Rewriting An AP Story Just To Show We Can

from the come-and-get-us dept

Mon, Aug 10th 2009 2:54pm — Mike Masnick

Kevin Stapp writes "As I was browsing some news this morning I actually read one story all the way to the bottom (a rare thing nowadays). The story itself wasn't nearly as interesting as the Associated Press' Copyright notice at the very bottom:

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

It is the next to the last claim I found troubling. The AP apparently believes copyright allows it to claim that a news story can't be rewritten. That claim strikes me as rather far reaching because the majority of the story is simply restated facts. I reviewed each paragraph of the story (I'll simply number them here) to see which parts of the story are 'unique expressions' and which are simply statements of fact that are not subject to copyright.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-08-07-kennedy-shriver_N.htm

1. Fact. Simple biographical data

2. Fact. Quote from a family spokeperson

3. Fact. Information provided by spokesperson for California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger

4. Fact. News of strokes previously reported. Kennedy compound location is widely known.

5. Observation by the reporter so not a fact.

6. Fact. Simple biographical data

7 & 8. Quote from another news source so AP has no claim to it. If anything the quote is the copyright of eunicekennedyshriver.org,

8 & 9 Fact. Multiple sources can be found regarding Shriver's involvement with the Special Olympics.

Eight of the nine paragraphs of this story are factual information that could be obtained from multiple sources and yet the Associated Press claims copyright prohibits anyone from rewriting this story.

So here's my version of the story rewritten without the Associated Press' permission:

According to a press release from eunicekennedyshriver.org, Eunice Kennedy Shriver is critical but stable condition at a Cape Cod Hospital. Ms. Shriver is attended by her husband, children and grandchildren. (http://www.eunicekennedyshriver.org/press).

Eunice Mary Kennedy Shriver was born July 10, 1921 and is a member of the Kennedy family. She is the fifth of nine children of Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. and Rose Kennedy. Senator Edward Kennedy and Jean Kennedy Smith are her only surviving siblings. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunice_Kennedy_Shriver)

Senator Kennedy remarked in a video interview that his sister Eunice always "strived to be the best" in a very competitive family. "She in many respects has made such an extraordinary difference in the lives of so many people...", he said. http://www.eunicekennedyshriver.org/videos/video/15

Ms Shriver is known for her efforts on behalf of the disabled and founded the Special Olympics which she serves as an honorary chairperson. http://www.eunicekennedyshriver.org/bios/eks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunice_Kennedy_Shriver

You can't copyright facts nor can you claim copyright limits anyone's right to restate the facts."

We await the AP's response.

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: copyright, eunice kennedy shriver, rewriting

55 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Poster, 10 Aug 2009 @ 2:58pm

The AP's response will be to sue you and Kevin Stapp for copyright violations and for proving just how unnecessary the AP really is.

Can't have people knowing they're not needed, now, can they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2009 @ 2:59pm

I don't know which is more childish: the attitude or the baiting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2009 @ 3:10pm
  
  Re:
  I'll agree the baiting is a little childish, but most problems are only fixed when people challenge them, look at the old lady who was too childish to sit in the back of the bus and helped spark a revolution.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2009 @ 3:27pm
    
    Re: Re:
    If you think this measures up, well, go for it. I just think it is the childish rantings of a grown man who isn't getting his way and can't seem to bait the AP into calling him an a--clown.
    
    Too Much Free Time indeed Mike!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2009 @ 3:55pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The irony is thick indeed.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JJ, 10 Aug 2009 @ 3:34pm
  
  Re:
  Yes, I agree, the AP's actions here are incredibly childish, claiming falsely that its against copyright to rewrite a story. Not to mention their attempts to threaten others for rewriting those stories. Very very childish.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2009 @ 3:39pm
    
    Re: Re:
    haha. Obviously you don't know the concept of "standard copyright notice" on a website, appearing on every page after every article. Mike just happened to pick an item that could easily be re-written, as it contains only very basic information.
    
    Nobody is attempting to copyright facts, Mike is once again desperately trying to spin a molehill into a mountain. I expect links and perhaps 50 more slides at his next presentation about this one.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DJ (profile), 10 Aug 2009 @ 4:24pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Mike is simply posting, with permission, Kevin Stapp's article.
      
      If you can't see the details, don't argue the points.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2009 @ 8:51pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The AP attempts to do just that, copyright facts, on a daily basis. Or have you not been paying attention? If you're going to troll properly, at least pick at something that isn't going to make you look a complete idiot.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2009 @ 9:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yawn.
        
        They are copyrighting the story as a whole, as presented. Any "facts" or "opinions" that might appear ONLY in their story cannot be reused. You can write another story using the same facts (provided you can come up with the sources).
        
        Since you cannot copyright facts, the whole discussion is remarkably meaningless. LIke I said before, it is a childish attempt to bait AP into an answer, something that I would think would be below Mike and his friends to try.
        
        Can you smell the desperation because AP won't talk to them anymore? What ever will they write about?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 11 Aug 2009 @ 3:38am
        
        Yawn
        "What ever will they write about?"
        
        Hopefully nothing that would invite you to comment on.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        hegemon13, 11 Aug 2009 @ 7:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Any "facts" or "opinions" that might appear ONLY in their story cannot be reused."
        
        Wrong. Facts cannot be copyrighted no matter where they appear. Get YOUR facts straight.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
BullJustin (profile), 10 Aug 2009 @ 3:06pm

You forgot one important part
Copyright 2009 The People of the World. This material may not be restricted, protected, or withheld without written permission by a majority of the world populace
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- inc, 10 Aug 2009 @ 8:33pm
  
  Re: You forgot one important part
  sounds like a cult
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2009 @ 3:19pm

Res Publica Non Dominetur!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2009 @ 3:23pm
  
  Re:
  Off topic, I know, but... Harvard Professor Henry Gates Jr. (yes, that one) was also in that advert.
  
  Classic.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
SteelWolf (profile), 10 Aug 2009 @ 3:40pm

Always AC
I love how the people most insulting to Mike are the Anonymous Cowards. Such a fitting default name. The AP has been ridiculously shortsighted, childish, and determined to drive itself to irrelevancy as fast as possible. They deserve to be called out as many times and in as many ways as possible, before their misinformation campaign gets enough traction for Anonymous Cowards like yourself to start claiming AP does have some kind of copyright on facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- here is my name now bite me, 10 Aug 2009 @ 3:55pm
  
  Re: Always AC
  ALways AC? What, because I use "steelwolf" i am suddenly smarter?
  
  Puuuuleeez!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Guy One, 10 Aug 2009 @ 4:03pm
    
    Re: Re: Always AC
    Yup, smarter than you! 1 click got me his first and last name Michael Castello... not an AC at all.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Not Mike really not mike., 10 Aug 2009 @ 4:13pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Always AC
      That is assuming that the name matches the poster. I could put techdirt.com in my posts and claim to be Mike. WOuld that help?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2009 @ 4:17pm
    
    Re: Re: Always AC
    Don't worry, you're safe, even if you use "steelwolf".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ScaredOfTheMan, 10 Aug 2009 @ 3:43pm

When did the Shills show up?
IS it just me (and Always AC) or have a whole bunch of pro copyright, pro **AA, control good, freedom bad people started show up in the comment section?

Welcome new found friends.... welcome I say.

What motivates you I wonder?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DJ (profile), 10 Aug 2009 @ 4:32pm
  
  Re: When did the Shills show up?
  You know, it truly is nice to have intelligent discourse with those who have an opposite opinion on topics.
  
  Key word: intelligent.
  
  Regardles of your opinion, when you start slinging mud, the only thing you accomplish is pissing people off (and yes I understand that sometimes that's the entire purpose).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ScaredOfTheMan, 10 Aug 2009 @ 3:44pm

When did the Shills show up?
IS it just me (and Always AC) or have a whole bunch of pro copyright, pro **AA, control good, freedom bad people started show up in the comment section?

Welcome new found friends.... welcome I say.

What motivates you I wonder?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Erik E. (profile), 10 Aug 2009 @ 3:52pm

To AC
AC said: "Obviously you don't know the concept of "standard copyright notice" on a website, appearing on every page after every article. Mike just happened to pick an item that could easily be re-written, as it contains only very basic information."

Obviously you haven't read the news....... ever. ALL news stories outside the opinion pages are factual stories regurgitating facts and are therefore un-copyrightable. Mike didn't have to go searching for an article, any random article would suffice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DJ (profile), 10 Aug 2009 @ 4:35pm
  
  Re: To AC
  That's not completely true, either. If it were, re-broadcasting sports games wouldn't be copyrightable. Most news stories include some sort of interpretation by the reporter so they can legally copyright the whole story. F-ing loopholes....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
PRMan, 10 Aug 2009 @ 3:53pm

The AP article is better...
Otherwise, I wouldn't have known that she had a series of strokes...

You CAN rewrite it, but in this case you missed one of the 5 Ws, a cardinal sin of reporting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- minijedimaster (profile), 10 Aug 2009 @ 4:56pm
  
  Re: The AP article is better...
  Great job missing the point. Brilliant!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Urza9814, 10 Aug 2009 @ 3:55pm

Hmmm...
So apparently when my high school english teacher told me that you have to rewrite things in your own words and cite sources they were encouraging us to violate copyright law?

Yea, the AP is full of shit. If you can't rewrite things then scholarly papers as we know them would be nonexistant. You couldn't write a paper about anything at all without every bit of it being your own research.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DJ (profile), 10 Aug 2009 @ 4:39pm
  
  Re: Hmmm...
  It is perfectly legal to quote anything you want, anywhere you want, as long as you:
  
  1) quote it ACCURATELY (i.e. in the same spirit as the original)
  
  2) correctly cite the source
  
  If you don't do BOTH of those things, it's infringement and/or plagiarism.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michial Thompson, 10 Aug 2009 @ 4:18pm

Sad ramblings of a little boy looking for attention
Pretty sad article Mike, I see you have to go to baiting AP to get attention since most of the comments seem to have turned against you.

BTW to all the AC's out here, not once have I hidden my identity, and rarely do I ever agree with Mikee... Most of his articles do nothing more than twist the truth around to try to further his agenda of a free everything world....

Can't wait until he turns hypocrite and starts suing others for copying his work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DJ (profile), 10 Aug 2009 @ 4:42pm
  
  Re: Sad ramblings of a little boy looking for attention
  "...Mike, I see you have to go to baiting AP...."
  
  Michial Thompson, I see that THE FIRST THREE WORDS OF THE ARTICLE, "Kevin Stapp writes", were completely lost upon you.
  
  Again, if you can't see the details, don't argue the points.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - minijedimaster (profile), 10 Aug 2009 @ 5:00pm
    
    Re: Re: Sad ramblings of a little boy looking for attention
    LOL! Michial Thompson=Epic Fail
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2009 @ 5:47pm
  
  Re: Sad ramblings of a little boy looking for attention
  Free everything? Most of what I have seen condemns, or at least cautions against most blind free offers. (Well physical free offers, and 'hey this is free, now give me something please'). Well who knew it was so easy to be mislead by reading the articles.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- R. Miles (profile), 11 Aug 2009 @ 6:12am
  
  Re: Sad ramblings of a little boy looking for attention
  Most of his articles do nothing more than twist the truth around to try to further his agenda of a free everything world....
  Thank goodness my intelligence doesn't accept this rhetoric.
  
  I've yet to see you prove his articles are wrong.
  
  I don't agree in some cases either, but most of what he writes is dead on.
  
  Take the blinders off and quit believing the propaganda shoveled to you and you may just see it.
  
  Some of his ideas may be... unique, but don't discredit them so easily.
  
  To date: I've yet to see any distributor fully accept the internet as a tool, but instead uses it as a cash cow. When that fails (and it will always fail), they turn and blame it for their woes.
  
  This is fact, Michial. Not twisted truth.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2009 @ 4:19pm

Mike I think they might have already cleaned up that article because I was only able to find 5 paragraphs(if you can even call them that) Are you sure your link to the USA today article is still accurate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- rwahrens (profile), 11 Aug 2009 @ 7:38am
  
  Re:
  Yes, they did. Among other things, they removed the reporter's observation, per Mike's item #5. EVERY paragraph, most of which are simple sentences, now contain pure facts, certainly verifiable by Mike's links in his rewritten version.
  
  Nothing unique in that article now at all.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steelwolf, 10 Aug 2009 @ 4:22pm

Please STOP abusing my copyrighted handle!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree with you but, 10 Aug 2009 @ 4:25pm

Fact: Making your point in this way makes you seem childish and points to the fact that you are a schmucky schmuck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Will, 10 Aug 2009 @ 4:39pm
  
  Re:
  Actually, I'm pretty sure calling anything childish is an opinion that is based on your social surroundings and experiences.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- minijedimaster (profile), 10 Aug 2009 @ 5:02pm
  
  Re:
  Making your point in what way? By linking to what someone else wrote?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kevin Stapp (profile), 10 Aug 2009 @ 5:00pm

Missing
Many of those posting comments criticizing Mike should instead direct those at me. I wrote it, not Mike. The purpose of this post isn't to bait AP but to highlight how the AP is attempting to stretch copyright to far beyond the intent of the law. You cannot write an article that is mainly a restatement of public information (facts) then claim copyright forbids anyone from rewriting those facts.

The purpose of this post was to point out how media (not just the AP) is abusing (or at least attempting to abuse) copyright to limit competition and to assert ownership over material they to which they have no legal claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DJ (profile), 10 Aug 2009 @ 5:05pm
  
  Re: Missing
  THANK YOU! I find it terribly ironic how several AC's tend to claim that this site does nothing but bash copyrights/patents/etc., and here they are bashing Mike for something that someone else said.
  
  For you irony junkies out there, this whole comment string should be a veritable feast.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2009 @ 5:49pm
    
    Re: Re: Missing
    Effectively, Mike stole someone else's work, which makes him a master baiter.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DJ (profile), 10 Aug 2009 @ 6:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Missing
      A) if your neighbor let's you have a cup of sugar, you didn't steal it.
      
      B)what would the internet be without trollers?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Kevin Stapp (profile), 10 Aug 2009 @ 7:15pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Missing
      No, I posted this to Techdirt's story submittion page. Nothing was stolen because I don't own any of the content.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 10 Aug 2009 @ 5:03pm

Bait away...
So what? Let Mike bait AP. Will they rise (or sink) to the challenge? I doubt it.

They're officially not discussing their policy anymore, so I would imagine this would preclude them from jumping into the fray.

I would imagine they don't have many fans left at this point, much like other entities who have opted to maintain profits thru lawsuits. It would be entertaining if they did, if only to further the amount of cluelessness a supposed "higher journalism" entity displays in its pursuit of money for nothing.

What are the benefits of the high road at this point? You obviously won't find the discourse there as AP has already proven it will play dirtier than anyone else in the field.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DJ (profile), 10 Aug 2009 @ 5:06pm
  
  Re: Bait away...
  "So what? Let Mike bait AP."
  
  Go back and read THE FIRST THREE WORDS OF THE ARTICLE again.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 10 Aug 2009 @ 5:15pm
    
    Re: Re: Bait away...
    I sit corrected.
    
    Let Mike help Kevin bait AP.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alias (profile), 10 Aug 2009 @ 5:13pm

Haw Haw!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another AC, 11 Aug 2009 @ 5:06am

Some of you call it baiting
i would call it making a pretty serious point regarding all the BS the AP has been stirring while up trying to bail out the of the titanic with a dixie cup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sean, 11 Aug 2009 @ 6:43am

It seems most of you don't even read the posts, so why come to this blog if you don't read the posts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Idiot, 11 Aug 2009 @ 7:22am

Re: Michial Thompson
Congratulations! Have a 'You miss the point!' award.

Firstly, Mike was freely linked to the story by Kevin in this case.

Secondly, the AP article clearly states that the facts included cannot be rewritten.

And finally, Mike has never said free is always better; he has stated repeatedly that free is better as a part of a business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Croson, 11 Aug 2009 @ 9:35am

I see some parallels...
to the music industry.

The news industry has been suffering as of late, because of the blogosphere, declining readership, etc etc.

If you as a webmaster want to syndicate news from these sources, you must first subscribe. Probably fair, since they do pay to have these stories created...but my syndication produces traffic to their site, which could produce revenue in the way of advertising dollars.

Isn't it a bit like a recent request from an un-named musician to glean more from the radio stations that play their music?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sheogorath (profile), 1 Sep 2012 @ 6:39pm

@ Steelwolf
"Please STOP abusing my copyrighted handle!!!"
That's impossible because we can't stop what we never started. Handles/names cannot be copyrighted because they're de minimis under that section of IP law. If you were to claim your handle as an unregistered trademark, however...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]