Demographics & Economics
OMB
Congressional Budget Office
The Federal Budget
U.S. Census Quickfacts
Inflation Calculator
CIA World Factbook
NationMaster
State Healthcare Facts
UN HDR stats
US Bureau of Economic Analysis
US Bureau of Labor Statistics
US CDC health stats
US DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics
US DOJ crime stats
Constitution
The Constitution
The Founders' Constitution
The Avalon Project
The Federalist Papers
The antifederalist papers
Founding documents
Politics
ADA (liberal) Voting Records
ACU (conservative) Voting Records
Census Voter Turnout
Congressional Research Service
Memeorandum
NOW list of voting scorecards
PolitiFact
PorkBusters
Project VoteSmart list of voting scorecards
RealClearPolitics
Roll call votes--House
Roll call votes--Senate
Survey USA
WaPo Votes Database
Iraq/Terrorism
CentCom
Brookings Institute Iraq Index
Project on Defense Alternatives War Report
Nat'l Defense Univ Iraq
Nat'l Defense Univ Afghanistan
MERLIN, Nat'l Defense Univ Library Network
STRATFOR
Nat'l Memorial Inst for Prevention of Terrorism
West Point's Combating Terrorism Center
Politics blogs
Baldilocks
Blue Mass Group
Cadillac Tight
California Conservative
Jon Chait
Confederate Yankee
Crooked Timber
Democracy Project
Dinocrat
First Read
Gateway Pundit
GenerationPatriot
Horse Race Blog
Just One Minute
Hugh Hewitt
Michelle Malkin
Patterico's Pontifications
Power Line
Red State
RNCC blog
Scrappleface
Talking Points Memo
The Blogometer
The Corner
The Next Right
The Moderate Voice
Think Progress
Wizbang
Moderate / centrist
Ambivablog
Bipartisan Rules
Booker Rising
Centerfield
Charging RINO
Donklephant
Liberal War Journal
Militant Moderates
The Buck Stops Here
The Glittering Eye
The Iconic Midwest
The PoliGazette
The Walrus Said
Legal & blawgs
How Appealing
Becker-Posner
Bench Memos
Concurring Opinions
Law & Letters
Legalities
Prawfsblawg
SCOTUSblog
Sentencing Law & Policy
The Volokh Conspiracy
Christian
ADW blog
Father Z
First Thoughts
Mirror of Justice
Veritas Rex
Middle East & Muslim affairs
Eteraz
Iraq the Model
Lebanese Political Journal
Michael Totten
Michael Yon
General interest
Althouse
Ambiance
Chris Muir's Day by Day
Instapundit
IowaHawk
JAC
Professor Bainbridge
Prettier than Napoleon
Rachel Lucas
The Right Coast
Science Blog
Sippican Cottage
The Anchoress
Whatever
Yesterday was obviously a major day at the Supreme Court, so here's a brief roundup of links to our coverage: Pat discussed Morse v. Fredrick and Federal Election Committee v. Wisconsin Right to Life, while I discussed Wilkie v. Robbins and Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation.
[Added by Pat:] In other news, be sure and check Tully's excellent posts from yesterday, in case you missed them while scrolling down past Simon and my tome-like expositions on the law. Tully posted Goracle, which noted that CO2 emissions in the U.S. increased by 15% during Gore's tenure as Vice-President, while they increased only 1.65% during President Bush's first term. He also brought us another chapter in the continuing saga of the Progressive Authoritarian Urge, noting that quintessential inside-the-beltway Senator Trent Lott (R-Miss./Incumbistan) has also taken to criticizing talk radio, while Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif./Incumbistan) is "looking at" reimposing the "fairness doctrine."
Our RSS feed
The Assosiated Press
Thank you all for your effort to explain the Legal News. In regard to Tully's post about fairness, I observe the following at the end of highly speculative news items by AP (actually it appears below all news items).
Although this doesn't directly concern fairness in the sense Feinstein and Lott were discussing, I was wondering whether a news organization, which distributes information, can actually prevent redistribution of its public postings under "Private Policy". First, AP claims it is reporting important information. Often no other view of an event is contained in AP news items. Then AP says one cannot redistribute the information it collects or broadcast "its" material (they obviously get paid to let Road Runner use AP for breaking news on their homepage). AP asks for money to reprint information. Can someone put this "All rights reserved" in perspective? Is there a difference between Strafor requesting money for reports and AP seeking money to redistribute its news reports? Aren't these different products?
Recently the BBC asked Iraqis to report the location of US and British troops as they surged against AQ. It caused quite a stir in England. The question may be; what distribution of information by AP or the BBC is legal and/or consistent with "standards" often declared missing by the Left from news organization that are more conservative. Chavez even accused and closed stations for not distributing information. In Russia, some journalists were murdered for distributing information about potential false-flag operations. Others may have been murdered for redistributing such information. I am not sure I see how AP?s policy is consistent with informed debate, free speech or the privilege to collect information as a member of the press "in order to inform the people".
Short Answer?
I was wondering whether a news organization, which distributes information, can actually prevent redistribution of its public postings under "Private Policy".
While subject to correction by the law-talkin' folks, the short answer is that if they publish it, it's subject to Fair Use provisions in copyright law. In general it can be briefly excerpted for various reasons without any permissions, but not regurgitated or claimed as one's own.
Any underlying events are facts, and facts cannot be copyrighted. You can't own the facts. Anyone can report them. (See earlier posts on live-blogging the NCAA baseball regionals.) You can't reprint their story without their permission, but you can certainly relate actual real-world events in your own words, even if derived from their copyrighted reports.
Thanks
It reminds me in a strange way of the citizen taping of police officers on public streets doing their public job. The Press plays a public role and publishes in public places. I could take a photo of an AP article off my Computer screen and send it to my sister. And if the AP article was wrought with questionable facts that I wanted to respond to, I could quote the whole article in a paper I write reviewing the AP's claims.
Your last sentence was the important one. We can quote the "facts" reported by AP without paying them a dime for uncoverng them and publishing them in public space.
I thought this was the case, but the wording of their privacy policy wasn't very clear.
Beware
And if the AP article was wrought with questionable facts that I wanted to respond to, I could quote the whole article in a paper I write reviewing the AP's claims.
I think that kind of fisking could well fall foul of the Fair Use provisions, if you were to publish the paper. But as I said, I'm open to correction from the actual attorneys around here. I am not one, and none of the above is legal advice. As the preacher man in Blazing Saddles said:
"Son, you're on your own."
Fair Use
The only proper legal answer to that is "it depends on how the court comes down after the litigation is over." Stanford University Libraries has a nice overview of the 4 factors used to determine fair use. In sum, they are:
Those all go together in a mish-mash, and the court decides afterwards whether your use of the material was "fair," all things considered.
Isn't "all things
Isn't "all things considered" trademarked? :-)
But that's another kettle of dynamite.
But I gave you
All I can say is, I gave you the rest of the story.
What about...aw, heck. I got
What about...aw, heck. I got nothin'.