This site is closed to new comments and posts.

Notice: This site uses cookies to function.
If you are not comfortable with cookies then please don't browse this website.

Maybe the NYT doesn't like it when you link to them . . . — Brooklynian

Maybe the NYT doesn't like it when you link to them . . .

pitu
pitu
edited November -1 in The Lounge / Random Stuff

Subject: Maybe the NYT doesn't like it when you link to them . . .

Apartment Therapy just got a take down notice for the Times...
http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/ny/dmca-take-down-notice-the-nytimes-goes-to-war-wants-to-shut-us-down-079672
«1

Comments

  • flo
    flo
    Interesting. Keep us posted if you can.
  • eggcream
    eggcream
    The NYT should be glad there are still some people who read their paper instead of filling their cat litter box with it. No wonder their stock is worthless.
  • flo
    flo
    Hey- Pitu..Can I ask a question if you know? What is Apartment Therapy? Is it an online blog or mag that posts its own content primarily or is it an aggregrate or some kind of mix? (this is a serious question--I do not know them at all.)
  • carmen
    carmen
    ya they're coming off like a bunch of petty assholes
  • flo
    flo
    eggcream wrote: The NYT should be glad there are still some people who read their paper instead of filling their cat litter box with it. No wonder their stock is worthless.
    Hey..I read their paper and I don't have a cat. :)
  • mantic
    mantic
    the times is bleeding and is looking for new revenue streams.
  • modsquad
    modsquad
    I bet they won't block "The Local". I think I'll go over there and see what Andy has to say.

    Still walkin...
  • flo
    flo
    Sounds good mod. It would also be interesting to see the story actually covered in the times paper/website.
  • MOD
    MOD
    Apt Therapy is a website with original content and also reporting on other apartment design and related topics out in other media outlets. Do they own Ready Made magazine? They link a lot to each other.
  • pitu
    pitu
    Mamacita wrote: Apt Therapy is a website with original content and also reporting on other apartment design and related topics out in other media outlets. Do they own Ready Made magazine? They link a lot to each other.
    Pretty sure they don't own any print publications, but they certainly do link to them a lot. They might trade ad space as well.

    As I recall, an interior designer had a book in the works and cleverly started blogging. Quite a community came out of it - I've found it really useful for household info and finding stuff like fabric. They aggregate from all over the place, as well as posting original and community-generated material.

    I'm sympathetic to the NYT and other papers -- old media pays for the pretty pictures, then whole sites are built around their work. AT is a successful commercial venture that appears to do quite well for itself.

    I think when it's a core resource for a business, another business shouldn't be expected to support them. That's totally different from referencing something in a fair use situation btw. I'm all for open-source AND respecting intellectual property.
  • pitu
    pitu
    Flo wrote: Sounds good mod. It would also be interesting to see the story actually covered in the times paper/website.
    Bet they have a policy of not reporting on themselves...
    :D
  • flo
    flo
    Mama and Pitu, thanks for the input. Appreciated.
  • flo
    flo
    pitu wrote: [quote=Flo]Sounds good mod. It would also be interesting to see the story actually covered in the times paper/website.
    Bet they have a policy of not reporting on themselves...
    :D

    Throw down the gauntlet gal. I imagine they will respond if the story is picked up and covered elsewhere, although I for one, would be very disappointed to hear that they wouldn't cover this story.
  • sweet tea
    sweet tea
    pitu wrote: [quote=Flo]Sounds good mod. It would also be interesting to see the story actually covered in the times paper/website.
    Bet they have a policy of not reporting on themselves...
    :D

    i think i remember from the jayson blair business that there is a reporter specifically assigned to report on the times. i remember because that reporter wasn't allowed in the big board meeting that everybody else went to, for some reason that escaped me even at the time.
  • bleibtreu
    bleibtreu
    Flo wrote: It would also be interesting to see the story actually covered in the times paper/website.
    Well, to be fair, takedown notices are pretty routine. They're not something a newspaper will normally report, and that this one involves the paper itself doesn't really make it more newsworthy.
  • flo
    flo
    bleibtreu wrote: [quote=Flo]It would also be interesting to see the story actually covered in the times paper/website.
    Well, to be fair, takedown notices are pretty routine. They're not something a newspaper will normally report, and that this one involves the paper itself doesn't really make it more newsworthy.

    Well then I guess my questions are:
    How routine are they? The folks at the website that received the takedown notice seemed to think (or want to convey that message at the very least) this was a change in their relationship with the paper. Am I merely being sucked into a PR war here?
  • flo
    flo
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/16/business/media/16ap.html

    Well...The Times has reported on the topic before and blogged on it as well, so I can't see that it couldn't do that again.
  • pitu
    pitu
    Flo wrote: [quote=bleibtreu][quote=Flo]It would also be interesting to see the story actually covered in the times paper/website.
    Well, to be fair, takedown notices are pretty routine. They're not something a newspaper will normally report, and that this one involves the paper itself doesn't really make it more newsworthy.

    Well then I guess my questions are:
    How routine are they? The folks at the website that received the takedown notice seemed to think (or want to convey that message at the very least) this was a change in their relationship with the paper. Am I merely being sucked into a PR war here?

    I really like AT, but that's total PR/rallying of community on their site. And if I were the NYT, this would appear to be total small potatoes that I wouldn't feel compelled to call attention to, not to mention being potential litigation. It's interesting in the larger theoretical scheme of things -- like that story about the AP that you link to, Flo.

    I agree with bleibtreu that it really isn't all that newsworthy . . . big news for AT, but not for anyone else. I wonder what the % of content linking tips the scales so that they send The Letter.

    The NYT has a Public Editor, and I *think* someone else that writes in the Monday media/biz section about the paper on occasion. The public editor wasn't allowed in the big jason blair meeting because the meeting wasn't Open To The Press. I guess the public editor has to report the same way someone from the WSJ or the News would . . .
  • flo
    flo
    I agree with the PR assessment, which was my immediate call, but wanted to make sure that my personal bias (I read the NYtimes and not Apartment Therapy) wasn't influencing my thoughts on the matter. Still I think we might see it somewhere. I mean the Times had time to bring us the news about a completely obscure blog DABA (Dating a Banker), so I would think they might have some time to kill on this one.
  • armchair_warrior
    armchair_warrior
    i don't know, i been linking to nytimes articles for years on other message boards i post on. it never happen to me before.
  • doctorj
    doctorj
    Factoid: the NYT currently employs 25% of all of the full-time paid investigative journalists in the USA. That's ten out of a total of forty.
  • pitu
    pitu
    doctorj wrote: Factoid: the NYT currently employs 25% of all of the full-time paid investigative journalists in the USA. That's ten out of a total of forty.
    Holy crap. I wonder how many did the NYT employ 10 years ago? I've noticed that just about everybody with a book deal has left the paper . . .
  • bleibtreu
    bleibtreu
    armchair_warrior wrote: i don't know, i been linking to nytimes articles for years on other message boards i post on. it never happen to me before.
    It's not about linking, which is perfectly acceptable. It's about copying and reposting pictures and other copyrighted content. The site's owners think that what they were doing would fall under "fair use" (I have no idea because I'd never visited the site before seeing this thread), apparently the Times legal people don't.

    Under the DMCA, a content producer can contact a provider making a claim of copyright content by a user. The user here is Apartment Therapy, the provider is whatever hosting company they use. The provider is then required to remove the contested content and notify the user, who then can respond by saying that the content is appropriate, in which case the provider is required to restore access to it and the dispute goes to the courts (the provider is not part of the dispute, as long as they comply with both parts of that they have "safe harbor" from violations by their users). Or, of course, the user can simply accept the removal.

    Again, I don't know exactly what AT was doing, but look at a site like Gothamist to see an example of what will easily be termed fair use. Almost every article there is based on links to news sites, which they summarize and paraphrase as their own content.
  • armchair_warrior
    armchair_warrior
    bleibtreu wrote: [quote=armchair_warrior]i don't know, i been linking to nytimes articles for years on other message boards i post on. it never happen to me before.
    It's not about linking, which is perfectly acceptable. It's about copying and reposting pictures and other copyrighted content. The site's owners think that what they were doing would fall under "fair use" (I have no idea because I'd never visited the site before seeing this thread), apparently the Times legal people don't.

    Under the DMCA, a content producer can contact a provider making a claim of copyright content by a user. The user here is Apartment Therapy, the provider is whatever hosting company they use. The provider is then required to remove the contested content and notify the user, who then can respond by saying that the content is appropriate, in which case the provider is required to restore access to it and the dispute goes to the courts (the provider is not part of the dispute, as long as they comply with both parts of that they have "safe harbor" from violations by their users). Or, of course, the user can simply accept the removal.

    Again, I don't know exactly what AT was doing, but look at a site like Gothamist to see an example of what will easily be termed fair use. Almost every article there is based on links to news sites, which they summarize and paraphrase as their own content.

    i also copy and paste and post pictures and link it to nytimes too. i been doing this since nytimes came out online. in the mid 90's.
  • flo
    flo
    armchair_warrior wrote: i don't know, i been linking to nytimes articles for years on other message boards i post on. it never happen to me before.
    This absolutely explains their actions. I imagine you were the straw that broke their back. That's what I like about this board. Sometimes you ask a question and someone weighs in and wallah, mystery solved. Took you nearly 15 years but you done it kid! :)
  • bleibtreu
    bleibtreu
    armchair_warrior wrote: i don't know, i been linking to nytimes articles for years on other message boards i post on. it never happen to me before.
    armchair_warrior wrote: i also copy and paste and post pictures and link it to nytimes too. i been doing this since nytimes came out online. in the mid 90's.
    I suppose if you're one user of some board and posting something occasionally that may be infringing, it's probably under the radar. If it's all a particular site does, it's more likely to be noticed. And, this action could be a sign that they are just beginning to step up their copyright enforcement activity. It never happened to Apartment Therapy before either.

    Also, just to be clear, as a user of a site it wouldn't "happen to you." You would never receive a notice, the site's operator would get a "cease and desist" and their hosting provider would get a takedown notice.
  • flo
    flo
    Bleibtreu--Do you now think that it might be newsworthy? If indeed it is or could be considered a sign that they are perhaps changing their policy on copyright enforcement or being more aggressive about enforcing? I think there's some news there. At the least, I'd be interested in exactly what they want Apartment Therapy to take down. Photos?
  • bleibtreu
    bleibtreu
    Having now done some searching both on Google and at chillingeffects.org, I can't find any sign that there's been a flood of takedown notices from the Times. An article at boingboing says the Times is going after "blogs," but the only case it mentions is AT. Chilling Effects' database only shows a couple records of cases involving the Times (but they have only those cases that are reported to them by a recipient).

    Through Google's cache, I've looked at a few AT pages that in my opinion would be objectionable to a publisher. They're not a single picture with a summary and a link to a Times page; they reproduce entire slideshows. Essentially they take away any need to click through to nytimes.com.

    My opinion, I should say, is not that of an intellectual property attorney; but my DMCA knowledge comes from having run a hosting company, having been active in that business community and advising other providers on their responsibilities under the DMCA, and having been a content producer in a competitive online business area where my own site's content has been plagiarized moving me to take action under the DMCA's provisions.
  • flo
    flo
    http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/ny/history/jp-morgans-private-study-the-new-york-times-31809-079592

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/03/18/nyregion/20090319-rooms-pano.html

    Bleibtreu- I looked at some of those pics (particularly the recent photospread on J.P. Morgan's private study above) as well and had similar thoughts about a publisher's point of view, but I don't have your knowledge in the field of online content. I noticed right away that on the NYtimes site, it looked like the photographer was credited immediately below the photos, but not on the AT site. Also that although the AT site linked to NYtimes, it first linked to the written article and only at the bottom of the post did it link to the photospread on NYtimes. My thoughts immediately were that this site (AT) is mostly eye-oriented and that the eye-oriented content was generated elsewhere. My thoughts were that the credit for the content should have been closer to the content, particularly for the photographer, who I'm assuming was paid by the NYtimes for his work.

    Still it seems that AT was saying they would be willing to work something out with the Times, so it will be interesting to see if/what that might entail.

    Saw that Boingboing post too and had the same thought.

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
  • flo
    flo
    http://gawker.com/5179967/newspapers-demand-google-welfare
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In

Categories