A proposal for a new kind of "fair use"

A proposal for a new kind of "fair use"

Summary: News aggregators and bloggers that carry third party content should carry at least one advertising link associated with that content. It would be the fair thing to do and a large aggregator such as Google News could help establish this practice.

TOPICS: Google

News aggregators and bloggers that carry third party content should carry at least one advertising link associated with that content.

It would be the fair thing to do and a large aggregator such as Google News could help establish this practice. 

Google News publishes the headline  and the first paragraph of a news story on its site. Since news stories are written in an inverted pyramid, the headline and first paragraph contain most of the value of a news story.

Therefore, it's only fair that if you take most of the value of a news story, then also publish one advertising link from the original site.

And if you are a blogger and blog the content or quote it, then the same would apply: publish one advertising link from the original site alongside the content.

- For example, if you'd like to republish part of this article, you might agree to publish one of my three advertising links alongside the content:


          -Silicon Valley Watcher-reporting on the culture of disruption.

          -Silicon Valley Minute-Startups pitch in less than a minute.

          -Intel Core2Duo is here!


It's your choice which one of the three to carry, and your choice to do it or not.

But over time, it's a practice that would be seen as a mark of respect to the original content creator.

And it would help the original content creators recoup some of the cost of producing it--and it would encourage good content.

Google News doesn't monetise the news content it harvests from other news sites. If it carried one advertising link along with every news story it features on Google News, it would be respectful of the original content producers. And it would be in a leadership position that would influence others to do the same.

Also, many of the news sites run Google AdSense advertising links, Google would be bringing more clicks into its realm and do it for a good cause.

Also for RSS syndicators too:

- If you syndicate my content then please syndicate my accompanying AdLinks--don't strip them out. It's only fair.

If you re-publish my content -- then publish my AdLink.

This should also be an option for a new type of Creative Commons license.

For example: 

- Feel free to make money by republishing this post or anything else on SVW.

- As long as you make sure you preserve my links in the copy.

- And give attribution to SVW through a live link.

- And publish one of my AdLinks alongside each piece of content.

It should become the new "Fair Use."

Maybe Technorati could be the first to adopt this New Fair Use--it has been a champion of the blogosphere for many years.

Or maybe Digg will do it.

Whoever does it first will gain a spot in history, and a permalink spot in Wikipedia.

As for Google, do no evil is fine, but do some good is better, imho.



Technorati tags: New Fair Use, Google News


Please see SVW:

Old Media You can't get there from here

March 17 - 2007


The virtuous trackback A proposal for paying for content

April 7 - 2006


We need a Google AdSense on steroids: The Grand Challenge of Internet 2.0

 April 4, 2006




Topic: Google

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


1 comment
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • If it is truley fair use then there is no license

    A license is permission to engage in a protected right of a copyright holder- most notably to copy or create derivative works.

    Fair Use on the other hand, the full name of the section of copyright law where it is codified is "107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use", is a limitation on the copyright holder's exclusive rights allowing others to copy portions of their work, and in some cases the entire work (The Sony BetaMax case ruled that recording entire shows - Time Shifting was fair use, in the RIO case the court opinioned that copying entire songs onto the RIO was most likely fair use -Space Shifting however they also ruled that such fell under the AHRA exemptions for digital recordings, In the 2LiveCrew case the court allowed the entire lyrics of Pretty Woman be used as a Parody, Thumbnails of photos were declared fair use in the Arriba Soft case, and there are other cases) , without a license (permission).

    Fair Use is often called an Affirmative Defense to copyright infringement, versus a limitation on the copyright holder's rights, even though copyright law clearly labels it as a limitation. This is because the US Supreme Court in the 2LiveCrew Case (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.) described it as such. What this means is that in order for a defendant to prevail on Fair Use they bear the burden of proving the use falls under Fair Use instead of the plaintiff proving the alleged infringement meets prima facie case of infringement . This means the defendant can not use other defenses such as De-Minimums copying, Scenes-A-Faire,What was copied is not copyrightable (See the Lexmark case appeal - the court ruled DRM is not an artistic expression and hence itself does not enjoy copyright protection), Independent Creation (Through Lack of access to the copyrighted work- the Chinese wall of reverse engineering where one group develops a description- the specification, from the software and passes the description to a second programmer who then writes the code- the second programmer had no access to the copyrighted work. Also many programs fall under this ) or Merger.

    Calling Fair Use an affirmative defense instead of a limitation or right of the consumer is pure semantics though. The term "affirmative defense" is a litigation term reflecting the timing in which the defense is raised. It does not not characterize the substance of the defendant's actions. The First Amendment, for example, is often used as an affirmative defense and is clearly a right. Section 107 of the US copyright act defines Fair Use as a limitation on the copyright holder's rights and clearly states such is not an infringement.

    This becomes very important in the DRM debate as those whom are pro-DRM like to say that Fair Use, which DRM by design prevents, is not a limitation on the copyright holder's rights and is infringement.
    Edward Meyers