AP Will Sell You A License To Words It Has No Right To Sell
from the why-not? dept
Last year, you may recall, we pointed out that the Associated Press had a laughable sliding scale price if you wanted to copy and use more than 4 words (the first 4 free!). After that, it cost $12.50 for 5 to 25 words. This, of course, ignores fair use, which (and, yes, it does depend on the circumstances) almost certainly would let most people quote more than 4 words without having to pay. But, of course, it gets worse. Boing Boing points us to a little experiment by James Grimmelmann, testing out the AP's text licensing system, where he discovers that you can put any text you want into the calculator, and the AP will gladly sell you a license. So, just for fun, Grimmelmann paid $12 for a license to a (public domain) quote from Thomas Jefferson, culled not from the AP, but from Jefferson's famous letter to Isaac McPherson, where he warns of the excesses of intellectual monopolies:![](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3553/3783346365_b25a0291bc.jpg)
And, of course, there are similarly ridiculous situations, such as Dave Zatz finding out that it will cost himself $25 to quote himself (thanks johnjac). The AP keeps making a mockery of itself.
Of course, the AP has put out a statement, basically mimicking the one it put out last year, saying that the icopyright stuff is not intended for bloggers. But then who is it intended for? Considering that the AP has threatened bloggers in the past for quoting its words, the whole thing seems bizarre. So you can rely on fair use if you're a blogger, but not... if you're something else? How does that make sense? I've read through our copyright laws more than a few times, and I don't recall the clause that says "fair use applies to bloggers, but not others."
Update: As a few people have pointed out, after all the media attention, the AP "revoked" the license. Note the language. They didn't apologize. They didn't admit error. They didn't admit awful technology and a silly policies. They "revoked" a license they had no right to sell in the first place. At least they gave him his money back.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
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: bloggers, copyright, fair use, licenses, news, public domain
Companies: associated press
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"I have a bridge to sell you" is a phrase originally used in an AP article originally produced in 1875. You now owe us $[value]%/6QqrCrapSoftwareError
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So...
Is it just me or does it seem that the AP doesn't even realize that they are quickly becoming the RIAA of the News Industry?
I doubt they would see that as a bad thing in light of the last few rulings in favor of the RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike (or somebody else), you should enter your own article into the AP's form, and buy from the AP a license to your own writing. Then, when one of those scammy "news" sites (the ones that just republish all techdirt's stuff without attribution) republishes your article, you can report them to the AP for violating the AP's copyright on your work. If AP doesn't go after them, then you can sue the AP for, oh, how about: diluting the value of the license you purchased by failing to protect their IP!
Fun fun fun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
refund
http://laboratorium.net/archive/2009/08/03/license_revoked
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As a newspaper pal of mine recently said...
Evil-kudos to whoever sold them on the idea that each word published by the AP is worth $2.50. I suppose there's a sucker born every minute. Wait... is this iCopyright thing really just a brilliantly executed satire?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"A hearing on Michael"
"Jackson's estate has ended"
"with the two men named"
"in the pop icon's"
"will retaining control of"
"his financial affairs"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: commenting on your comment
I'm visualizing a jury trying to decide if enough time has passed between each 4 word quote for it to be considered a separate quote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's the big deal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fraud?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, all this Fair Use stuff is confusing me...
"Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work."
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
And this is where I get dizzy: if the copyright does not extend to the idea or the factual information, what is it that AP is claiming? The string of words and sentences that make up a story? Isn't AP a news gathering/reporting entity. From what I remember, news stories are supposed to be factual (FOX, your copyright claims are not in jeopardy). So is it the gathering of the information that the AP is claiming, or are they failing the standard by which copyright is based?
Ugh. I'm going to go lie down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greed?
So sad. AP used to have morals, guess the all-mighty dollar overwrites them now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Revoke!
Oh the weather outside is frightful, (but I can't talk about it because it's copyrighted)
But the fire is so delightful, (since I'm burning newspapers)
And since we've no place to go,
Let It [censored]! Let It [censored]! Let It [censored]! (Copyrighted words removed at bequest of AP)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is the AP allowed to revoke licenses without notice?
* Issue a license and wait for buyer to publish
* Revoke the License
* Sue
* Profit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
great post
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
With the new changes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
reply this topic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not that many in the content business are raging hypocrites or anything...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]