Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

11-Word Extracts May Infringe Copyright In Europe

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the dibs-on-copyright-on-"the" dept.

The Courts 132

splodus writes "The European Court of Justice, Europe's highest court, has ruled that a service providing 11-word snippets of newspaper articles could be unlawful. Media monitoring company Infopaq International searches newspaper articles and provides clients with a keyword and the five words either side. This practice was challenged by the DDF, a group representing newspaper interests, as infringing their members' copyright. The court has referred the issue back to national courts to determine whether copyright laws in each country will be subject to the ruling. The full ruling is available at the European Court of Justice Web site."

cancel ×

132 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

eay my shorts slahdot !! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28894781)

Eay my shorts slahdot !!

FAIL (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895289)

1) You forgot the link to the news article you are quoting from.
2) That's not 11 words.

FAIL.

Here you go (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28895411)

Non-copyright violating quote from the original article:

A Danish press-clipping company could be violating copyright by printing

TFA just did (2, Insightful)

iamapizza (1312801) | more than 5 years ago | (#28894793)

Europe's highest court held that the 11-word extracts were indeed "reproduction in part" under intellectual property laws. The court described transient acts as being "created and deleted automatically and without human intervention," such as those allowing for database browsing and caching. Such acts must also be incidental, the court said.

They didn't say it had to be continuous...

Re:TFA just did (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28894949)

so its legal to use 12+ word snippets

Re:TFA just did (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28897799)

No; maybe it's legal to use 10-word snippets - but this one goes to 11!

Re:TFA just did (1)

nagnamer (1046654) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895065)

They didn't say it had to be continuous...

If it weren't contiuous every cracker on the Net engaged in dictionary attack could be held liable:

"Hey they quoted more than 1M words from NY Times including 'user', 'guest', 'root', 'admin', 'territory'.... 'cabbage', 'walnuts'! Sue them!"

That'd make it easier for courts to convict them and it would be a great thing for the whole planet! The only downside would be that we'd have to invent a new language nobody else ewssez just to uwoid the lowsouts. :)

Slahdot ?? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28894803)

Slashdot ??

I'm gonna copyright... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28894837)

having dumbass copyrights.

This first people I'm gonna sue is these guys.

Re:I'm gonna copyright... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28895309)

Don't have to do that. Just do better than they in reporting, etc. and then sue the CRAP out of them when they quote you (Hey, that's infringing!)

Re:I'm gonna copyright... (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 5 years ago | (#28897463)

I'm gonna copyright... having dumbass copyrights.

You can't copyright that. That requires a dumbass patent.

I wonder how far you could take this (4, Funny)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 5 years ago | (#28894897)

Perhaps eventually quoting the law that makes quoting things illegal will be illegal. Why not, wells fargo is suing wells fargo and AT&T charging a discount fee for discounts it would make perfect sense.

Re:I wonder how far you could take this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28894983)

Perhaps eventually quoting the law that makes quoting things illegal will be illegal. Why not, wells fargo is suing wells fargo and AT&T charging a discount fee for discounts it would make perfect sense.

That's a perfect analogy. There are no flaws in that argument whatsoever.

Re:I wonder how far you could take this (1)

furby076 (1461805) | more than 5 years ago | (#28894987)

Wells Fargo sueing itself (for default loans) is required to properly acquire payment. It is not like they are going to contest it and sit in court aruging with each other. Yes it's silly, but it is the fault of how the law was written not the fault of Wells Fargo. I am sure Wells Fargo rolled their eyes and said "come on, this is stupid, it's our company trying to write-off the debt to OUR company".

Almost as bad when BMW told me that if I wanted replace my burnt-out bulbs under warranty it would be free, but if I wanted them to install aftermarket lights (which means they put in the lights I bought seperately as opposed to putting in their lights) I would have to pay for it...

Re:I wonder how far you could take this (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895155)

Wells Fargo sueing itself (for default loans) is required to properly acquire payment. It is not like they are going to contest it and sit in court aruging with each other. Yes it's silly, but it is the fault of how the law was written not the fault of Wells Fargo. I am sure Wells Fargo rolled their eyes and said "come on, this is stupid, it's our company trying to write-off the debt to OUR company".

It's not even that bad; the law isn't forcing them to sue themselves, it's just from a procedural standpoint slightly more time efficient to go through it this way.

Re:I wonder how far you could take this (1)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895167)

The point was more that such absurd situations DO occur rather than the actual technicalities of the situations.

Aftermarket lights⦠(4, Insightful)

jscotta44 (881299) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895191)

The BMW thing does make sense. The time used in replacing your burned out bulb is paid for by BMW on the original lights. It is a light that BMW has confidence in and they know the reliability of the bulbs and thus can reliably predict a cost to themselves. The aftermarket stuff is not approved by them, they know nothing about it, its problems, the cost of the bulbs, or life expectancy. They will not pay for it because they cannot reliably determine what their liability will be.

This is similar to web developers who will guarantee their work and/or provide some sort of fixed fee structure to maintain a site that they build provided the code is only modified by them and no others. Once another developer starts altering code, their confidence on what is going on drops dramatically and they can no longer reliably predict what their time liability will be and thus their own cost to work on the code. They'll then switch to an hourly charge to fix/maintain the code. Makes sense to me.

Re:Aftermarket lights⦠(0, Offtopic)

furby076 (1461805) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895237)

It's a lightbulb, not custom engine work. With the exception that BMW makes it ridiculously hard to replace (you have to remove the bumper, remove the light casing, disassemble the light case) they are halogen bulbs. The worst that would happen is the lightbulb burns out sooner (it's a lightbulb). Given that, if they said "fine but if yuo come back in 15,000 miles we won't apply the warranty"...obviously if I come back in 40k miles (what the car is at right now) with "hey it burnt out" then the lightbulb lived it's life.

Again, I could understand intense custom mods - but something like this? Luckily the CA fudged the paperwork a bit and spoke to the technician...even the CA thought it was silly.

Re:Aftermarket lights⦠(1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895799)

Let's try a computer analogy here. This is kinda' like having an iPod or MacBook with non-replaceable battery. It actually is replaceable but is PitA to do so and Apple says it should be performed by warranty type shop. And if you bought an aftermarket battery, with longer life, yeah, Apple probably wouldn't do that under warranty either.

Re:Aftermarket lights⦠(1)

furby076 (1461805) | more than 5 years ago | (#28896611)

Except the battery affects the other systems where a lightbulb is affected by other systems. You need to find an analogy with a less integrated part that has no dependencies. Maybe the laptop external fans you can buy (you know the ones you sit underneath your laptop to make it cooler and it connects by a USB). That's about as close as I can think.

I totally understand warranties, and 3rd party products, etc...but there gets to be a point of the spirit of the rule and what it was intended to handle.

Re:Aftermarket lights⦠(1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 5 years ago | (#28896907)

Oh yeah, I know it wasn't a very good analogy. Was just jumping at chance to make a computer analogy on a car issue before anyone else.

Although, making a bad computer analogy does sorta' fit in with the bad car analogies...

Re:Aftermarket lights⦠(1)

MadKeithV (102058) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895267)

The BMW thing does make sense. The time used in replacing your burned out bulb is paid for by BMW on the original lights. It is a light that BMW has confidence in and they know the reliability of the bulbs and thus can reliably predict a cost to themselves. The aftermarket stuff is not approved by them, they know nothing about it, its problems, the cost of the bulbs, or life expectancy. They will not pay for it because they cannot reliably determine what their liability will be.

"Randomly" picking a keyword and 10 surrounding words out of a large article could ruin the context of an article as well (or creatively alter it), so by that logic this lawsuit may actually have some merit. Mis-quoting is an art form.

Re:Aftermarket lights⦠(1)

CharlieHedlin (102121) | more than 5 years ago | (#28896131)

In a car the dealership is not owned by BMW. Their service department is reimbursed by BMW USA to perform the service, parts and labor. The parent poster wanted to put in a different bulb he would pay for, reducing BMW's immediate cost and future liability (they obviously wouldn't be on the hook to replace it the next time around).

My suspicion is that it was about bureaucracy. The dealership can't be reimbursed for the labor without adding the part, and if they didn't install a part they billed BMW for it would be fraud. These restrictions make sense in a large warranty program.

Re:Aftermarket lights⦠(1)

jscotta44 (881299) | more than 5 years ago | (#28896227)

Mostly agreedâ"at least to the workings. However, I would not attribute this to bureaucracy, but rather to finance. I don't think anyone wants to be financially liable for anything that they cannot control the cost on.

Re:Aftermarket lights⦠(1)

harpune (557684) | more than 5 years ago | (#28896305)

whoa, the reverse car analogy? You're blowing my mind, here.

Re:I wonder how far you could take this (4, Insightful)

Shin-LaC (1333529) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895399)

If you're talking about those hideous ultra-bright blindness beams that assholes have been putting on their cars lately, refusing to install them is in everyone's best interest.

Re:I wonder how far you could take this (1)

furby076 (1461805) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895561)

If you're talking about those hideous ultra-bright blindness beams that assholes have been putting on their cars lately, refusing to install them is in everyone's best interest.

The lights were to replace the yellow daytime running lights with white DRLs. At night I have xenons. So nope, but thanks for trying.

BTW those "ultra-bright blindness beams..." are not really ultra-bright, they are normal lights (typically with a light blue "paint" on the bulb). People who do installs either forget to adjust the height of the lights or purposefully set them high. So instead of the light hitting the back of the car in front of them (at license plate level or lower) it hits the rear view mirror. So yes, they are assholes or neglectful, but no not because of the light but how they are installed. BTW installing lights at that high a level will mean your car does not pass inspection (in the US at least).

Re:I wonder how far you could take this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28895807)

What is this inspection you mention? I've owned four cars over the past 2 decades and have never had an inspection. I live in Illinois about 45 miles south of chicago.

Wells Fargo has indeed contested their own lawsuit (1)

iYk6 (1425255) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895423)

Wells Fargo sueing itself (for default loans) is required to properly acquire payment. It is not like they are going to contest it and sit in court aruging with each other.

Wells Fargo has already contested their own lawsuit. From the summary [slashdot.org] : "Defendant admits that it is the owner and holder of a mortgage encumbering the subject real property. All other allegations of the complaint are denied."

Re:I wonder how far you could take this (1)

Tolkien (664315) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895317)

AT&T charging a discount fee for discounts

That's the first I've heard of it! WTF AT&T? [LOLCAT=Yer doin' it wrong. /]

Re:I wonder how far you could take this (1)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895415)

Only one so far that I know of, but they may decide it's a good program and expand it.

Re:I wonder how far you could take this (1)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895481)

Apparently, the news clipping service would have been fine if it had just emailed the eleven word clippings, published them on the web, and/or published them on paper that's designed to self-destruct itself. Their point seems to be that copyright doesn't seem to apply when text is "transient".

The ruling doesn't specifically mention the workarounds of using invisible ink, writing things on your hand, using a etch-a-sketch, and/or making temporary snow angels, but those "transient" writing techniques certainly haven't been ruled out by the European High Court as of yet -- so keep your fingers crossed on those -- the result is very hopeful.

Re:I wonder how far you could take this (1)

Caledfwlch (1434813) | more than 5 years ago | (#28896675)

Next we'll be seeing words randomly redacted from newspapers on newsstands to protect passersby from accidentally breaking copyright laws!

Shooting themselves in the foot. (1)

dov_0 (1438253) | more than 5 years ago | (#28897311)

The stupid thing is that the search business that they are suing is actually driving business to them? If only in a minor way (sans advertising).

But why would they not want this? (2, Insightful)

furby076 (1461805) | more than 5 years ago | (#28894909)

So a company searches the intarweb for news stories and displays a snippit (11 words) of this on their site with a link to the newspaper (driving up their readership). This is free advertisement for newspapers, and as they should know free advertisement is almost as awesome as free beer!

Re:But why would they not want this? (4, Informative)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 5 years ago | (#28894989)

Nothing to do with the "intarweb". They were taking dead-tree newspapers, scanning, OCRing, extracting snippets from the resulting text, and printing them. Actually if this had been entirely electronic the ruling would have been different, because one of the two rulings is that the last step of making a physical print-out is non-transient, and thus one exemption is ruled not to apply.

The other ruling is that an 11 word extract is not automatically incapable of being worthy of copyright protection: (my emphasis)

An act occurring during a data capture process, which consists of storing an extract of a protected work comprising 11 words and printing out that extract, is such as to come within the concept of reproduction in part within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, if the elements thus reproduced are the expression of the intellectual creation of their author; it is for the national court to make this determination.

This isn't entirely unreasonable, because otherwise haiku authors be rather unprotected.

Finally, to answer your original question of why they don't want this: I think it's because the purpose here isn't to create an index for people in general to use but to create a resource for Infopaq's researchers to then write original content summarising the news.

Re:But why would they not want this? (2, Interesting)

nagnamer (1046654) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895133)

if the elements thus reproduced are the expression of the intellectual creation of their author

"I love you too, Honey Bunny!"

How many of you said Pulp Fiction when they saw it? And it's just 6 words.

How about "Luke, I'm your father"?

Musically? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28895207)

Da Da Da Dum.

Three notes. Not even the notes. I bet you didn't just deadpan it out either.

And I bet you thought "Beethoven's Fifth Symphony" (even if you don't remember the name).

Re:Musically? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895257)

Da Da Da Dum.

Three notes. Not even the notes. I bet you didn't just deadpan it out either.

And I bet you thought "Beethoven's Fifth Symphony" (even if you don't remember the name).

That's a completely different situation because Ludwig van Beethoven died before 1939.

Re:Musically? (1)

Crazyswedishguy (1020008) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895479)

Da Da Da Dum.

Three notes.

It's actually "Ba ba ba BOM!", and that's four notes.

Re:Musically? (1)

StellarFury (1058280) | more than 5 years ago | (#28896351)

Actually, if you're talking about the first four notes of the Fifth, which you probably are, the last note is understated in most recordings. Blame Furtwangler. The big one comes near the end of the first movement, after the quasi-development section.

Re:But why would they not want this? (1)

nagnamer (1046654) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895077)

This is free advertisement for newspapers, and as they should know free advertisement is almost as awesome as free beer!

Maybe they don't drink?

Re:But why would they not want this? (1)

thethibs (882667) | more than 5 years ago | (#28896745)

What the hell is an "intarweb"? I'm not up on Saturday morning cartoons. Did I miss something?

11-words extract of the article (5, Funny)

euyis (1521257) | more than 5 years ago | (#28894919)

"The has that a of could be and with a the."

Re:11-words extract of the article (1)

aynoknman (1071612) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895575)

"The has that a of could be and with a the."

You misquoted the article. Specifically:

"The has that a of could be and was copyright copyright"

Five Words (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28894921)

De minimis non curat lex.

I'd love to be plagiarized like this... (3, Insightful)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#28894929)

I really don't understand how Newspapers would not want the traffic that a link would generate. There is nothing more than I would love to have than a thousand sites with 11 word snippets of my articles linking back to me.

Seems foolish.

Re:I'd love to be plagiarized like this... (5, Insightful)

simcop2387 (703011) | more than 5 years ago | (#28894997)

that's just it, most of them want that traffic, but they also want to be paid for the privilege of having a link to the article. it's just them being greedy.

Re:I'd love to be plagiarized like this... (3, Insightful)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895087)

that's just it, most of them want that traffic, but they also want to be paid for the privilege of having a link to the article. it's just them being greedy.

Me thinks they need to learn that the internet is pretty unforgiving when it comes to shoddy content.

Re:I'd love to be plagiarized like this... (1)

nagnamer (1046654) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895177)

that's just it, most of them want that traffic, but they also want to be paid for the privilege of having a link to the article. it's just them being greedy.

Or desperate. With Internet and all, newspapers don't exactly have exclusivity nowadays. Sure, some people might actually appreciate a well-crafter piece of professional commentary. On the other hand lots of people just want quick info, be it TV or Internet. Some even watch Twitter for news. I bet profits from running a newspaper house isn't exactly what it used to be.

Re:I'd love to be plagiarized like this... (1)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 5 years ago | (#28896687)

I think it's the search engines who are being greedy. The search engines' content is all the sites they index. The search engines want to get that content for free, and only the few indexed sites at the top of the list get anything in return for producing that content. To make matters worse, that top few often has to pay to be there, so the search engines offer nothing in return for their free content.

I don't think the newspapers have a problem with showing up in search results. I think their problem is every newspaper has the same content and only one of them will show up at the top of the search results. They'd be better off if there were no links to anybody and each paper had its local market to itself. I think a happy compromise, at least for the newspapers and search engines, would be if the search engines were aware of the users' location and only showed them the links from their local papers.

Re:I'd love to be plagiarized like this... (1)

dyfet (154716) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895137)

You misunderstand. It is not that they want to block their articles and summaries from being carried and indexed, hence darwining themselves out of business, such as the Belgium publishers who refuse to use robots.txt to block Google demonstrate. Ultimately they both actually want their stuff to be indexed and carried, even if becomes necessary to find ways to force others to carry their links and summarizes, while at the same time they want to force those they hope they can force to carry their stuff to also pay them for the conveyance. That is what they are really after.

Re:I'd love to be plagiarized like this... (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895147)

That is what they are really after.

Seems like it would be a lot easier to write better stuff.

Re:I'd love to be plagiarized like this... (1, Troll)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895153)

However, would you like it if, instead of visiting your site every day, they visited a central site that listed the stories on it instead. You ended up not getting homepage views and viewers on average visited few pages if they visited. For popular sites, this could represent a massive drop in revenue.

Some places just don't like the principle of a robot systematically plowing through their site and copying an publishing many pages worth of text written by them on a daily basis. Even if the snippets themselves are small, overall, huge amounts of content is being ripped automatically from their site and being profited upon by someone.

It's one thing saying "they're suing because of 11 words!", it's another saying "they're suing for pages upon pages being ripped on a regular basis"

You mean like google? (1)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895457)

However, would you like it if, instead of visiting your site every day, they visited a central site that listed the stories on it instead.

You mean like google?

They still have to buy the newspaper or visit the website to read the actual story.

Re:You mean like google? (1)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895645)

people go to search engines to search for something specific rather than general idle reading, that's a different type of reader (and one that isn't as valuable).

They still go to the website if they get the headlines and links from a third party but they don't go via the homepage. They'll get far fewer page views from someone who gets a list of their stories on a third party site than if they go to their front page to do so.

Re:You mean like google? (1)

woe.scott (888837) | more than 5 years ago | (#28896063)

general idle reading

*cough* http://idle.slashdot.org/ [slashdot.org] *cough*

Re:You mean like google? (1)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 5 years ago | (#28897067)

Before my website got hacked to hell, I had a lot of articles there, which I spent a lot of time producing. Google cached them all and made it possible to read all of them without ever going to my site. So basically my content was now Google's content and I got nothing for it, not even a page view. I figured out how to tell it to index but not cache, but still I had to opt out rather than opt in.

Re:I'd love to be plagiarized like this... (1)

c-reus (852386) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895949)

how different is this from using an RSS feed to read the summaries? Assuming the website provides those, of course.

Re:I'd love to be plagiarized like this... (1)

cowscows (103644) | more than 5 years ago | (#28896031)

The counter to that argument is that (just throwing out a random website) for all the people who use various content aggregators to get NYtimes articles instead of going through the NYtimes homepage, there are probably just as many people who have no particular interested in the NYtimes, but get sent to random NYtimes articles by various content aggregators. Does that make sense?

I'm not searching reddit for NYtimes articles in lieu of going to the NYtimes homepage. If a reddit link sends me there, then that's one more page hit than they would've gotten otherwise.

And if readers are finding third-party content aggregators to be a more useful way to find your articles than your own homepage, then maybe you should think seriously about a redesign.

Of course, I've seen no real data to back up any of these positions, so maybe that'd make this whole argument more useful.

Re:I'd love to be plagiarized like this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28896639)

*cough* http://alterslash.org/ [alterslash.org] *cough*

Re:I'd love to be plagiarized like this... (1)

gurps_npc (621217) | more than 5 years ago | (#28896197)

The problem is that the people would NEVER want to visist their crappy site every day.

If they did, they neever would have gone to the central site in the first place. They would have found the original article when they logged in. I go to google for news not "http://abcnews.go.com" because I find that google's automated search is a FAR FAR BETTER service than abcnews.

At heart, what is going on is company A is saying "Company B is better than my company. Make them pay me or go out of business so I can survive."

They will respond that Company B would go out of business if Company A goes out of business. Wrong. Company C, D, E and F will continue to provide Company B with alternative sources for news and also Company C,D,E, and F all will continue to exist even if they don't get money from Company B.

Re:I'd love to be plagiarized like this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28896671)

However, would you like it if, instead of visiting your site every day, they visited a central site that listed the stories on it instead. You ended up not getting homepage views and viewers on average visited few pages if they visited. For popular sites, this could represent a massive drop in revenue.

Yeah, that would suck.

But if that's the case, it makes me wonder how the site was making money in the first place. If all people want is one or two critical pages, why do you have the rest of the site there at all? People obviously aren't viewing it... Or if they are, it's because they have to in order to get to the bits they want.

Re:I'd love to be plagiarized like this... (1)

fearlezz (594718) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895371)

Ssssst. Don't tell them.
Less links = less income = earlier death for the dead-tree-media.

Re:I'd love to be plagiarized like this... (1)

photomonkey (987563) | more than 5 years ago | (#28897039)

That traffic brings in absolutely no money at all.

Most national advertisers can do much better campaign-wise than advertising in newspapers or on their Web sites.

And does a flowershop advertising in a paper in in New York (or Phoenix or Chicago) really give a shit if someone in Nebraska glanced at an ad for the flowershop hundreds of miles away?

I think the next step for news agencies is to turn off the Web sites to the public, and only sell content to the people willing to pay well for it.

Industry magazines do it all the time. Last I checked, National Journal was well over $3,000 per year and people were happily paying it.

Who cares if you get a bajillion majillion hits? Click does not equal cash.

"Fair use" is an American concept (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#28894933)

It comes-down from the oligarchs sitting on the Supreme Court, so I'm not surprised that the European court might reach a different conclusion (i.e. even 11 words violates the artists' exclusive copy license).

Re:"Fair use" is an American concept (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28895033)

It comes-down from the oligarchs sitting on the Supreme Court, so I'm not surprised that the European court might reach a different conclusion (i.e. even 11 words violates the artists' exclusive copy license).

I copyright these configurations of words:

"and the"
"of the"
"from the"
"with the"
"by the"
"for the"

I dare someone to violate my "excluse copy license".

I'll see you in court.

Re:"Fair use" is an American concept (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28895541)

amusing comment, but exactly which "oligarchs" are you referring to?

Re:"Fair use" is an American concept (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#28897929)

>>>amusing comment, but exactly which "oligarchs" are you referring to?

Can't you read Anon. Coward? The ones "sitting on the Supreme Court" as I stated originally. And for your further reading:

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps." - Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

10-word extract coming up (2, Funny)

rxmd (205533) | more than 5 years ago | (#28894935)

From TFA:

A Danish pressclipping company could be violating copyright by printing

Expecting to be sued for copyright violation in 3...2...1...

Re:10-word extract coming up (1)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895231)

That's only ten. And "pressclipping" isn't a word so it doesn't count. Mind you, the court made a similar mistake. Observe the example given in the ruling of an 11-word extract (5 words either side of TDC):

"a forthcoming sale of the telecommunications group TDC which is expected to be bought"

Re:10-word extract coming up (1)

rxmd (205533) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895347)

That's only ten.

Well yes, there's always the other solution:

Adanishpressclippingcompany couldbeviolatingcopyrightbyprintingout elevenwordsnippetsofnewsarticles theeuropeancourtofjusticeruled theluxembourgbasedcourt remandedtheissuetodenmark foradeterminationonwhetherthesnippets compriseintellectualproperty.

Eight words. You could do it in even less, but the Slashdot lameness filter is apparently in league with the copyright mafia.

Re:10-word extract coming up (1)

Turiko (1259966) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895367)

you've only got 10 words :P

Production costs vs reproduction costs (1)

baffled (1034554) | more than 5 years ago | (#28894975)

In theory, copyright is upheld to allow amortization of production costs through reproduction sales. Quoting portions of a text in a search response only serves to help that text be located, and perhaps, a sale made. There should be a law against convoluted laws.

Re:Production costs vs reproduction costs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28895081)

In theory, copyright is upheld to allow amortization of production costs through reproduction sales.

In your theory, perhaps, but this isn't mentioned in European law nor in the Berne Convention. It doesn't seem like the sort of thing Queen Anne would have been muttering when she signed the first copyright Act in 1709 either.

Printed copies are obviously not transient (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895023)

More problematic is the absence of any concept of fair use. The court did not say that 11 word quotations were necessarily infringinig, though: they pushed that decision back on the lower court.

In the end... (1)

SlashV (1069110) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895025)

In the end, even a 1-word extract will be copyrighted and we'll no longer be able to say anything without violating someone's copyright.

Re:In the end... (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895515)

Khaaan! [khaaan.com]

Pseudo-Streisand effect (1)

Sneakernets (1026296) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895047)

I could safely bet the next 10 stories will have the tag '11words'.

Proportionality (1)

bk2204 (310841) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895079)

Not that I agree with the ruling, but if you look at the case in terms of US fair use (which I admit is not applicable in Europe), there's a significant difference between quoting eleven words in a newspaper article, which is fairly short, and quoting eleven words in a book or short story. Proportionally, the amount used is significantly greater.

Nevertheless, I agree that this is a reasonable, non-infringing use. It doesn't harm the commercial aspects of the newspapers, since it's not like anyone is going to get their news from these eleven-word snippets.

Some 11-word snippets on Google News (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895245)

These are the some 11 word extracts from the first few "headlines" on Google News's front page as of a few minutes ago, along with links to their articles:

...the death of an Islamic sect leader whose capture police announced.... (link [bbc.co.uk] )

...bombs exploded within minutes near Shi'ite mosques across Baghdad on Friday... (link [reuters.com] )

...the economy shrank at a 1% rate in the second quarter. (link [cnn.com] )

Re:Proportionality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28895449)

Looked at that way, this is great news for twits everywhere. (Or however they call themselves.)

In the USA it would be a case-by-case basis. (1, Insightful)

davidwr (791652) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895113)

By far most articles would fail under "fair use" but if the 11 words happened to include the a majority of a very small article, there could be problems.

There is also another risk: If the newspaper article quoted someone else, and that quote was lifted without the surrounding text, the 11-word snippet may not be fair use of the original quote.

Here's a contrived example:

I'm a humorist. I make up 1-line zingers for fortune cookies and filler material for community newspapers.

I become famous and a major newspaper does a story on me and prints one of my giggles as an example. Fair use. This search engine comes along and returns the one-liner with a word or two on either side. Sorry, that's not fair use of my original work. Maybe it should be, but in America, it's not.

Yes, that example is contrived but it is possible.

Re:In the USA it would be a case-by-case basis. (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#28896181)

Fair use can apply to an entire work. In your example it probably would.

You probably would also have difficulty enforcing copyright at all on most of your short "zingers".

That's actually a good thing (2, Funny)

jerep (794296) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895187)

Next, merely refering to the thing will get you sued, until you cant even read the thing without promising you will forget what you read. And sooner or later we will just forget about people copyrighting their work alltogether, and just like Darth Sidious said "and then.. we shall have peace".

Copyright is Evil (5, Interesting)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895205)

I'm fed up. Copyright is evil. I'm a graphic designer who's worked as a writer and an editor so, needless to say, a great deal of my living is made on works protected by copyright but enough is enough. It's a joke. The original intent of copyrights has been so grossly perverted and abused that they're simply evil now. They no longer protect those they were intended to protect and they are abused by those who have absolutely nothing to do with the actual creative works. They're evil.

Re:Copyright is Evil (1)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 5 years ago | (#28896603)

IMHO copyright should be severely limited to a much smaller subset or what appears to be covered in today's interpretation.

Copyright should only cover *original* work. News is not original as it is simply an account of an event. Neither are sets of data such as nutrition tables, product lists or any other recording of factual data - regardless of the effort involved in compiling them. Just because you put time into gathering information does not imply that you and only you should thereafter have control of the compilation. You get the benefit of being the first to have access. It's a trade secret that's all. Much like a recipe - which AFAIK does not benefit from copyright protection for this very reason - it is simply a collection of ingredients... unless of course there is some very special instructions involved at which point you may consider a patent on the process - not the recipe mind you but the process of cooking or whatever it is. If your collection of data is only valuable when the public has access to it - well maybe it's not the right type of data to build a business around.

So again IMHO the gathering and organizing / editing of factual data should not be covered by copyright. Even a collection of collections is suspect. It is a public service.

If a news organization can provide such a public service in a timely manner and in a format that many people appreciate then they can profit from the delivery service (which is the traditional means of profit) and can profit from including advertising included in their delivery format (the other traditional means of profit) - if not, no profit.

So who will do such a public service when the delivery and format is no longer appreciated - non-profits. Non-profits abound which employ many people and provide a very good livelihood for those they employ. They take in charitable contributions from individuals and businesses, receive funding from taxpayers via the government and may charge fees for services rendered to cover costs of operation.

This would seem to me to be a very good model. Businesses who want access to the data collected in a pure format would contribute tax deductible amounts to the non-profit. In return they get the data in a format easily and cheaply integrated into their service or product. Everyone else gets access second hand for free with no copyright but they have to make do with whatever format they can find via the first party subscribers. In this way nobody has invested huge amounts of capital in the data and yet it is collected in a maintainable manner... those with an interest in the data being structured pay for it's collection and are reimbursed in part through tax deductions, those who simply care about the content have free access.

Re:Copyright is Evil (1)

StellarFury (1058280) | more than 5 years ago | (#28896609)

Copyright isn't evil.

Copyright _extensions_ are evil.

The way I see it, copyright should extend through creator's death. When the dude who made it dies, poof. Done. If the creator can't make money off it, nobody should be able to.

Unfortunately, the system will never change, because the people who have truly benefited from copyright have been made rich by the work of others. Being unable to sell the works of others would leave them no way to continue their rich-as-fuck lifestyle. But because they have all the money, they have all the political sway, and can mold legal reality as they see fit. The internet seems like such a great tool for self-publishing, if only it could become competitive with the big players.

Re:Copyright is Evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28897405)

The GPL and Creative Commons would disagree.

Re:Copyright is Evil (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 5 years ago | (#28897801)

I'm a graphic designer who's worked as a writer and an editor so, needless to say, a great deal of my living is made on works protected by copyright but enough is enough.

Just rememebr that even without copyright, you can still charge others for your labor (time), just like many other people do. The only downside is that you only get paid once, when you do it, rather than every time someone thinks about your work.

(C) (1)

erbbysam (964606) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895233)

The European Court of Justice, Europe's highest court, has ruled that... nuts

Re:(C) (1)

Arimus (198136) | more than 5 years ago | (#28896809)

Soon you'll need to come up with a new expression. The phrase nuts is owned respectively by God Inc. when used in relation to a plant or part of a mammal and by the estate of General McAuliffe when used as an expression of anger or frustration.

Not quite what they said (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895487)

As far as I can tell, the decision said only that the 11-word snippets did not fall under a "transient copying" exception, not that they consisted copying substantial enough to infringe copyright.

Works for TFS too (1)

gt6062b (1548011) | more than 5 years ago | (#28895781)

Center on the word DDF

"Practice was challenged by the DDF, a group representing newspaper interests"

From that, we can determine that - this is going to be about fair use/copyright, newspapers will shoot themselves in the foot to try to stay relevant^W afloat, and that we should all go to using 10 word snippets, to be safe.

Re:Works for TFS too (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#28896535)

In German ten words is the whole article.

Sue Me (1)

the_mushroom_king (708305) | more than 5 years ago | (#28896207)

splodus The Court Justice highest has that providing snippets newspaper unlawful.

See you in court

what about quoting someone? (5, Insightful)

openright (968536) | more than 5 years ago | (#28896487)

If the newspapers can claim that an 11 word phrase is copyrighted, then a person should be able to claim that a statement is copyrighted,
and the newspapers would be prevented from making direct quotes.

--- a future newspaper article --- ...
With these events, we should be reminded of the words of John F. Kennedy: (paraphase*) "[Do not ask what services your government can provide for you. Instead ask your government how you can help.]".

* The original quote is owned by the Kennedy family,

Haiku anyone? (1)

mi (197448) | more than 5 years ago | (#28897001)

There are cases, where everything needed is said in eleven words — or even less...

CoR3k (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28897021)

risK looking even

Pulling stories from the memory hole (2, Interesting)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 5 years ago | (#28897369)

Years ago, there was a current story (same day) that was indexed by Google but which the originating site had pulled from the web. Google wouldn't provide a copy of their cache for it and only give me a short snippet in the search results.

So I took two or three words at the start of the snippet, turned them into a quoted phrase, and did a "site:" search of them and the headline. That got me a few more words. Same for words at the end of the snippet. Pretty soon I had the entire paragraph.

However, Google wouldn't give preceding or following words past the paragraph mark, so I had to guess at unique words that would be in other paragraphs, and no clues as to the order of the paragraphs. I do believe I managed to retrieve the entire story in this manner without providing a hit for the originating site, but then, they apparently didn't want the traffic since they'd pulled the story from the site.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>