A Politech irregular, Jay Holovacs <holovacsat_private>, reports the Associated Press has pressured about.com to remove excerpted AP stories (with links to the offsite complete text) from the site if even one sentence is quoted. Two items follow: 1. Mail from Jay with links to about.com's moderator announcement 2. A note to Jay from Austin Cline, the about.com forum moderator -Declan ******** From: "JayHolovacs" <holovacsat_private> To: "Declan McCullagh" <declanat_private> Subject: Re: New copyright interpretations Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 20:40:17 -0400 http://forums.about.com/ab-atheism/messages?msg=12714.1 I believe you can log on as 'guest' at . http://forums.about.com/ab-atheism if you don't wish to register. quote from the host: "I have some bad news to convey to everyone - AP and other news services have decided to be quite strict in how they interpret their copyrights. Before, it was always assumed to be OK if we just quoted a couple of sentences from a news story and then provided a link - it was copying all or most of a story which we had to avoid. But not any more. Quoting even one sentence, if it conveys the gist of the entire story, isn't something that they want to permit now. ... They are serious about this. They have already been in contact with About over Guides who have done nothing more than quote the first couple of lines on their sites, along with a link back to the full story. " jay ******** >How much publicly available description of these restrictions do you >have here? Especially do you have a quote of the way that AP worded their >demands? I don't have access to any of that information. Even if I did, I doubt I would be allowed to tell people - this is lawyer stuff, and so it's all probably confidential. But it is unlikely that About would have told us to remove the AP stuff from our sites (and, when it was brought up, say that we need to be careful about what appears on the forums) if they didn't think that AP had a case. Demanding this of the Guides creates both more short-term work and more long-term work. It's annoying for everyone and doesn't serve any good end otherwise. [...] The main issues seems to be quality, rather than quantity. Quoting the first couple of sentences of an article is not much in amount, but it might convey the gist of the article - all of the basic information. In doing so, you eliminate the need for most people to go on and read the whole thing. This, then, reduce the value of the original. By that standard, of course, you should be able to quote something low-quality in an article, but which sounds good. For example "And the author of this article says "This is the best thing since sliced bread!" - you aren't quoting something that gives away all the information, just something you find interesting. Finding that a high-quality passage is a copyright infringement when a low-quality passage of similar length is not is not common, but mostly because it doesn't come up much. It is, however, something that has been ruled on in favor of copyright holders. I hope this helps... Regards, Austin Cline: http://atheism.about.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Aug 16 2001 - 08:13:49 PDT