. Looking for an example? The next time you see an AP report about gas prices across the nation, go take a look at the AAA's national site and compare the AP's story to the AAA handout.
I was an AP executive for 15 years and know all too well what lurks in the heart of the beast. Independent publishers -- whether Web, print or bathroom wall -- need to be aggressive in asserting their right to report matters of public interest and, in particular, to report information that is in the public domain. Just because AP reports the same information does not give them exclusive rights to it.
The next time you see an AP report about gas prices across the nation, go take a look at the AAA's national site and compare the AP's story to the AAA handout.
And the next time you want to use an AAA handout, get the original version from AAA, not the edited version from AP.
Much of the copy that AP claims to own comes straight from press releases and government documents.
It's ironic that you write that.
I have a site where all the copy on the site and the associated email newsletters is based on US government documents issued by a US government agency. I have knowledge in the subject and take the government text (which is in the public domain) and add my own commentary and explanatory text.
It's popular with people in a certain industry who appreciate have the government jargon explained in terms easy to understand in the industry.
As indicated at the US Copyright Office website, I am creating original/unique content that enjoys copyright protection, even though it is based on public domain content.
A few people have tried to copy me and when confronted with the consequences they have claimed that "Much of the copy ...comes straight from ...government documents." They have all lost their battles.
I don't claim to own the information contained in the government documents, but I do claim to own my presentation of it.
...they unfortunately forget that they don't automatically own the news.
This is not so much about the AP, pro or con, in my eyes.
I think the problem in that regard is that people forget they don't have a right to someone else's work product.
If there is a large explosion at an industrial plant in your town today, that is a news event. If you put gas in your car, drive there, interview people involved, research what is manufactured at the plant, etc. and write an article about it, you are reporting a news event. You don't own that news, but you do own your work product. Others can't just copy what you have written for their own use because what you have written is covering a news event.
FarmBoy
Much of the copy that AP claims to own comes straight from press releases and government documents
I thought that was the sole function of all the media?
Simply recycle Government and Corporate handouts after being "edited" to suit the views of the conglomerate media owner and his greasy mates. Dumb down the populace.
That's how it works?
Isn't it?
need to be aggressive in asserting their right to report
That's nice. But their lawyers are bigger than my lawyers. I wouldn't be able to assert fair use because it'd cost me too much.
