Thomson Reuters Thinks Not Responding To Their Email Means You've Freely Licensed All Your Content
from the say-what-now? dept
We've seen some unique interpretation of copyright law over the years, but generally the really big companies -- especially content-driven companies -- have semi-decent lawyers. So it's just bizarre and surprising that media giant Thomson Reuters apparently believes that it can license whatever content it wants by merely sending an email and saying that a refusal to respond will be taken as consent that it can use your content. Here's the form letter that Thomson Reuters apparently sent to the Indian site MediaNama, and which it has likely sent to others as well:Now, some of us don't mind when our content is used in this manner -- and let others freely share it. And, there are cases where I think there's a strong fair use case to be made for things like news clippings and the like -- but India doesn't have a broad fair use structure like the US, so that wouldn't apply here. And, of course, by pushing this bizarre "licensing by failure to respond" setup, it would seem like the company is admitting that it thinks it does need to license the content in question.from: n***********@thomsonreuters.com
to: releases@medianama.com
date: Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 6:19 PM
subject: Thomson Reuters – use of your website content
August 20, 2014
MediaNama
MixedBag Media Pvt. Ltd.
20 A Rajpur Road,
Civil Lines, Delhi-110054Dear Sir/Madam,
Thomson Reuters – use of your website content
Thomson Reuters is a global provider of electronic information, committed to providing our customers with comprehensive, timely and reliable information. Our services include the provision of key financial market content to the largest and most diverse group of financial market participants in the world. Our business customers, who include analysts, fund managers, corporate financiers and traders, watch news and prices on more than 300,000 screens linked to a secure private communications network spanning more than 150 countries.
We are writing to seek your consent to use and redistribute certain content from your website (the “Content”), in particular, articles that pertains to companies that have received investment funding from Private Equity firms and other Private Equity related articles, within Thomson Reuters services (the “Services”). For the purpose of this letter Thomson Reuters means the Thomson Reuters Group.1 We may use automated tools in order to identify and obtain such content from your website.
As such the Thomson Reuters group shall have the right to use, incorporate and distribute the Content in its Services to its subscribers and to permit such subscribers to use and redistribute the Content. We are aware that you will be receiving numerous requests of this nature and that asking you to give a response in each case would be burdensome for you. We would ask, therefore, that you respond either to the address or e-mail address given below within 14 days of the date at the head of this letter only if you wish to refuse your consent. Otherwise, Thomson Reuters will presume that your consent has been given for the purposes set out in this letter. Performance by Thomson Reuters under this letter will constitute adequate consideration for the purposes of this letter.
Please do not hesitate to contact us for any further information; for questions and clarifications, you may contact Maria Nikka De Vera, Research Analyst – Private Equity at n***********@thomsonreuters.com.
Yours Faithfully,
Kate Brown
Head of Content Acquisition – EMEA
Reuters Limited1 “Thomson Reuters Group” shall mean any company from time to time under the control of, controlling or under common control with the entity signing this letter and also includes any third party from time to time authorised by Thomson Reuters. For the avoidance of doubt, Thomson Reuters Group shall also include The Thomson Reuters Corporation and any entity from time to time, that is directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by or under common control with Thomson Reuters Corporation. An entity will be deemed to control another entity if it has the power to direct or cause the direction of the management or policies of an entity, whether through the ownership of voting securities, by contract, or otherwise.
So here's the question: if we send Thomson Reuters a similar letter, and the company fails to respond, and then we start reposting Reuters stories on Techdirt, how quickly do you think their lawyers would nastygram us?
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: consent, copyright, licensing
Companies: thomson reuters
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe I should go patent that idea so Intellectual Ventures won't be able to hire 140 people to figure it out?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(Or Disney?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Best thing might be to tack "(XXX Viagra!!!)" onto the subject, so that the recipient's client files it in a spam folder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Send it to an email address you *know* exists.
postmaster@
:>
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is only one way to find out.
Do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Talk about passive aggressive!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A way to deal with trolls?
I intend to view/use/distribute content over which you have rights. If you don't want me to do this, plesae ensure you respond to this notice within 14 days of the date listed above indicating that you affirmatively deny me this permission. Failure to comply with this request within the time specified will result in you granting me the right to use materials identified above in the manner identified above. It is a sincere pleasure doing business with you and I hope not to hear from you for at least 14 days.
Giddily,
ME
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A way to deal with trolls?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How long before the nastygrams?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thompson?Reuters
Merry Christmas, Tom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Don't let copyright get in the way getting the good stories out! I wonder what the Authors Guild would say to that idea?
Tn the case of Reuters material they are usually a tad more specific about who, how and when you can use their material. I guess they have a full-time noticewriter ready for the inevitable flood of such requests they are about to recieve. I am not sure they would stand that well in a lawsuit if what they are complaining about is use of their own "business invention".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anon Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They're going to wait 14 days and then start republishing things as soon as they are posted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where was it sent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where was it sent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where was it sent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh wait, I replied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TR Venn Diagram Logo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@1
in other words ,the phase coil isnt working LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lack of clue about (1) email (2) contracts
2. Apparently their legal staff failed Contracts 101. You cannot have a valid contract without a meeting of the minds, and clearly that's quite impossible here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lack of clue about (1) email (2) contracts
Businesses take every advantage they can, and you would be surprised at how effective this shit actually is!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lack of clue about (1) email (2) contracts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
India Copyright Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: India Copyright Law
India is a signatory to the Berne Convention. Thomson-Reuters is an American-based multinational. If it publishes MediaNama's copyrighted materials online on .com domains without actual permission, it's violating American copyright laws.
You didn't get the talking points on this topic on time again, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: India Copyright Law
I asked because India tends to be an exception to every rule in existence, that is all. I didn't Google it because honestly, I figure someone here (like the author) would know the answer.
Also many companies having many, many shell companies. So could TR have a TR India, and thus do the copying inside India initially, making it subject to Indian law?
See? It's called a valid question. Too bad you are in too much of a hurry to insult me to even bother to consider it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: India Copyright Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: India Copyright Law
Seriously, the only trolling going on here is you on me. You stop, and suddenly there is no more trolling. Amazing! See, you can fix the problem!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: India Copyright Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
do it
When you get the nastygram send them back BOTH letters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I never got your "don't license this" e-mail
Does the other company even have a case to file a lawsuit if their information is used without a license? Or are we talking about companies in India who aren't likely to sue in the first place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While it sounds stupid...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ignorant (or asshole) lawyers do the same thing...
Here's one that claims if THEY mistakenly send it to me, I need to notify some people and "destroy" the email (however that would possibly work in this digital age where everything on my computer is backed up locally and in the cloud). And "any disclosure... is strictly prohibited." by what possible law other than the fear that some might believe this pompous law firm must know what they are talking about and telling the truth.
"This is an email from Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP, Attorneys at Law. This email and any attachments hereto may contain information that is confidential and/or protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. This email is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. Inadvertent disclosure of the contents of this email or its attachments to unintended recipients is not intended to and does not constitute a waiver of attorney-client privilege or attorney work product protections. If you have received this email in error, immediately notify the sender of the erroneous receipt and destroy this email, any attachments, and all copies of same, either electronic or printed. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents or information received in error is strictly prohibited.
Federal tax regulations require us to notify you that any tax advice in this electronic message was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties. "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ignorant (or asshole) lawyers do the same thing...
Oops!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
silence vs. acceptance
"silence, without more, can never constitute acceptance"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can presume whatever you like. But your presumption will be mistaken.
The big thing that strikes me about this letter is that they don't even try to explain why this would benefit MediaNama. What does MediaNama actually get out of this, were they to consent? Name recognition? The letter doesn't even guarantee that they're going to be properly credited. Despite stating that "Performance by Thomson Reuters under this letter will constitute adequate consideration for the purposes of this letter", the letter does not explain how a unilateral granting of rights could be "consideration" for the side granting the rights. You need two sides for a contract; you can't just make the bare declaration that one side is getting something when they're clearly getting nothing. The deal is literally "we get to use your content and distribute it AND all of our parent corporations, child corporations, and customers can do the same. You get nothing."
Perhaps there are cases, but this doesn't appear to be one of them. There's nothing here that says they're only using part of the article or that they're adding commentary or that the use is otherwise transformative. Presumably they're just taking the content, putting it on their private network, and selling access to it, using automated tools so they can get it as soon as possible after it comes out. If this was fair use, there would be no such thing as infringement.
Hmm. I was going to say that American fair use law should apply if they're an American company (it's not like an American can't do a parody of an Indian television show, for example.) But Thomson Reuters does have offices in India, so they probably would have to worry about that. The SPEECH act isn't going to protect you if they can just seize the assets you have in that country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think that's a mistake in a different way. If they'd kept quiet about consideration they could have tried to make it a gift rather than a contract. Still almost certainly invalid, but with much more interesting opportunities to waste time and rack up costs for MediaNama in the hope they give up and settle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is little better than putting a label warning that cigarettes are bad for you on a cigarette package and thinking that you are an honorable person and have done right by your customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I send a random email to an address at Voltage & don't get a reply does this mean I can get the Expendables 3 online without worry?
Then why do they think it is acceptable when they do it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Use of Website Content
Dear Sir/Madam
As we did not reply to your email within the time you specified (14 days) you have now licensed the content of our website.
Congratulations!
The fee for this license, as detailed in the document "Fees for Unilateral Content License" we think you will find very reasonable.
This document, as you should know, can be found in the wall safe of our head office, however, as a service to prospective licensees (we know how busy you are!), we have negated the need for you to actually view the said document, or indeed, to even know of its contents.
Accordingly, an invoice has been sent to your accounts department for:
License fee - $1,000,000
per published word - $1,000 (to be determined upon viewing your published works)
As an introductory gift, we will not include the words 'the' 'and' 'of' in our determination of your obligation to us, only copies of other individual words found on our website.
Welcome Aboard!
Yours etc.
Greedy News.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomson-reuters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reuters Censorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My version of the email
Yes, I added a section from the ToS of the New York Times, simply because it's the grabbiest one I could remember.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My version of the email
[ link to this | view in chronology ]