Today, the Associated Press reached out to us to clarify their position on iCopyright (the product they're using to charge for content) and on licensing its content. They explained that the form has never been aimed at bloggers quoting content and that it's unrelated to the controversy surrounding the content registry system, which aims to find what it considers illegitimate use of its content on the web.
Here is the full statement from the AP:
AP Statement on iCopyright's Automated Form to License AP Content
The iCopyright form that enables users to license AP content online is drawing new attention this week.
It is an automated form, thus explaining how one blogger got it to charge him for the words of a former president.
As the AP stated more than a year ago, the form is not aimed at bloggers. It is intended to make it easy for people who want to license AP content to do so.
AP partners with iCopyright to automate fulfillment of routine requests for rights to republish AP material, either from AP-hosted sites or member and customer sites carrying AP content. The licensing options vary greatly, from an array of uses – such as e-mail, print and save – through paid options up to and including large-scale corporate reprints of excerpts, full articles or photos.
ICopyright’s role is unrelated to the AP’s new content registry, announced in late July: http://www.ap.org/pages/about/pressreleases/pr_072309a.html
The AP’s relationship with iCopyright dates to April of last year: http://info.icopyright.com/news_041408_ap.asp
As we stated before, we have respect for the AP and understand their desire to protect their content from cases of unfair use. However, an issue we do have with the statement is its vagueness: while they claim they aren't going after bloggers, it still does not make clear if quoting 5 words from an AP story constitutes fair use or is republishing AP content (and thus requires a payment). We asked for clarification and were referred to AP SVP Jane Seagrave's comments in the Columbia Journalism Review:
“We want to stop wholesale misappropriation of our content which does occur right now—people who are copying and pasting or taking by RSS feeds dozens or hundreds of our stories.” Seagrave tells me. “Are we going to worry about individuals using our stories here and there? That isn’t our intent. That’s being fueled by people who want to make us look silly. But we’re not silly.”