fair use

The twisted world of online copyright

Copyright has proven to be a thorny subject in the digital era we live
in. That’s particularly true for traditional media. From record labels
to newspapers, the internet has taken a lot of the blame for the woes
of media companies that were once dominant. A lot of the time, their
woes are connected, directly and indirectly, with internet-based
copyright infringement.

To be sure, the internet has raised a lot of copyright-related
questions. Where does fair use end and copyright infringement end? Are
hot news” laws a necessity given that bloggers can so easily piggyback
on the reporting of major news organizations?

Should the AP pay Woot $17.50 for a quote?

The founder of Woot, Matt Rutledge, may be a wealthier man following
Amazon.com’s acquisition of his company, but that isn’t stopping him from
sending a clear message to the Associated Press: you owe me $17.50. Why
does the AP owe Rutledge? According to Rutledge, AP violated his
copyright when they included a quote from Rutledge’s email to Woot
employees in their story about the acquisition.

The quote: “For Woot, our vision remains the same: somehow earning a living on snarky commentary and junk.

Journalism’s challenge: pageview economics

This weekend, the Washington Post’s Ian Shapira detailed in a piece entitled “The Death of Journalism (Gawker Edition)” how the triumph he felt when Gawker blogged about a story he wrote turned into anger after his boss asked him why he wasn’t angry that his story had been stolen.

After reviewing Gawker’s eight-paragraph post, Shapira came to the same conclusion as his boss: he’d been ripped off.

Lawsuit could have big implications for online publishers

Is copying a headline and the lead sentences from a news story on a third party website you link to fair use or copyright infringement?

That’s a question that a Massachusetts court will have to answer in a trial that has been scheduled to begin next week.