AP Licensing Fees Exposed as Rumor

A story circulated throughout the blogosphere this past July claimed the Associated Press had begun charging Internet aggregators and other blogging sites for using direct quotes taken from AP stories. The story, however, was subsequently exposed as false by the Columbia Journalism Review.

Before revealed as untrue, the story went viral with the help of the Woot.com Web site. The company issued a press release in July trumpeting its purchase by Amazon. Portions of that release were picked up in an AP story. Woot wittily responded:

“The AP, we can’t thank you enough for looking our way. You see, when we showed off our good news on Wednesday afternoon, we expected we'd get a little bit of attention. But when we found your little newsy thing you do, we couldn’t help but notice something important. And that something is this: you printed our Web content in your article! The Web content that came from our blog! Why, isn’t that the very thing you’ve previously told nu-media bloggers they're not supposed to do?”

While Woot made light of the perceived situation, some bloggers were a bit more incredulous about the AP licensing fee. “Fair is fair,” said political cartoonist Drake Dunaway. “If they, Woot, are trademarked and copyrighted, then they do bring up legal matters. Then again, Woot had not instituted a pricing scheme for AP to view. Of course, if the matter exceeded $20 in court, then Woot could sue. The U.S. Constitution gives plaintiffs the right to redress in all matters in excess of 20 bucks.”

Who Needs a License?
Columbia Journalism Review staff writer and former Wall Street Journal reporter Ryan Chittum noted this past July, “There’s a form online where you can license AP content. Who needs a license? Somebody who wants to use them for things like reprints, which media organizations have long charged for. In other words, if you’re a small business mentioned favorably in an AP story and you want to feature that quote on your Web site or in your newsletter, you have to pay for a reprint license. That’s nothing new, and the AP has made it explicit that the licensing service ‘is not aimed at bloggers.’”

Chittum explained the misunderstanding stemmed from a 2008 kerfuffle between AP and Web aggregator Drudge Retort. The AP sent the site takedown notices when it noticed Drudge Retort was reprinting either entire stories or portions of AP stories ranging from 39 to 79 words. The site’s Rogers Cadenhead complied with the AP’s request to take down intact stories, but blanched at removing seven excerpted stories because he considered they fell under the fair use doctrine.

The AP eventually backed away from legal action, but maintained its position the Drudge Retort should remove the seven stories in question. “We don’t want to cast a pall over the blogosphere by being heavy-handed, so we have to figure out a better and more positive way to do this,” Jim Kennedy, AP vice president and strategy director, told the New York Times in 2008.

AP currently uses the third-party iCopyright service to license its quotes for commercial use. The New York Times, likewise, uses a third-party automated reprint and permissions company, Rightslink Copyright Clearance.

Chittum claims the confusing language of the iCopyright form linked at the bottom of AP stories contributed to the resurgence of the rumor the AP was billing bloggers for reprints and links.

Krystle Russin (krystle@purepolitics.com) writes from Texas.

Internet Info:
Ryan Chittum’s CJR blog: http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/ap_woot_charge.php
New York Times’ story: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/16/business/media/16ap.html?_r=2&ref=technology&oref=slogin