One has to wonder. The crazy, silly, and potentially defining fight between the AP and the Drudge Retort over quoting AP articles on blogs and the like seems to have reached a settlement between the two parties. Unfortunately the bigger issues still remain. Both parties at the moment are being hush-hush, most likely as agreed to in the settlement, and the AP still hasn’t come forward with its “promised” guidelines. I’m guessing because they fear a torrent of abuse once they do, as this really is a no-win situation for the AP.
As Saul Hansell in The New York Times asserts, what we’ve read so far about the settlement from the AP is confusing at best. Hansell also reports on his discussion with the Drudge Retorts’ Roger Cadenhead and links to his blog. From what I’m reading we’re looking at the AP being concerned over protecting their headlines and the first paragraph of an article. Cadenhead also alludes to the fact that this could indeed turn into a much larger battle over fair use with the AP ushering in an era of tighter definitions of fair use.
Can you say murky and troubling? You betcha. Everybody is afraid of setting a precedent on this because everyone has much to lose and the whole thing is as amorphous as the concept of Fair Use itself.
So, where are the reporters working hard to uncover what the AP is really thinking on this? Just asking.
