\n"; echo $styleSheet; ?>
Home > Copyfight

March 29, 2004
Copyrighting Headlines and BloggersEmail This EntryPrint This Entry
Posted by Ernest Miller

Last week I wrote a piece about copyright and headlines (Copyrighting Newspaper Headlines?). Be sure to read the excellent comments of Fred from The Dead Parrot Society. Co-Copyfighter Wendy Seltzer responds to my post here: Copying Newspaper Headlines. Martin Schwimmer has linked to the story via his must-aggregate Trademark Blog (Are Newspaper Headlines Protectable?).

I want to clarify that my analysis had very little to do with bloggers who copy headlines. Frankly, I'm one of the few bloggers who almost always uses the titles of stories and posts when I link to them. Look at the above paragraph, through my archive here, Ernest Miller at Copyfight, or my personal blog The Importance Of .... To the extent that I implied bloggers would not get a different analysis, "perhaps," I was expressing my cynicism about the courts and copyright.

As I note in comments to Wendy's post, bloggers are almost certainly situated differently than the case that was apparently decided in Japan. A fair use analysis of a blogger copying newspaper headlines would almost certainly be found to be a fair use. Without going into all possible details, for example,

1) What is the character of the use?

Goes for the defense. Blogging is almost always an example of a core fair use, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, or teaching, and is frequently part of scholarship and research. For most bloggers, the use is also non-commercial.

2) What is the nature of the work?

Goes for the defense. First, there is a question as to what the work is. Generally, bloggers are commenting on the article of which the headline is a title, not simply the headline itself (though sometimes that happens too - see, Wonkette Gay Marriage: Way to Drive the Point Home). This is unlike the case in Japan in which one could argue that it was the headlines themselves which were being used as the content. In the case of the headline as title, the copyright is virtually nonexistent.

3) How much of the work is used?

Goes for the defense. Again, generally the work will be the article, not the headline. The headline is a very small part of the article. Unlike the case in Japan where the headlines were being used as content and the entire headline (numerous headlines) were being copied.

4) What will be the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work?

Goes for the defense. Generally, the market effect of commentary and criticism is not really relevant.

Also, as Wendy points out, if a blogger is posting an RSS feed of headlines on their webpage, the fact of the RSS feed indicates an implied license to use them. I'm working on a longer posting about RSS and copyright, but bloggers shouldn't feel chilled to copy headlines for their blog. On the other hand, I still wouldn't feel confident advising a commercial portal to feel entirely free of liability in stripping headlines from a newspaper that told them to knock it off.

Category: Counterpoint


There are no comments posted yet for this entry.

TrackBack URL: http://www.corante.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1925
There has been a lot of discussion of headlines and copyright this past week on Copyfight. See, Copyrighting Headlines and Bloggers, Copying Newspaper Headlines and Copyrighting Newspaper Headlines?. Now, we hear from the horse's mouth what a major wir... [Read More]

Tracked on March 30, 2004 11:51 AM





Remember personal info?

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):