Comments on: Blogs: One person’s curation is another person’s scraping

By: Will People Pay for Curation? « Predicate, LLC | Editorial + Content Strategy

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:25:21 +0000

[...] Curation has become a popular term in media circles, in the sense of a human editor who filters and selects content, and then packages it and delivers it to readers in some way. Many people (including me) believe that, in an era when information sources are exploding online, aggregation and curation of some kind is about the only service left that people might be willing to pay for. via One person’s curation is another person’s scraping | Nieman Journalism Lab [...]

By: lemel

lemel — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 23:12:57 +0000

But there is already a time- and market-proven solution pattern for this exact scenario: pay the contributor. Why invent some wacky new permissions scheme?

By: » Blogs: One Person’s Curation is Another Person’s Scraping [Voices] True HelloWorld Story

Fri, 01 May 2009 05:00:48 +0000

[...] Read the rest of this post on Nieman Journalism Lab, the original Web site [...]

By: Ruth Ayres

Ruth Ayres — Fri, 01 May 2009 04:57:21 +0000

Using someone’s creative output w/o permission is called stealing.
This prehistoric message is brought to you by,
Ruth

By: Required reading: Aggregating the news « Supraprint

Required reading: Aggregating the news « Supraprint — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 01:05:56 +0000

[...] the news By dwordclass 0 Comments Categories: class essentials Please read this. We’ll discuss on Thursday. [...]

By: megan

megan — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:49:31 +0000

can’t there be some sort of mechanism where the content creator can check a few boxes like:
- shareable
- excertable in under 10 lines
- or excertable in no more than 20 lines

just before they publish or when they set up a wordpress etc? or make it standard to have a statement at the top left of all blogs that says creator allows sharing, excerpting up to 10 lines etc.

then if any other curator/aggregator doesn’t follow these the creator has something to defend themselves?

By: Mark Moran

Mark Moran — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 17:42:37 +0000

This discussion is little more than a debate about what constitutes fair use in the new world order. It’s clear that most people think the former practices of AllThingsD included too much material, thereby lessening the need for a reader to visit the source work, and that the current practices are firmly in fair territory. The disconnect for me is in the first paragraph of this article, where the practice of finding and linking to a single article, with no commentary, is called “packaging.” I’ve seen very few sites that do more than aggregate a slew of links on the subject from the past 48 hours. To provide real value to a user, a curator must scour the Web for the best links that provide the full background on and view of a subject that users crave, and then add commentary to place the links in proper context.

By: MichaelJ

MichaelJ — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:24:57 +0000

I think Ignace is on the right track, when he says “The possible missing piece in the jigsaw puzzle might be something Creative Commons, a simple solution.”

If a blogger puts a creative commons license on the blog, it gives her the choice of how that content is meant to be used. This may already exist, I’m no expert on Creative Commons, but if there were a category that said something like “Use prohibited in an ad supported site” that puts the use power in the hands of the creator.

I think that the legal department of large media companies would not allow anyone to take the risk of a lawsuit just to quote some words on a website.

The irony is that I don’t think many content creators would take that choice. The issue for them is more about power and respect then the “stealing” of words.

By: Matt Haughey

Matt Haughey — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 09:29:03 +0000

I am satisfied with the changes, and even if they still did things as they did at the start — if they asked first, I’m sure I would have been flattered and said sure to it, even with the byline, photo, ads, and comments.

It felt like they were trying to take something over without my permission before, but it’s now very clear that I wrote something and that there are no comments there.

By: Blogs: One Person’s Curation is Another Person’s Scraping | Mathew Ingram | Voices | AllThingsD

Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:38:25 +0000

[...] Read the rest of this post on Nieman Journalism Lab, the original Web site Tagged: Internet, Voices, media, aggregation, blogs, content, curation, editor, Mathew Ingram, Nieman Journalism Lab | permalink Sphere.Inline.search(“”, “http://voices.allthingsd.com/20090424/blogs-one-person%e2%80%99s-curation-is-another-person%e2%80%99s-scraping/”); « Previous Post [...]

By: Matthew Ingram: ‘One person’s curation is another person’s scraping’ | DAILYMAIL.ME

Fri, 24 Apr 2009 06:19:24 +0000

[...] Full story at this link… [...]

By: Mathew Ingram

Mathew Ingram — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 01:55:46 +0000

Thanks for the comment, Matt. I think you were right to complain — the way it was displayed before the changes definitely made it hard to tell who worked for All Things D and who didn’t. Do the changes satisfy you though? Or would you rather that ATD didn’t use your stuff regardless?

By: Matt Haughey

Matt Haughey — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 23:30:37 +0000

“Obviously, checking with the author before you excerpt something — which All Things D apparently didn’t do in these cases — is one way to avoid problems. [...] How is any sufficiently large aggregator or curator supposed to do that?”

The issue wasn’t really permission for excerpts but that ATD went beyond a pull quote and a standard “hey go check out this great blog post of Matt’s” thing.

They grabbed our photos, gave us a byline, excerpted half my post, covered it in ads, had comments, and then just a tiny link at the end to get to my original post. It confusingly looked like I worked for the WSJ and when I confirmed with friends that I did not, I was miffed at seeing my photo and name and ads without my permission.

It’s a huge grey area, but there’s a pretty good standard out there for quoting others’ work, and it’s usually clearly showing the author of a post, then blockquote/indent and show an excerpt and let the reader know who wrote that and where they can find the whole thing.

My issue was mostly about it looking confusingly like I wrote the post for the WSJ.

By: Mathew Ingram

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:22:51 +0000

@Shawn — yes, I should have mentioned that, but couldn’t find the link for some reason when I posted this. Merlin was definitely having some fun :-) And then Kara Swisher responded on Twitter:
http://twitter.com/karaswisher/status/1571645104

By: Arjun Ram

Arjun Ram — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:25:42 +0000

@Isaac
Here in lies the problem. The google bot for search and news the same! They shouldnt! They get away with it with the excuse that they are a search engine! Unfair advantage!

Not too many media are willing to give up google search juice!