Why Is The NY Times Threatening An Aggregator For Accurately Indicating NY Times Stories?

from the damned-if-you-do...-damned-if-you-don't... dept

Thu, Feb 26th 2009 7:49pm — Mike Masnick

The NY Times was just recently involved in a intellectual property fight with newspaper publisher Gatehouse Media, over the use of Gatehouse headlines and ledes as part of an aggregator it had set up. Apparently, part of what the NYTimes learned from this episode was that it should go after other aggregators using questionable claims. It's now threatening the site Newser for using a small version of its "T" logo to link to stories from the NY Times. It's pretty difficult to see how this is trademark infringement. Using a small logo hardly implies endorsement. It's just accurately labeling where the news is from. It's difficult to see how that's "confusing" at all. This reminds me of a point made recently by Eric Goldman concerning the AP's "hot news" lawsuit, where he notes that aggregators are put in a tricky position: if they don't properly attribute the content, they may face a copyright infringement lawsuit, but if they do properly attribute the content, they may face a trademark infringement lawsuit. Isn't intellectual property great?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: news, trademark
Companies: newser, ny times

13 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2009 @ 8:10pm

Pick one.
if they don't properly attribute the content, they may face a copyright infringement lawsuit, but if they do properly attribute the content, they may face a trademark infringement lawsuit.

Pick your poison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Poster, 26 Feb 2009 @ 8:29pm
  
  Re: Pick one.
  How about a third option: just don't bother linking to companies who love lawsuits, and linking to someone who knows just a tad bit more about technology than a bunch of old farts?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2009 @ 1:23am
  
  Re: Pick one.
  I'd like a patent infringement suit, with a side of arsenic.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2009 @ 8:14pm

Yes, it IS great but only if you have enough lawyers and money to make all the rules go your way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Duncan Yoyo, 26 Feb 2009 @ 8:22pm

So if they use small plain text they are fine, but if they use a recognizable symbol for the Times to point to the Times they are infringing by driving traffic to them.

They need to beat some sense into their lawyers. Perhaps a short contract permitting the use of logo and a token payment for the Aggregator for driving traffic to the Times website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Poster, 26 Feb 2009 @ 8:29pm
  
  Re:
  How about "no"? Because I'd think Fair Use would cover this sort of usage of a company logo.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Fed up with Big Media, 27 Feb 2009 @ 4:27am
    
    Re: Re:
    Fair Use does cover this sort of thing. however THe Times, or the Associated Press or Gatehouse or whoever will still file the lawsuit and the usually much smaller competitor will have to find the money to defend it.
    
    The American legal system is so screwed up in that you only have rights if you have hundreds or millions of dollars.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
tim, 26 Feb 2009 @ 8:40pm

online freedom union
Why doesn't someone set up an online freedom union, which could be joined by all sorts of sites whos purpose is to aggregate and make available existing content, then, as soon as one of them gets hit with a ridiculous charge like this, all the others would post a few stories on it, and promptly block all stories from the offending company.

result would be huge amount of negative stories and impact, and reduced traffic throughput.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- philippe naylor (profile), 26 Feb 2009 @ 9:58pm
  
  Re: online freedom union
  this union would then just end up carrying out these kinds of actions to serve their own ends and not 'freedom'
  put a bunch of people together to fight for a cause and they end up looking after themselves - it is human nature
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scott, 27 Feb 2009 @ 12:56am

Just boycott 'em
They charge you to read their website anyway. Welcome to the 21st century. I'll get my news from a new media source and to hell with the Times. Why don't they just belly up or become a gossip rag?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jb NYC, 27 Feb 2009 @ 2:17am

The NY Times is about to go belly up. This seems like a desparation move. I for one would love to see them fall. I don't know why anyone reads the lefty publication anyways. That's what they get for being biased.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FunkyMunky, 27 Feb 2009 @ 12:30pm

FARK
Just wait until they try this with FARK (if they haven't already). The negative reaction from that would be immense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fed up with parasites, 20 Mar 2009 @ 12:07am

Why?
Should the NYT give away its content for free? Away from long tails, can anybody explain why? Away from news agregators that just "quote", who is actually gonna pay for credible information generation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]