This started out as a comment on Michelle Malkin’s site, but I decided to make it into a post here.
While I appreciate the attempts at humor from all the commentors above who want a crack at Michelle’s money, this “new tone” by AP opens up many a can of worms.
For starters, what if Michelle writes a newspaper column that takes a quote from an AP story and decides to place a reprint of it on this site? Would “fair use” in the print media overrule the payment due for the blog post? How about if Michelle uses the quote on FOX News?
On another front, as a dittohead I know Rush Limbaugh has quoted extensively from AP stories, again under “fair use”. Will the AP send him a bill if he reprints a transcript of the monologue on his website?
These questions definitely don’t seem to be covered because many of the major players in the blogosphere are also employed as providers in other areas of media; Malkin and Limbaugh are just two examples of this cross-medium phenomenon.
Obviously, I toil with a much smaller sphere of influence but this decision by the AP could affect me even more. For example, my local paper has been known to do “hybrid” stories where the hometown reporter adds items to an AP story that detail a local angle of some sort. If I take the quote from a local paper on such a story, would I still be liable to the AP?
Another question arises on simply linking to a story without quotation. You’re still using the story to make an argument, so in theory either one of two outcomes is possible: there’s no charge because you’re not directly quoting from the story; or, you’d be charged for every word even if you only cared about a couple sentences. I can only guess which way the AP would decide on that question.
Michelle properly notes that bloggers like me enjoy being linked – in my case, I also crosspost on occasion between three other websites, Elbert’s (#22) happens to be one of them. Would liability fall equally among all crossposted blogsites or just on the originating site, and how would they know which site originated the post? As another example, I can post to Red Maryland first then come back to my home site, or vice versa.
I know the AP is looking to fatten their bottom line and perhaps control the dissemination of their information. But I think fair use is fair use regardless of the reprinting media. When I cite a story as part of a post, I give credit to both the source and the writer (e.g. a Baltimore Sun story by Mary Gail Hare). Conversely, if people wish to link to my site all I ask is credit and the link back to the post.
We may be seeing the opening salvo of a new war between the “drive-by” media and the “pajamas” media, with the strategy being one of attrition through deeper pockets. Fortunately, I have enough news sources who are practically begging me to get their word out that I can do my work but some others may have a difficult time keeping on the straight and narrow.
I have researched this. If they put out a picture on the public domain (the internet) and I use it for a non profit venture (my blog) then that constitutes fair use.
I wonder if it is not so much the AP that has a problem with this, but companies like Gannett who pay for the service and have to compete with bloggers who link under the fair use policy.