Comments on: What the AP and other content producers should do to protect their content

By: Jason Preston

Jason Preston — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:09:07 +0000

Mathew – I’m actually *not* talking about Google. Not only is most of what they do “fair use,” they’re also an AP member, so the AP can go stuff their complaints, because Google is paying the fee.

Goog: “How much to do this?

AP: “400k”

Goog: “OK.”

AP: “Hey, how come your doing this?”

Goog: “WTF? I paid you!”

By: Mathew Ingram

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:23:48 +0000

Well, if we’re talking about Google, they aren’t presenting excerpts as an original work — it’s an information service, like a directory or index — nor are they making money directly from those excerpts. Courts have already found that Google’s image search is fair use, so I don’t see why they wouldn’t apply the same test to Google News.

By: Jason Preston

Jason Preston — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 05:18:12 +0000

Mathew – It’s true, Fair Use is a valid legal concept, and a tricky one. I don’t have enough legal background to give you a strong answer, but I suspect that sooner or later a case will need to go to the courts.

My basic assumption, however, is that you can’t simply present a whole bunch of “fair use” excerpts as an original work.

To use an old media analogy, I don’t think I could simply take a couple sentences from a hundred or so different books, bind them up, and sell them as my own work (could I?) – or at the very least, people wouldn’t think of it as a legitimate business idea.

By: Mathew Ingram

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 03:28:43 +0000

Jason, you mention the AP (or anyone else who produces content) paying people to “look at the sites where your content is being republished, in whole or in part.” What about fair use? Isn’t that how Google News justifies what it does, because it only uses short excerpts?

By: Jaclyn

Jaclyn — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:59:50 +0000

Jason, I think you’re right about small regional papers, but I can’t see this model working for newspapers that are major content producers like the Chicago Tribune or the Boston Globe.

Another thing I’m thinking is: when would you begin to charge? Obviously a site doesn’t generate money just from linking an article once. Do you see this as a pay-per-article model?

By: Jason Preston

Jason Preston — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:21:10 +0000

Thanks Jacyln –

I think this is much more a solution for the AP than for many newspapers, but in short: absolutely. Think about it; you pay one or two people a living wage (expense: ~100,000/yr) to keep tabs on which online publishing businesses are repurposing and reprinting your content.

Their job is to track those sites down and negotiate a contract with them so that you get a revenue stream. Say they each locate a really low number (4) sites that then sign up for a 60k/yr licensing agreement. These employees are making the paper money already.

For a small regional paper, I think content theft is less common, and the position less necessary. In a sense, the bigger you are, the more worth it it is, AND the more of a problem it is.

Seems handy that way.

By: Jaclyn

Jaclyn — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:39:08 +0000

Jason, I really like this solution. It’s not a one size fits all and I like where you draw the line — seems to make sense. But the enforcement isn’t easy. Are newspapers with dwindling revenues really going to make sure their budgets pay an individual or a company to see if they should be charging for their content when it is used?