Happy New Year!
I hope your New Year started off awesome and wonderful things happen for you in 2011.
Have you heard of the service Paper.li? Well it is the new rage on Twitter and it is beginning to take off. Paper.li allows users to organize links shared on Twitter and now Facebook into a newsletter style format. For example, a Twitter user can create a free paper.li account and designate specific Twitter users' links, usually based on subject or topic, into their own online newspaper. Sounds like a pretty amazing service. However, I observed that the newspaper does not only post the links to the content but a portion of the content published in those links. Sometimes the amount of content is a sentence or two. However, other times the service may publish a portion of content that equals a small paragraph.
I had an opportunity to interview one of the founder's of Paper.Li, Edouard Lambelet, regarding how the service works; benefits of paper.li; and possible copyright challenges. Below is what he had to say:
IPLAW101: Mr. Lambelet thank you so much for taking time out of your busy day to talk to IPLAW101 about paper.li.
Edouard: No problem. We enjoy talking to content producers. Content producers are the leaders in social curation and this is what our service is about.
IPLAW101: How did you come up with the concept of Paper.Li?
Edouard: We just wrote a blog post on this very question. On the blog we gave an in depth analysis of the need for paper.li. Paper.Li was created to fill the void in content curation. Basically, there is so much information being shared on Social Media platforms and it can be overwhelming. Paper.Li acts as a filter and organizes content by semantics and ranking. Through this system we are able to arrange content via topics and relevancy to the user.
IPLAW101: I have used the service and had my content re-published in other newsletters. I was a bit concerned about the amount of content that was published in the newsletter. The service re-publishes links but also a portion of content from those links. What is your reasoning behind re-publishing content and not just links to content? Are you concerned about Copyright challenges?
Edouard: Well the re-publishing of a small portion of the content contained in the links makes it easier for users to read and discern what content to read and in what order relevant to them. Also the re-posting of a snippet of the content provided by links is pretty much the standard now in social networking platforms. Twitter and Facebook are currently providing the same type of service to their users.
In addition, we do not re-publish links from private accounts on either Twitter or Facebook. We only re-publish links from public accounts.
IPLAW101: I think the difference in paper.li's service is that the user is able to create their own newspaper and acts as a publisher of the content whereas on Twitter and Facebook the user is freely sharing their content and links. So initially it seems as if the user may be publishing content without the owner's permission. I had a Twitter debate regarding paper.li and a fellow Twitter user suggested maybe your service can require users to send a link to content creators asking their permission to re-publish portions of their content. Have you ever considered making this an option with your service?
Edouard: Actually no. We have never received any complaints about the re-publishing of a portion of content via links. As a matter of fact, users have raved about the service because it boosts blog traffic. Users generally experience a tremendous boost in blog traffic.
IPLAW101: Yes, I have heard this from other Paper.Li users and they all are amazed about the jump in blog traffic.
Edouard: In addition, if a content producer does not want their content included in a paper.li newspaper, we do give them the option to opt-out of the service. Our goal is to be the leader in social curation and help users of share and consume content in an highly organized fashion.
IPLAW101: Thank you for your time.
Edouard: Thank you.
I really did appreciate Edouard giving me this interview at 10pm Paris time. He was very open to discussing the platform. Essentially his view is that the benefits of paper.li outweighs any possible copyright issues.
My take:
As I have previously discussed on this blog, copyright infringement occurs when:
Copyright Infringement occurs when another unlawfully copies, sells, displays or performs a copyright owner's work without their express permission. However, in some instances, copying a copyright owner's work without their permission is allowed. This is called the Fair Use exception. Specifically, an infringer of a copyright can argue Fair Use if they meet one of the following criteria:
1. the purpose and character of the use is for non-profit or non-commercial purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work is artistic and benefits the public;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion of the copy is minimal in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the copying upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work is minimal.
Paper.li's publishing of a portion of the copyright owner's work without their permission arguably falls under number 3 of the Fair Use exception, the amount and substantiality of the portion of the copy is minimal in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. To be fair to paper.li, re-publishing only a couple of sentences may very well qualify as Fair Use. Plus the U.S. Courts have not been very definitive about what portion of a copyright work is Fair Use or Copyright Infringement. These cases are usually decided on a case by case basis. For example, a few sentences of an article may be copyright infringement if it contains the heart of the work. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters, 471 U.S. 539 (1985). In the alternative, a substantial portion of a work may be Fair Use if the use is a parody or criticism. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, INc., 510 US 569 (1994).
So far the service has not received any challenges and user's find it beneficial to their blogs. Paper.li has over 2 million users and has just raised another $2.1 million in financing to expand the service globally. So paper.li is having a great deal of success. I will be watching to see how the service grows and deals with issues as they arise.
7 comments:
It seems beyond a doubt though that Paper.li is infringing copyright for photography. The "dailies" use without any permission numerous photographs.
How could this possibly be considered fair use?
One can also question the argument for "fair use" of the text snippets on various grounds.
For example, fair use usually assumes that the 'snippet' is subject to some kind of commentary or analysis. Such is not the case on the Paper.li pages.
The use of various advertisments on the Paper.li pages also makes it clear that this is not "not for profit" but explicitly for profit.
For a different analysis of the issues you can read this: Copyright, Fair Use, and Wine Blogs on Palate Press.
Upon what do you base the conclusion that fair use requires that the use meet ONE of the criteria, rather than all those criteria being considered in the analysis? I know of no case law that supports that conclusion. The fair use analysis primarily revolves around commercial vs, non-commercial,so even a snippet can run afoul if for profit and with no analysis or teaching significance.
I suspect Paper.li, if challenged, would be found to violate fair use. It is for profit. It contains no analysis. It is not for academic purposes. It simply steals others intellectually property. It is not likely to be saved by saying, "yes, but just a little." Further, it is clearly in violation when it purloins images.
Finally, stealing intellectual property until somebody opts out is not supported anywhere in the law.
Interesting interview, bu, with all due respect, terrifically flawed analysis.
@Per and Britt, BKWine Thanks for your comment. The article was written to bring light to the copyright infringement vs. fair use arguments of Paper.li's service. I do not endorse the service.
If Paper.li is ever challenged in court, it would be interesting to see whether the courts classify service as copyright infringement or fair use.
Your comment certainly brings forth good arguments as far as the purpose and character of the use, i.e, for non-commercial or commercial use.
@David Honig Thank you so much for visiting this blog and commenting on this article. I did realize that I wrote the fair use analysis is based on one factor instead of a test and analysis of all four factors. Believe me it was a typo error. Of course, I know the fair use rule is a "balancing test" of the 4 factors instead of an either or test of the 4 factors. I did point out that a small portion or snippet can be copyright infringement, even if it is 2 sentences, but that determination is based on the court's analysis of the 4 fair use factors. I did say that. Also I never endorsed Paper.li's argument that giving users an "opt-out" option protected them from copyright infringement liability. I was simply quoting his arguments. The purpose of this article was to bring to light the copyright vs. fair use arguments of the service. I definitely do not endorse it. In fact, the reason I wrote the article is because my own work was used in a newspaper and I immediately contacted the service re: possible copyright infringement. Thanks again for your comments!
Thank you for the info on Paper.li. I have never heard of it but will definitely check it out!
interesting blog. It would be great if you can provide more details about it. Thanks you
Freevi Neil Chandran
Of even greater concern is what appears to be widespread, misattributions enabled by Paper.Li.
If I retweet either another person's original content, or an article from a public online newspaper, there is an extremely high likelihood that any subsequent Paper.Li publication that wants to quote the original content or online article will attribute the content to me, rather than to the actual author.
I have seen this happen numerous times.
But then, that's the risk of push-button content curation, isn't it?
Robert Eastman
@reastman
@smbresearch
The SMB Research Blog
Post a Comment