[Infowarrior] - The AP licensing story gets nuttier....

[Richard Forno]

AP Will Sell You A License To Words It Has No Right To Sellfrom the  
why-not? dept

http://techdirt.com/articles/20090803/0344305756.shtml

  Last year, you may recall, we pointed out that the Associated Press  
had a laughable sliding scale price if you wanted to copy and use more  
than 4 words (the first 4 free!). After that, it cost $12.50 for 5 to  
25 words. This, of course, ignores fair use, which (and, yes, it does  
depend on the circumstances) almost certainly would let most people  
quote more than 4 words without having to pay. But, of course, it gets  
worse. Boing Boing points us to a little experiment by James  
Grimmelmann, testing out the AP's text licensing system, where he  
discovers that you can put any text you want into the calculator, and  
the AP will gladly sell you a license. So, just for fun, Grimmelmann  
paid $12 for a license to a (public domain) quote from Thomas  
Jefferson, culled not from the AP, but from Jefferson's famous letter  
to Isaac McPherson, where he warns of the excesses of intellectual  
monopolies.

< - >

And, of course, there are similarly ridiculous situations, such as  
Dave Zatz finding out that it will cost himself $25 to quote himself  
(thanks johnjac). The AP keeps making a mockery of itself.

Of course, the AP has put out a statement, basically mimicking the one  
it put out last year, saying that the icopyright stuff is not intended  
for bloggers. But then who is it intended for? Considering that the AP  
has threatened bloggers in the past for quoting its words, the whole  
thing seems bizarre. So you can rely on fair use if you're a blogger,  
but not... if you're something else? How does that make sense? I've  
read through our copyright laws more than a few times, and I don't  
recall the clause that says "fair use applies to bloggers, but not  
others."

Update: As a few people have pointed out, after all the media  
attention, the AP "revoked" the license. Note the language. They  
didn't apologize. They didn't admit error. They didn't admit awful  
technology and a silly policies. They "revoked" a license they had no  
right to sell in the first place. At least they gave him his money back.

http://techdirt.com/articles/20090803/0344305756.shtml