Political bloggers of all sizes and political leanings are organizing to boycott AP after AP decided to attack a mid-size blog claiming that publishing fragments of their syndicated news articles and reports violates copyright. Bloggers are saying that using snippets and links to stories falls under Fair Use but AP apparently feels otherwise.

From Culture Kitchen:

Here’s one of the six disputed blog entries:

Clinton Expects Race to End Next Week

Hillary Rodham Clinton says she expects her marathon Democratic race against Barack Obama to be resolved next week, as superdelegates decide who is the stronger candidate in the fall. “I think that after the final primaries, people are going to start making up their minds,” she said. “I think that is the natural progression that one would expect.”

If you follow the link, you’ll see that the blog entry reproduces 18 words from the story and a 32-word quote by Hillary Clinton under a user-written headline. The blog entry drew 108 comments in the ensuing discussion.

I have all the expertise in intellectual property law of somebody who’s never been sued, so standard disclaimers apply. But I have difficulty seeing how it violates copyright law for a blogger to link to a news story with a short snippet of the story in furtherance of public discussion.

AP feels otherwise. In a June 3 letter, AP’s Intellectual Property Governance Coordinator Irene Keselman told me:

… you purport that the Drudge Retort’s users reproduce and display AP headlines and leads under a fair use defense. Please note that contrary to your assertion, AP considers that the Drudge Retort users’ use of AP content does not fall within the parameters of fair use. The use is not fair use simply because the work copied happened to be a news article and that the use is of the headline and the first few sentences only. This is a misunderstanding of the doctrine of “fair use.” AP considers taking the headline and lede of a story without a proper license to be an infringement of its copyrights, and additionally constitutes “hot news” misappropriation.

Keselman reverses the definition of fair use and claims in the take down that citizens only have the right to fair use if they pay for it : AP considers taking the headline and lede of a story without a proper license to be an infringement of its copyrights.

Read details of the accusations here.

Jeff Jarvis of Buzz Machine reminds us that AP doesn’t always follow what they preach in terms of attribution:

This complaint comes from an organization that leaches off original reporting and kills links and credit to the source of that journalism. Yes, it has a right to reproduce reporting from member news organizations. But as I point out here, the AP is hurting original reporting by not crediting and linking to the journalism at its source. We should be operating under an ethic of the link to original reporting; this is an ethic that the AP systematically violates.

Hmm why does this remind me of the whole Amanda Marcotte thing. Seems like some bloggers and AP have the same problem.

To sign onto the boycott visit the Unassociated Press