Via just about everybody at this point comes this addressed to Tulsa-based blogger Michael at Bates Line from a local newspaper:
I am writing on behalf of World Publishing Company, publisher of the Tulsa World. We have recently learned that your website, www.Batesline.com, has reproduced (in whole or in part) articles and/or editorials from the Tulsa World newspaper or has inappropriately linked your website to Tulsa World content.
The Tulsa World copyrights its entire newspaper and specifically each of the articles and/or editorials at issue. The reproduction of any articles and/or editorials (in whole or in part) on your website or linking your website to Tulsa World content is without the permission of the Tulsa World and constitutes an intentional infringement of the Tulsa World’s copyright and other rights to the exclusive use and distribution of the copyrighted materials.
Therefore, we hereby demand that you immediately remove any Tulsa World material from your website, to include unauthorized links to our website, and cease and desist from any further use or dissemination of our copyrighted content. If you desire to use (in whole or in part) any of the content of our newspaper, you must first obtain written permission before that use. If you fail to comply with his demand, the Tulsa World will take whatever legal action is necessary to assure compliance, Additionally, we will pursue all other legal remedies, including seeking damages that may have resulted as a result of this infringement.
We look forward to your immediate response and cooperation in this matter. Please acknowledge your compliance by signing below and returning to me.
Sincerely,
(signed)
John R. Bair
Vice-President [sic]
Tulsa World
Apparently, for bloggers, this is going to come up again and again, so it’s probably time to work toward an agreement. But what is the law? Here’s how Fair Use is currently interpreted by the US Copyright Office’s website:
One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright act (title 17, U.S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
Nerf-coated World offers some good tips on staying within the law and sums up what I assume (and hope) is the law:
Oh, and that “you can’t link to our site without our permission” business? As far as I understand copyright law, that’s utter nonsense and a total stretch.
"Unauthorized links?" That would truly be the last straw, IMO. How freakin’ scared are the MSM of blogs anyway?
They should be afraid. Very afraid. We are fearsome creatures: just think of Giblets, for instance. The very mention of us should chill the heart.
And then there are the freepers:
“Yea, slimy things did crawl with legs
Upon the slimy sea.”
I wouldn’t want to meet them in a dark alley at night:
I think in the case of reproducing whole articles, MSM has a point. I think Free Republic used to do this and got busted by the LA Times.
Uh, but why wouldn’t they want the links? Dummies.
As a lawyer, I see these types of letters all the time — overblown threats made without any careful thought to what is legal or not. The purpose of the letter is to make the threat and rely on the fear it induces — not on a good faith assertion of what one believes are one’s rights.
And the tactic works — how many people know enough to feel comfortable about reliance on the fair use doctrine?
Links have got to be OK. Excerpting a portion of articles for the purpose of talking about it (with no profit motive) is going to be OK in almost any situation. I imagine what will create trouble in the long run is long quotes on major blogs that do earn advertising revenue.