By Chris Qualmann
QUESTION: Are "news aggregation services" liable under copyright or misappropriation law for collecting and redistributing news articles first published by other sources?
SHORT ANSWER: No - for so long as the
aggregator service provides proper attribution to the original source, and does
not mislead the public as to the authorship of the article.
“News Aggregators”
(sometimes called “RSS Readers”, “News Readers” or “Feed Aggregators”) are
websites that collect web content such as articles, headlines, blogs, podcasts,
and even videos in a single location for easy, simple viewing. Examples of popular, widely-known and
commonly-visited news aggregation websites include Google News, Yahoo News,
Drudge Report and many, many others. The
designation “news aggregator” can also apply to smaller-scale endeavors that
engage in the collection and re-publication of news articles, such as private
newsletters for “niche” industries, trade publications, law firm websites, and
similar informational outlets.
In some
cases, the “aggregation” of content is strictly automatic, involving software
and algorithms that “scan” the internet and “group together” stories,
headlines, and other content of designated, similar natures. In other cases, content strictly is
collected, sorted and entered on a manual basis. More often than not, a majority of
better-known aggregators use a combination of both human and “robotic” data
collection procedures.
But regardless of how the content is collected, concerns
as to potential liability from the re-distribution of original news articles
obtained from other outlets is an highly important topic for aggregators large
and small, including but “new media” as well as older, “traditional” media
companies. Entities such as “Huffington
Post” and “Flipboard” appear to engage in the re-packaging and recycling of
news from other sources on a daily, round-the-clock, uninterrupted basis … so
how do they do it, and why aren’t they being challenged on copyright
infringement grounds?
Based upon not just recent court decisions, but also
guidelines and “best practices” established within the industry, aggregator services do not face
liability for their work, so long as they are honest and “up front” as to the
source of their material. As
noted by intellectual property attorney Daniel Diskin (www.copymarkblog.com), a
by-product and benefit of ensuring “proper attribution” is that news
aggregators drive traffic to the
original articles (as well as to the outlets that originally distributed the
articles). As a result, the
aggregators don’t “siphon profits” from the original sources – but in fact, greatly increase the
opportunities for increased traffic and profits to the original sources.
Citing
Judge Richard Posner, a well-known legal scholar and media law expert, Diskin emphasizes
that aggregator services are protected not only by proper attribution practices,
but also by the guarantees of freedom of speech within the U.S. Constitution. On his law blog, Diskin states:“Too much protection to the original source
of the news story does not benefit the public. The original source would have a
monopoly for a period of time. In reality, news reporting does not work this
way, which can only be a good thing. The
public does not have to find the one and only news source that is responsible
for reporting the most important news of the day.”
On the basis that
their activities are protected by the constitution (as well as the “fair use”
exception to copyright law), news aggregators have been (and continue to be)
protected through the efforts of media trade associations that have made
appearances in court and filed legal briefs on their behalf when necessary. Examples of groups that aggressively support
the re-packaging and re-distribution of news from other sources include the
“Citizen Media Project”, the “Electronic Frontier Foundation”, and “Citizen
Project”.
THE BOTTOM LINE, as emphasized by attorney Diskin, is that proper attribution is the main focus of
misappropriation law. For so
long as an aggregator service consistently follows the practice of correctly
citing not only the author of a “repackaged” news piece, but also the original
outlet in which the piece first appeared, aggregators do not face liability for
damages.
No comments:
Post a Comment