AP Claims Copyright Over Manning's Request For Pardon

from the really-now? dept

Fri, Aug 23rd 2013 1:25pm — Mike Masnick

The Associated Press, which does not have the greatest history when it comes to respecting fair use, has posted a copy of the letter that Chelsea Manning sent to President Obama, requesting a pardon. If you haven't read the letter, it's worth reading. Here's a snippet:

In our zeal to kill the enemy, we internally debated the definition of torture. We held individuals at Guantanamo for years without due process. We inexplicably turned a blind eye to torture and executions by the Iraqi government. And we stomached countless other acts in the name of our war on terror.

Patriotism is often the cry extolled when morally questionable acts are advocated by those in power. When these cries of patriotism drown out any logically based dissension, it is usually the American soldier that is given the order to carry out some ill-conceived mission.

Our nation has had similar dark moments for the virtues of democracy - the Trail of Tears, the Dred Scott decision, McCarthyism, and the Japanese-American internment camps - to mention a few. I am confident that many of the actions since 9/11 will one day be viewed in a similar light.

But what struck me is that the AP page, which is nothing more than a reprint of Manning's letter with a single sentence explaining what it is at the top, contains a massively overbearing copyright notice right beneath the letter, which is an extreme form of copyfraud:

© 2013 THE ASSOCIATED PRESS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THIS MATERIAL MAY NOT BE PUBLISHED, BROADCAST, REWRITTEN OR REDISTRIBUTED. Learn more about our PRIVACY POLICY and TERMS OF USE.

Nearly all of that is bullshit. The copyright on the letter does not belong to the AP. And, yes, the work can be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed within the confines of fair use. It's a shame that the AP is so aggressive on copyrights that it's even claiming someone else's work as its own -- in a case where the AP itself is certainly relying on fair use for the right to publish the letter in the first place.

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: bradley manning, chelsea manning, copyright, pardon

28 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

GMacGuffin (profile), 23 Aug 2013 @ 1:19pm

You think that's outrageous ...
When you click on the copyright notice, the entirety of which is a link, it brings up a ad pop-under. A pop-under!

Yo, AP: The only reason to endure pop-under ads is for free software or porn.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Aug 2013 @ 1:34pm

From the really-now? dept
�an extreme form of copyfraud�

It's �an extreme form of copyfraud� when the AP issues a DMCA takedown notice.

Until then, it's kind of a yawner.

Truth is, when I clicked to read more here, I was expecting to read about the AP issuing another DMCA take-down. I'm not sure that I'm disappointed to find out that isn't what the story is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Aug 2013 @ 1:49pm

Re: From the really-now? dept
The problem with the AP take down notices under the DMCA is generally that they overreach and don't recognize any fair use of their work.

The problem with this is claiming copyright over something that demonstrably is not their work.

I would view false claims of copyright as more extreme, myself. As it stands, there is at least some chance that they could submit a valid DMCA notice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nic42 (profile), 23 Aug 2013 @ 1:52pm

So.. does this mean AP will now go after Manning for sending their copyrighted work to the President?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Aug 2013 @ 1:56pm

Re: Re: From the really-now? dept
at least some chance that they could submit a valid DMCA notice.

How could they submit a valid DMCA notice on Manning's letter?

Obviously, I don't mean how could they submit a notice �I was expecting this story was about them taking that action� but how could it be valid?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Frankz (profile), 23 Aug 2013 @ 1:59pm

meh
It's boilerplate notice they auto stick on every single one of their pages.
Not worth reporting on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Aug 2013 @ 2:02pm

The notice that seems to raise the hackles of the author here is standard filler associated with all of the AP's articles. By no means does its appearance represent an attempt by the AP to claim rights in the letter, which it acknowledges was prepared by Manning.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Aug 2013 @ 2:03pm

Re: Re: Re: From the really-now? dept
I read your comment as being more general in scope and replied with the same generalization. My fault; I misunderstood your statement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 23 Aug 2013 @ 2:04pm

Re:
The notice that seems to raise the hackles of the author here is standard filler associated with all of the AP's articles.

That doesn't make it appropriate. Just more egregious.

By no means does its appearance represent an attempt by the AP to claim rights in the letter,

Then it shouldn't have the notice on there implying the exact opposite.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Aug 2013 @ 2:05pm

Re: meh
It's boilerplate notice they auto stick on

In other words, it doesn't really provide any kind of �notice� to a reader. It has no functional purpose. It's just decorative.

�

�

You think a judge would see it that way�as just decorative?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crade (profile), 23 Aug 2013 @ 2:46pm

Re:
It's not attempt to claim rights in the letter, it is a statement that they own the copyright on the letter. The fact that they claim copyright on everything means they are more fraudulent, not less.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Secret Hero, 23 Aug 2013 @ 2:51pm

Incentive
If you copy this letter without paying a royalty, what incentive will AP have to create other letters like this one?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gorehound (profile), 23 Aug 2013 @ 2:53pm

Asshole Pricks !
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Aug 2013 @ 3:10pm

Actually if you click on a few stories on the APC website you'll not find that notice on the bottom.
If you do let us know, I got bored after 10 or so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Aug 2013 @ 3:16pm

Re:
Actually it is there, but only if you click through the big banner at the top.
If you click the sidebar stories it's not there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DB (profile), 23 Aug 2013 @ 3:19pm

Automated addition of copyright claims is pretty common in computer programs.

An egregious case was /bin/true in Unix. It can be implemented as an zero-length file, but was originally implemented as a single blank line. Almost every commercial Unix took this empty file and tacked on a copyright notice. Some had up to five notices.

I always hoped that there would be a court ruling that such blatant automated blind copyright claims made all similar claims invalid. Copyright is only properly applied to creative work. An mechanically added claim is the opposite of that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Aug 2013 @ 3:23pm

so, not doubting the truth in what you say, why isn't/doesn't someone take AP to court over it? this complete and utter fuck up, instigated by numb nuts in congress who are more concerned with what they can get out of something than doing their damn job, needs sorting out, once and for all!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Aug 2013 @ 3:43pm

If It Is Not Registered, Then it Isn�t Copyrighted. Just saying it is copyrighted is not enough to stand up in any court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
James Burkhardt (profile), 23 Aug 2013 @ 3:49pm

Re:
Actually, copyright is automatic you don't even need to claim it. But you can't get statutory damages with out registration.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CommonSense (profile), 23 Aug 2013 @ 4:27pm

Re: Re: meh
It could just be there to cover that one sentence that they added to it....though, it's likely that they don't mind people thinking it means the whole page...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sign Me Up!, 24 Aug 2013 @ 1:02am

Clemency For Manning (Petition)
Here's the White House petition asking for clemency for Manning:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/restore-united-states�-human-rights-record-and -grant-clemency-pvt-bradley-manning/L7zHZv4r
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2013 @ 4:02am

It's Chelsea, bitch.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2013 @ 6:06am

Clemency For Chelsea
Not sure what gender nouns to use.
this individual has lost It, fortunately for the Military
Chelsea kept it together for the trial, At times the press is dim-witted but If Chelsea was present as chelsea at the trial, after all the laughter the question would be asked, How much pressure was put on chelsea, 3 years of solitary confinment, probably a 24 hour suicide watch. No privacy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shon Gale, 24 Aug 2013 @ 7:46am

Fear does horrible things.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2013 @ 7:58am

Re:
And ICE will raid the Whitehouse because there is infringing content on their email servers?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2013 @ 8:20am

Re:
"is standard filler associated with all of the AP's articles"
- Oh, well that makes it ok then.

" By no means does its appearance represent an attempt by the AP to claim rights in the letter, "
- Yeah, right.

There was an effort not long ago where certain media conglomerates wanted to be given all rights to whatever content they broadcast or otherwise publish. What happened to that, is it still a thing? It was called something like broadcast rights. For example, if they were to broadcast a picture of Grumpy Cat then they would all of a sudden be awarded copyright on all uses of same. Or maybe I am not remembering this correctly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bios, 24 Aug 2013 @ 8:31pm

Re: meh
Funny thing is, it isn't. I checked a couple other articles and such a notice was lacking.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2013 @ 6:03am

Re: Re:
No, it the real world where general rules of universal applicability must be promulgated for assisting a workforce, virtually all of whom never step foot into the office of legal counsel, the application of copyright notices is often one such general rule.

The law is never perfect, and such imperfection is recognized within its structure. Notices is one such area where some legal slack is provided. In the perfect world this issue would never arise because those applying notices would be legal experts. Alas, perfection is an impossible goal, and for those here who expect such then they miss an immutable frailty of persons.

Had the AP laid a formal claim to the letter as a work for which it retained the full panoply of rights, attribution would never have been mentioned. If one is inclined to dismiss explicit attribution, then it seems to me that such a person is inclined to uses "opportunities" such as this as a reed, no matter how slender, to denigrate copyright law in general. IMHO, this reed is about as slender as they come, its diameter being sub-nanometer at best.
[ link to this | view in thread ]