Talk about the left hand no knowing what the right hand is doing. The Associated Press, reported on CNet, spanked its own affiliate for copyright infringement. Turns out the Tennessee AP affiliate was simply embedding an AP video that had been posted on the AP YouTube channel with the embed option turned on (see video below- sue me).
The AP recently sent a letter to WTNQ-FM in Tennessee–an affiliate of the Associated Press, by the way–accusing the country music radio station of copyright violation for embedding videos from the AP’s official YouTube channel on its Web site, according to a station employee’s blog. The AP channel includes embed code for its videos, which allows any Web site or blog to embed the videos on their sites–a feature that can be turned off.
Dear, AP. If you’d like a lesson on turning off the embed feature on a video, give me a call. In the meantime, it’s hard to root for your right to copyright when you’re spanking your own affiliates for embedding — after you opted to invite users to embed. As of this writing, your channel’s latest video still has the embed option turned on.
It’s all sounding rather desperate, AP. In your pursuit to protect your legitimate rights you’re making some rather embarrassing errors that won’t help with the court of public opinion.
First comment. 2:00 a.m. WOOOOT!
The AP is now synonymous with a mickey mouse organization or just plain old schizophrenic.
This couldn’t come at a better time, I just unsubbed from the AP cause their You Tube channel guy is stupid.
I don’t know why they insist on uploading two version of the same story for every story on their channel. My subscriber box was jammed with endless double AP videos.
If anyone else on You Tube did that it would be called SPAM and they would be banned. Actually, it would be funny if You Tube banned the AP.
None of their videos even have that many views, least to warrant two uploads, and the comments can sometimes really cross the line. I supposes that’s free speech, but with the AP I think it’s closer to being inept.
I used a part of one of their stories in a video, fair use, and they were all over me like white on rice, at least they didn’t file a DMCA, but they did monetized the video. Still, it felt creepy so I removed it.
On a side Note – Reuthers News on You Tube went a step further and eventually banned all comments. I was actually insulted by that since it was during the big economic summit and people were leaving some really great comments, the dialog was also very interesting and informative. The Obama you Tube Channel was the worst offender during the election – only they were more selective and removed just the critical comments and wouldn’t allow video responses. For all his faults at least McCain’s channel was like the wild west, people could say and upload almost anything. Was an interesting war of words, the best part of his whole campaign organization. Though my guess, was probably an over site.
Anyway, I actually wrote AP and asked what’s with the double upload and said it was poor manners to do that, of course I received no answer.
Since I didn’t get a replay and the behavior didn’t stop I had no other option, but to think they were clueless or just dicks. I figured the latter – this story confirms both.
With people walking around everywhere with video cameras perhaps we can all put the AP out of business, like we did the newspapers.
…
Here’s another couple of stupid AP acts
February 2009
AP Sues For Copyright Infringement on Obama ‘Hope’ Posters
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/04/ap-sues-copyright-infringement-obama-hope-posters
June 2008
Here’s Our New Policy On A.P. stories: They’re Banned
The stories over the weekend were bad enough – the Associated Press, with a long history of suing over quotations from their articles, went after Drudge Retort for having the audacity to link to their stories along with short quotations via reader submissions. Drudge Retort is doing nothing different than what Digg, TechMeme, Mixx and dozens of other sites do, and frankly the fact that they are being linked to should be considered a favor.
A.P. vice president Jim Kennedy says they will issue guidelines telling bloggers what is acceptable and what isn’t, over and above what the law says is acceptable. They will “attempt to define clear standards as to how much of its articles and broadcasts bloggers and Web sites can excerpt without infringing on The A.P.’s copyright.”
Those that disregard the guidelines risk being sued by the A.P., despite the fact that such use may fall under the concept of fair use.
[click] full…
I wonder how long it’ll take for the AP to learn the same lesson that the MPAA learned the hard way. Punitive litigation on a large scale makes you look like a bully and does nothing to further your agenda. The press, like the auto manufacturers, are trying to force a 19th century business model to work in spite of 21st century market dynamics.
The rule is ‘adapt or die’. The Seattle Post Intelligencer and the Tribune Corporation have already learned this lesson. There will be many others. Since the “press” is content driven you would think that their survival in the digital age would be guaranteed.
I think that gross mismanagement and lack of foresight have brought the entire industry to the brink of collapse. AP had better screw their collective heads on tight or they will find themselves begging Google for a job.
The court of public opinion has already ruled. They’re repeat-offender-morons.
Funny posting! My guess is that they probably spent thousands of dollars in lawyer time researching this issue when all they needed to do is turn off the embed feature. Typical of large bureaucracies!!!
Wow- Jan for the win. Check out this history. Someone at AP needs a social-media nurse.
yea, I won! wait, does that come out of my 15 min?
Here’s an idea
Give AP a 7 day news cycle, it’s really closer to 3, but what the heck.
After 7 days it’s free and fair use. With full credit.
Same with music, books and video
come up with a standard
so for music after it falls off the top 20
books best seller or 6 months
videos best seller o 6 months
full credit must always be given for life
Anyone copies and calls it their own get’s jail, fined and flogged.
what do you think?