hawkman — 2012-08-12T18:39:41-04:00 — #1
And at the end of the article I was reading, it said:
"Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed."
What's bugging me is, considering that you are not allowed to rewrite, or even redistribute, how come sites like digg aren't neck deep in lawsuits?
I would think Digg's model (and that of similar sites like reddit) falls under "redistribution".
atyqinc — 2012-08-12T19:32:14-04:00 — #2
Because digg, Google or other websites that work by analyzing content just publish a part of the content and show a link to allow the user to read the original article.
Yes, the Washington Post can delete their content from digg or other websites, because they own this content. But it they delete these links and content, that would drop their visites.
Hope it will be helpful...
hawkman — 2012-08-14T08:29:55-04:00 — #3
I was under the impression that links on Digg, Slashdot, Reddit etc. were user submitted. And those respective web sites make (or attempt to make) money indirectly off the content of the publishers they link to (or at least the big publishers might view it that way, even though the small publishers might be happy with getting exposure). Are websites like Digg protected against lawsuits by copyright legislation? I work for a newspaper and they allow quoting up to 300 characters as long as the source is mentioned. But they are not located in the US and besides that may be their policy. I am more interested in what is considered "fair use".
Some links to recommended legislation in the US would be good.
dissident — 2012-08-14T13:11:07-04:00 — #4
"May not be published..redistributed" - this really means a substantial part can not be published or redistributed. Under copyright law generally you can publish up to 10% of the article. Google/Reddit links and summary come into this category. Even if this was not the case, it's up to the Washington Post. It's in their best interest to have links on these sites, so they allow them. When they say you can not publish or redistribute, what they really mean is you can not publish or redistribute without their permission, and they are giving implicit permission to these sites.
mikl — 2012-08-24T08:50:43-04:00 — #5
It's not strictly true that the law allows a certain percentage, or a certain number of words, to be reproduced. Rather, the fair use (or "fair dealing") provision allows limited extracts of a work to be copied for the purposes of review or research, provided it does not have an adverse effect on the potential market or value of the original work. (The details vary from country to country, but the above applies in the US and elsewhere.)
It is that provision that Digg, etc., will be relying on. If it came to court, they could argue that their actions are not taking business away from the original publisher, and so the publisher would have no case against them.
snickn — 2012-08-24T09:02:10-04:00 — #6
In the end, the newspapers need these sites, these 'viral' news sites send them traffic, and they are in no position right now to limit the traffic opportunities. They won't want you to re-publish it in full form, but as long as they are doing it in a manner that sends them traffic, they will never be complaining.