The Associated Press has issued a legal threat to left-leaning news and commentary site The Drudge Retort on Thursday, claiming copyright infringement in a series of articles. One example of infringement provided by site operator Rogers Cadenhead consisted of a 57-word citation, taken from a 442-word article—A small fraction of the entire article, and certainly not any more than is necessary to pique the reader's interest in clicking over to the main AP article. I ran into similar problems with the AP way back in March, so I can definitely empathize with Cadenhead's situation.
I do find it interesting, however, to see that a certain and unnamed large newspaper has taken immediate interest in the Drudge Retort's case.
That's funny—I don't recall the New York Times taking much of an interest in my predicament, even though, by many accounts, it was a case which would've covered almost completely new ground in copyright and "fair use" law. Could it be that the Times thought that my blog was far too insignificant to even consider covering?
Of course. I'm not exactly a "powerhouse" of political opinion.
Given that the Times openly fawned over the launching of the cybersquatting Drudge Retort, I suspect that there might be a somewhat different explanation for this disparity.
Far be it from me, though, to suggest that the Times is very selective about which blogs it choses to cover. I'll leave that up to you, the reader.
For more background on this story, please see Snapped Shot.
