I had a lot more to say on Prof. Kim's post, but I did say I understand part of the AP's complaints.  As a writer who wants to be paid, how could I not? 

However, I read that the AP sued Viacom (don't know if that's true or not) for linking to its stories.  And some of the posts around the web on this topic indicate AP also complained of bloggers linking to AP stories.  What is it that they want exactly?  Do they want bloggers to pretend that the AP doesn't exist?  If so, then the boycott's nutty for more reasons than the moral ones you list.

Perhaps, I'm misunderstanding the linking objections.  Please, someone explain it to me.

Sometimes as bloggers we just get lazy.  I recall a post by a blogger that was nothing but a compilation of excerpts from other people's posts.  I asked myself, "And how is that blogging?  And is it writing?"

This AP debate gives us all much to think about.

I'm glad you told us you aren't getting rich off blogging. :-)  I think the financially successful blog is an exception and not the rule.  But when I hear occasionally of those who make big bucks, I wonder what am I doing wrong? Why haven't I been able to really milk this blogging thing so I'll never need to look for a job outside my home again?  Haha. 

Nordette Adams is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.com whose personal blog is at this link.

since I've absolutely no expertise in copywrite law.

I'm guessing Kim can step in and provide answers to the questions in my head, but I'm thinking on when reported story in and of itself becomes newsworthy. What is acceptable in terms of referencing, disputing, etc?

It would seem reasonable to allow small excerpts if properly identified and linked back to the source, if one is expanding on, challenging, or offering another viewpoint.

Does a copywrite protect a story from the public domain of discussion? Oooh, free speech issues at work there. And it sort of defeats the intent of subscribers buying their content to begin with. 

It is certainly a tough time for traditional media. They are seeing the old methodology of disseminating news decline in readership and value, while new technologies are exploding outward, with others perhaps quicker in making use of these technologies. So I can see where they have to find a balance between protecting the value of their most significant asset, while antagonising those who are actually the intended recipients of what they market.

(I'm thinking cyberly on this one as I write.) If someone takes their story and reproduces it with no intent other than to shout out the news, I can see why they would go nuts over such a blatant violation of their copywrite. If someone takes a part and says 'this is bullshit' that would seem quite different - and actually something positive in terms of increased awareness of their story.

No easy answers here, but someone has to make a call on what uncompensated  use enhances product value and what detracts from that value.  

nelle

Good post, Morra. This is what happens when reporting is a commodity. I've said before that blogs are the new penny press. It's a clash of the original purpose of media vs. a slight perversion of it.

I've had my intellectual property infringed upon, so on that issue you're preaching to the choir. The AP makes its bank by writing content (the term "homogenized"comes to mind) and newspapers essentially subscribe to use that content. It's not ethical for another entity to come along and take it for free.

However.

What gives me pause is that the AP still sees itself as this giant monopoly and its actions could be construed as stifling legitimate discussion of newsworthy ideas - nonprofit discussion. I've read that the AP is also going
after commenters who are discussing an article, quote the lede, and link back? That's absolutely ridiculous. You'd think, with the staggering numbers pouring in that show the decline of traditional media, outlets such as the AP would desperately want the attention that comes with discussing and linking to their articles. Whenever I see the AP's work used it is not used as the sole meat and potatoes, but rather in the link culture aesthetic. I sometimes quote or reference AP articles on-air - not because I'm substituting that reporter's opinion for my own or doing a half-assed job (especially as I can basically get
the exact same story from a million other resources); I use it as an accessory to make a point. A reference. A citation. Most often,I look at other bloggers’ work; the comprise most of the news and political feeds in my reader because many of them do better work than AP reporters. It seems indulgent for the AP to think they have a patent on stellar reporting.

It also seems that a lot of people are forgetting this huge double-standard. Media outlets (Dow Jones is under fire for wanting to gain inspiration and content from bloggers' work, the paper here in my own hometown is admittedly flirting with the idea) mine blogs for original reporting. Some of the top political stories of recent memory were broken online - not by the AP or any other news source. When major media rips off bloggers they are quick to defend themselves; here is one case where it may be, in a stretch, in reverse and the AP goes ballistic. Irony is sweet.

The courtesy should go both ways. My personal experience (and general observation) is that it doesn't.

Dana
Mamalogues.com
on KFTK 97.1 FM/Fox News Radio
St. Louis Bloggers Guild

"It would seem reasonable to allow small excerpts if properly identified
and linked back to the source, if one is expanding on, challenging, or
offering another viewpoint"

Hey, like I just did!

That's also how I saw it, Nelle. I suppose I don't see myself as a journalist as you are Morra, but as a commentator. Someone discussing the news.

Perhaps the AP and other legit news gathering sources need to take a cue from the record industry's failed attempts to reassess and adapt to the way the world works now. Maybe what the AP really needs to do is stop relying on outmoded laws and accept that there's value in linkage, value in discussion, value in the crediting of a source. Then figure out how that can lead to new revenue streams.

It seems to me that the way this AP v blogger debate is shaping up right now, only the lawyers stand to win.

Mom-101
Cool Mom Picks.com

Hi Morra:

As one of the original bloggers who jumped on the boycott, I feel like I should say something.  First, mainstream media lifts content from blogs all the time.  Just watch Keith Olbermann's show almost any night of the week to see that in action.  Many a political blogger has seen their story scooped up and legitimized by their local media without proper attribution.  Honestly, the point of the boycott for me was to, 1) make the point that I won't be bullied so easily, and 2) is to get both sides to acknowledge that the media world is a different place now and that we need to work together on how to conduct ourselves in it.  That is exactly what the boycott has accomplished already--in ONE DAY.  AP officials realized that they needed to define what fair use of their stories is and how it applies to their content rather than scare independent bloggers into silence.  Receiving a DMCA request is about the scariest thing that can happen to an independent blogger and I think a of us are tired of feeling bullied and scared. 

Reno and Its Discontents

“Soon Myrna’s brutal social manner had driven my courtiers from the table and we were left alone, all cold coffee and hot words.”

Ignatius J. Reilly A Confederacy of Dunc

I was raised in a three newspaper a day culture.I love and need information. I understand that newspapers are in trouble but Bloggers did not cause that trouble. Newspapers were ignoring whole sections of the community, they switched to a dumbed down television style of news and they were really reluctant to listen to their readers suggestions to provide relevant content.

Then came the Internet. Then came websites. Newspapers still diddled. So when Bloggers newpapers start to die or transform. Not the Bloggers fault.

Now if the AP is allowed to dictate our ability to mention a news story and a Blogger's ability to refer back to the source then we've got a problem. The essential facts of the story are in the public domain, i.e. governor gets caught with a hooker. Newspapers gather the essential facts and package for consumption to their readers for a price. Fair enough.

Who owns the essential facts of a new story?

If can't say I saw this story and link to an AP, Reuters or other news source, if I can't refer my readers to newspaper website where I saw the story then that is total BS. I'm not a passive consumer anymore. It is not a crime to link to the original source.

If the AP gets away with this other companies will follow. We aren't going to be able to cite any sources for information.We would barely be able to say anything happened without the possibility of a DCMA order waved in our faces.

That is bad enough. But what if we did our own independent investigation of a story with the facts looking like the ones the AP reported? Smells bad even from a distance.

Fair Use is being misapplied here by both sides. That is a rant for another time.

Gena - Out On The Stoop

Morra as usual you are provocative and raise great questions.  The other sad thing about all of this is that AP has always tried to accommodate those who want to use the service but can't pay as much as for-profits.  When we started the Center for American Progress website they worked with us to get the most for the money we could afford.

I worked in the news business most of my life and the wires are the most able to offer objective hard news.  They're serving journalistic entities, not individual subscriber bases that require thinking in ciruclation or ratings terms.  AP offers the hard (and other) news and each outlet uses as much as it chooses. 

They have staff in places (countries, cities, the Amazon...)  that newspapers often can't, and network news won't, pay to cover and they have to pay them.  I use quotes and pix all the time too, and want to be able to keep doing so.  BUT these folks won't be around at all unless we understand that if bloggers take all their material for free, there's no reason for subscribers to pay for them.  This subject bears further discussion and Morra, as usual, has set the stage for it.

Cynthia Samuels, Partner
Cobblestone Associates, LLP
Blog and Media Strategies and Content Development Online and on Television

Don’t
Gel Too Soon

I want to chew on a couple of things before I respond. But I really appreciate your perspective, Morra. You are right, AP is reflecting a panic that has overtaken the industry as journalists lose jobs by the hundreds every month. And journalists do perform a vital service that bloggers and everyone else benefit from. More soon. 

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|

I have limited experience as a journalist, meaning I was the editor of my high school yearbook and wrote for my high school newspaper 30 plus years ago.  So I am NOT speaking as an expert, but as someone who is fairly new to blogging and as someone who is working hard at trying to make a living as a freelance writer.  

Every writer, whether they write for the AP or Reuters or any other newspaper or magazine, has at one time or another, quoted text from someone else's work.  In journalism and writing classes we are taught that proper acknowledgement must be made regarding these types of quotes and texts, otherwise it is plaigerism.  We have all written research papers requiring us to document the sources of our research and data mentioned in our papers.  We "link" articles and books and sources on paper everytime we quote our source material. How is what bloggers do any different than what reporters and college kids do every day? 

I agree that there are internet users and bloggers out there who have absolutely no regard for industry standards when it comes to properly citing sources.  There are those who use little to no restraint when it comes to pilfering writings and passing them off as their own creations.  There have ALWAYS been those kinds of people.  The internet has definitely made it easier for them to get away with "cheating."  And maybe for that reason, some kind of standard does need to be put in place, but I agree with a previous comment, that courtesy needs to go both ways.  But how does one begin to enforce such a policy?   

The advent of the internet ushered in a new way to report on and read about world events.  It has spawned a new generation of more informed, more sophisiticated, more involved people when it comes to news and events.  In my opinion, newspapers didn't keep up!   Frankly, I find myself reading fewer and fewer AP articles these days, because I find many of them boring and lacking in detail.  I've all but quit reading my local paper in Arizona because it does not report the news in a fair-minded, non-biased way.  I can form my own opinion, I do not need a newspaper or a TV journalist to tell me what to believe and how to think...but I digress.  My point there is that savvy internet users and bloggers know how to search the internet to find the news and information they want and they know how to use the internet to share their thoughts and oipinions about the news and information they find.  The fact that AP feels threatened by all of this should make them pause for a moment to ask themselves why it is they feel threatened (other than the fiancial losses they are sustaining)? Is this really about Fair Use or is this a news conglomerate worried about losing market shares?  Could it be that they took the collective intelligence of society for granted and neglected to acknowledge that we are individuals who do not want to be spoon-fed drivel and opinion with our news?  We've moved on because we've figured out how to gather our own news and pass it on to others in a way the resonates with a world-wide community...in a HUGE way!  Again though, I can see how the passing on of this information can lead to misuse of said information by people who have no idea about copyright infringement or plaigerism. 

Clearly, there is much to debate on both sides of this issue and I can see that both sides of the table have much to gain and lose as these issues are negotiated.  My biggest concern is that we will lose the freedom that the internet has given us to gather, use and distribute information from the 4 corners of the earth, all from our own home office.  And the thought that the freedom may be lost so that some large corporation can add more cash to the coffers makes it even more disconcerting. 

I definitely need to spend some time studying the issue in depth but from where I'm standing at this moment it's hard for me to get behind something that will limit our abilities to share information.  How does one even begin to apply limits and rules to an all-encompassing thing like internet communications between human beings? And once the limits are in place, where does it stop?  I'm just sayin'.