Commercial RSS Feed Syndication

[redherring917]

Hello -

We are in just the exploratory phases of a project to provide our Web site users with RSS-type updated content (news, sports, weather, etc.). Are there options, paid or otherwise, to use RSS feeds in such a commercial setting? All the sources I've found so far state that they are for "non-commercial" use only... I've contacted a number of them to see if there is a commercial use option, but have yet to hear back from anyone.

Does the use of a "content syndication service" such as Moreover or other somehow bypass this "non-commercial usage" only stipulation? If so, how so?

Thanks.

[redherring917]

...we're in no way going to even mess with breaking any of those sources' terms of service. That would be very short sighted of us.

Is what we're wanting to do really as complicated as it is starting to look? "All" we want is permission to display the headlines from reputable RSS feeds on our Web site which is, yes, a "for profit" venture, and have those headlines link directly to their sources?

Thanks again.

[redherring917]

Employing a "syndication service" or an "aggregator" like www.moreover.com, www.yellowbrix.com, www.newsnow.co.uk, etc. - I'm sure there's lots of others that I haven't found - would appear to get around this issue. True? If so, how is that?

Thanks.

[arbitrary]

If you want weather try: [rss.noaa.gov...] (it's a .gov link so I figure I can post that.)

Some places I have seen do allow some news to by syndicated to other sites. If I don't see a notice saying, "for personal use only" I take that to mean it can be used for commercial purposes.

This is a gray area really. Many things fall under "fair use" regardless of what is requested.

Posted at the bottom of the Creative Commons deed (which says no commercial use) is:

Your fair use and other rights are in no way affected by the above.

In my opinion, using a title, link and short description falls under fair use.

Just my thoughts and I am certainly not a lawyer.

[redherring917]

Yes, that's certainly what we'd be looking at doing - title, link, short description - which on one hand seems benign enough, but I suppose one could argue that we are "stealing eyeballs" by borrowing even this much content. One thing's for sure, we can't afford to mess around with this if we can't figure it out definitively, and all the major sources certainly seem to go out of their way to specify for "non-commercial use only".

I'd still really like to know how employing some kind of syndiation service or aggregator "allows" us to post this very same content on our site? Seems like the very same thing except that we've added a middle man. Is the middle man paying the source for "distribution rights" or something?

[arbitrary]

Is the middle man paying the source for "distribution rights" or something?

I think the answer to that is no.

Try and find sources that don't restrict to 'non-commercial use', there are some out there. Also, have a look at fair use and perhaps speak to a lawyer. A good lawyer should be able to get you an answer in a couple of hours (so the total cost could be something like $400-$600).

[arbitrary]

redherring, one more thing.

The large companies will always ask you to remove their feed from your site before launching a law suit. The standard cease and desist is the way big companies go about it. If they ask you to stop, just stop using their feeds.

It is more the smaller players/companies that may come straight after you with a lawsuit. Once again, I think this all falls under fair use.

[redherring917]

Thanks arbitrary.

EZRSSFeeds - sure we'd at least be interested in looking at what you've got. Maybe you can help me with understanding the whole situation first though.

Your service is obviously more than just providing feeds, as you allow a very targetted feed delivery, (i.e. by keyword, for instance), as do others "like yourselves" as in Moreover, Yellowbrix, etc. But is the reason that you can provide these feeds "commercially" simply because they are made "commercially" available? For instance, we're not likely to find content in your feed (or any of the other's?) from, say, CNN or USAToday or SI or a host of other "big name" sources - all the ones I looked into - as they specifically state for "non-commercial use only"?

So, just for the sake of understanding, if we didn't want the kind of targetted feed that you can offer, we could, theoretically, get legal access to the same content that you do, or am I (still) missing something here?

So sorry if I'm being really slow to catch on here, but I just hate being ignorant going into a project.

Thanks again.

[redherring917]

Well, here's a partial response from one of the "larger" such syndication services / content aggregators / whatever they're called...

"In response to your queries concerning syndication services and news aggregators such as ourselves, we have a symbiotic relationship between publishers and ourselves. This is due to the fact that we are not taking anything from them, or breaking any copyright laws, as what NewsNow does is direct its users back to the original article, on the website it was originally published upon. This, therefore increases the website's direct traffic, often by a significant amount. We do not copy any article text, the headlines that we would send over to you which your newsfeed had picked up, would act as a link back to the originators article only, and is fully attributed."

OK. If we went direct to the source, (CNN or whatever), we would also:

- direct our users back to the original article, on the website it was originally published upon.

- increases the source website's direct traffic

- we would not copy any article text

- we would only use the headlines that would act as a link back to the originators article only

- the feed would be fully attributed.

So, I'm still confused entirely and see no reason why what we want to do is any different than what these "services" do, except that they charge us money to do it.

Help? Please...