You can't copyright/licence a fact. You are not breaking any laws if you repeat a fact. If it's reported in the news as fact then as I see it you can repeat, repackage and do what you like with it.

However, if you start repeating commentry/analysis without appropriate permission/attribution etc then there are problems.

I think AP might just be changing their business model from dominate and charge lots to dominate and sue infringers ;). Problem is if they keep it up they won't dominate for long.

I may be over simplifying it, but I'm just a simple guy...

I don't really see the licensing issue as a continuum, because there are so many grey areas and a lot depends on the situation ('intent' is one way of putting it perhaps).

The point of the continuum is this: You believe your blogging is OK (I hope!). You may believe "link blogging" that includes only excerpts is OK. But you believe Google News should license. So where in the "continuum" does licensing become necessary?

In my view, Google doesn't rebrand or repackage news any more than it rebrands or repackages web publishers through search. Others may view this differently, but even if that is the case, I would worry about any legal decision based on perceptions of rebranding when only excerpts and quoting is involved, as in Google's case.

I sympathize with AFP's (and AP's) plight too. But I think shaking down Google News is not the answer. I guess we both agree that they ought to aggregate themselves. They do enjoy some competitive advantages from the outset!

Gabe said: "One problem with requiring licensing when the searchable database covers most of a publisher's output: search engines are doing this now! So, is your opinion limited to "news" content? (Who decides what's news?) Otherwise, Google owes a whole lot of people a whole lot of dough."

Richard replies: Good point! You got me on that one... bit of a trick question, eh :-) What I was thinking of in my answer above (comment #2) was specifically where a site's business model is based on containerizing and branding content not owned by them (in terms of copyright). I don't think search engines count, in that respect, because their main 'role' is to direct users to the Content Providers. If Google suddenly started to direct search results to their archive - of my content - *then* I'd say they need to license it because they're containerizing my content and in affect putting their brand around it. There may be holes in that argument, but it's a good first draft of where my thoughts are...

Gabe said: "BTW, I worry maybe our basic assumptions our out of sync: I disagree that "Google News on the right is aggregating full content". They only provide excerpts. The full text is visible only in the sense that searches can match against it, but even search results return as excerpts. (Am I missing something?)"

Richard replies: Doh! My bad, of course you're right. Google News does only run excerpts. So what did you mean by the Contiuum? Can you explain in more detail what that is?

AP's issue I guess is that it's their content and yet they get no click-throughs. So I think my 'containerizing and branding' theory comes into play here - AP specifically license their content to news organisations so they can put it in containers (newspapers, news websites, etc) and brand it (LA Times, NZ Herald, etc). Google News is taking AP's content and both containerizing it (on their site) and branding it... but they ain't paying AP a dime.

Gabe said: "Anyway, my feeling on all of this: I think SOME of the legal grounds for trying to extract fees from Google are faulty and bad for the web. (And frankly bad for my projects -- I'm certainly not a disinterested party.) Bad for web in the sense that narrower definitions of "fair use" could plausibly threaten many forms a blogging, for instance."

Richard replies: It is a potential legal minefield right now. Take a look at the fine print attached to AP's RSS feeds, for example:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/fronts/RSS

There's any number of ways AP could challenge bloggers, if they want to. (I don't think they will though, because it would create a huge PR backlash)

Gabe said: "AFP even cited the reproduction of HEADLINES (along with first paragraphs and images). This is particularly worrisome to me. I might even be persuaded that everything Google includes in combination exceeds fair use, but headlines?!"

Richard replies: I suppose AP see the headlines as part of their 'brand' (as in branding the content, which AP CEO Tom Curley made an influential speech about). Is it going too far? Maybe.

Essentially I still have sympathy for AP's attempts to brand their content and ensure they get compensation if sites 'containerize' it (my term, not theirs). But you're right to point out all the legal and ethical issues around that.

One problem with requiring licensing when the searchable database covers most of a publisher's output: search engines are doing this now! So, is your opinion limited to "news" content? (Who decides what's news?) Otherwise, Google owes a whole lot of people a whole lot of dough.

BTW, I worry maybe our basic assumptions our out of sync: I disagree that "Google News on the right is aggregating full content". They only provide excerpts. The full text is visible only in the sense that searches can match against it, but even search results return as excerpts. (Am I missing something?)

By reduced-sized images, I mean: Google News is reproducing published images, but smaller versions, probably in accordance with some principle that came out of some lawsuit a few years ago that established that smaller versions might be OK. (That principle may very well be challenged later...I'm foggy on this.)

Anyway, my feeling on all of this: I think SOME of the legal grounds for trying to extract fees from Google are faulty and bad for the web. (And frankly bad for my projects -- I'm certainly not a disinterested party.) Bad for web in the sense that narrower definitions of "fair use" could plausibly threaten many forms a blogging, for instance.

AFP even cited the reproduction of HEADLINES (along with first paragraphs and images). This is particularly worrisome to me. I might even be persuaded that everything Google includes in combination exceeds fair use, but headlines?!

>>"Consider the continuum from blogging at one one end to Google News on the other."

>>So moving along the continuum, when would you be obliged to pay?

OK I'll play 'The Aggregation Contiuum Game' (a board game for geeks?) :-)

>>When most or all of your material becomes excerpts?

I'm assuming the contiuum is basically measuring level of aggregation - i.e. blogging on the left is just links and quotes, but Google News on the right is aggregating full content.

So in terms of excerpts, I *probably* wouldn't ask for licensing as long as the click-throughs went to my site. But (cop out ahead) it depends on the circumstances...

>>When you introduced reduced-sized images?

I'm not sure I understand this one...

>>Or when your searchable database approaches the full output of another publisher?

Yes, in this case licensing of content would be required IMHO.

>>When your traffic reaches a certain threshold?

Well traffic per se doesn't affect the aggregation contiuum, but it obviously is always going to be a factor in a commercial world. i.e. if someone is making a fortune from your content, of course you'd want to be in on the cut.

>>Or whenever scraping is involved?

If it's scraping the enitre content, then yes.

Those are just my off-the-cuff comments - anyone else care to comment?

Consider the continuum from blogging at one one end to Google News on the other. Like Google News, you (a blogger) are already linking and quoting other material, but I'm assuming you don't feel obliged to pay merely for the right to do this.

So moving along the continuum, when would you be obliged to pay? When most or all of your material becomes excerpts? When you introduced reduced-sized images? Or when your searchable database approaches the full output of another publisher? When your traffic reaches a certain threshold? Or whenever scraping is involved?

BTW, answering yes at various points above would put various bloggers (e.g. many linkbloggers) out of "business".

Dunno if you're interested in these questions as much as I am, but you might want to consider...