“The challenge for anybody running a media company these days can be described in one word, and it’s ‘revenue’,” says Curley in the above video. “Finding the new products that keep you relevant that drive new types of revenue, is absolutely the challenge.”

“Tom Curley was the perfect leader to guide AP through the roughest times the media industry has ever seen,” said William Dean Singleton, chairman of the AP Board of Directors. “He was a visionary who understood the need for AP to quickly adapt to new digital times, a transformative leader who created innovative new business opportunities for our industry and an indefatigable newsman who made sure AP remained the definitive trusted source for breaking news.”

“I told the board some time ago when I would be retiring, but it is hard to think about leaving this special organization,” said Curley. “There is this passion, this commitment to journalism in its purest form that makes it unique on the planet. Nowhere else does anyone have such a direct opportunity to commit journalism and have as much impact as they do here. I got to be a part of it, and play a role in its mission to break news first from around the world. I’ve been honored to work for AP.”

Curley is credited with “charting AP’s move into the digital space”. Interestingly, the AP’s interaction with that space has been the subject of a great deal of criticism over the years, as the AP has battled news aggregation and linking to their content.

It will be interesting to see Curley’s replacement’s approach in this area. The Huffington Post shared an email Curley sent to AP Staff. In that, he says:

The battles we have fought – for accountability by elected and appointed leaders, for the protection of content often obtained at personal price or for leading the evolution in how the public is informed – will require your vigilance long after I leave. I have enjoyed the fight, and been grateful for your inspired support. No place is better equipped to continue it than AP.

While these are turbulent times in media, AP is in a good place to make a transition. Our biggest projects, including new technology platforms and creative new products, will start rolling out over the next weeks. Nearly all major contracts are signed. We have one of the most tested and innovative management teams in media. And we are fortunate to be guided by a board composed of savvy leaders thoroughly committed to extending AP’s mission and upholding its values.

On that note about new technology platforms, the AP is heavily involved with NewsRight, content “protection” platform that 29 news organizations teamed up on. We’re still waiting to see how that plays out. It’s already drawn comparisons to Righthaven, though NewsRight rejects such comparisons.

Legendary Penn State football Coach Joe Paterno passed away today (Jan. 22) after announcing a month ago that he was diagnosed with lung cancer. Paterno was 85.

The University plans to honor him for his many contributions and to remember his remarkable life and legacy. We are all deeply saddened.

Since last night, there have been many reports about former Penn State coach Joe Paterno’s health and his death. Reports of his death came premature, and were proven false last night.

In fact, we posted a story earlier this morning about how the incident highlighted some flaws in journalism.

Now, however, the Associated Press itself has tweeted that Paterno is dead. This is unconfirmed, but the AP is supposed to be made up of “the real journalists,” so take that how you will (remember, CBS News reported him dead prematurely):

I know the AP isn’t big on others linking to their stories. I hope embedding their tweets is OK. If not, they may want to take that up with Twitter, which enables such functionality.

Update: His death is also being reported by the New York Times.

More on Joe Paterno’s death here.

The “hot news” concept, legally established in the early 1900s, basically says that news organizations have rights to stories they first report for some amount of time. The thinking is that the competition can’t jump in and steal a story. The concept has proven flawed, particularly in the Internet age, and is rarely enforced. Much of this is likely to do with facts not falling under copyright law.

The debate of the day comes in, where most see this ruling as another nail in the coffin of the hot news doctrine, which has practically already been on life support. Though some major news organizations are spinning it in a different way. The Associated Press issued the following statement:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit today issued a decision (Barclays Capital Inc. v. Theflyonthewall.com, Inc. No. 10-1372-cv) which reaffirms the vitality of the “hot news” misappropriation doctrine. The “hot news” doctrine protects news organizations, which invest heavily in gathering and disseminating the news, against free-riders who would copy this news and resell it in competition with the original newsgatherers. The Court agreed with the position taken in an amicus brief by AP and 13 other news organizations, which asked that any ruling preserve the protections of the “hot news” doctrine. In contrast, the Court rejected arguments by Google, Inc. and Twitter, Inc. that asked the court to repudiate prior Second Circuit precedent and abolish the “hot-news” doctrine in federal courts.

AP views the Second Circuit’s decision as a victory for the news media and the public. News organizations, which obtain the news at substantial expense and break it to the public, continue to be protected against unfair competitors who would copy and resell this news while it is still fresh, while incurring little or no cost themselves. The decision preserves a vital economic incentive for newsgathering.

The court ruling says:

The parties, the district court, and amici have raised a wide variety of interesting legal and policy issues during the course of this litigation. We need not address most of them. We conclude that under principles that are well established in this Circuit, the plaintiffs’ claim against the defendant for “hot news” misappropriation of the plaintiff financial firms’ recommendations to clients and prospective clients as to trading in corporate securities is preempted by federal copyright law. Based upon principles explained and applied in National Basketball Association v. Motorola, Inc., 105 F.3d 841 (2d Cir.1997) (sometimes hereinafter “NBA”), we conclude that because the plaintiffs’ claim falls within the “general scope” of copyright, 17 U.S.C. | 106, and involves the type of works protected by the Copyright Act…, and because the defendants’ acts at issue do not meet the exceptions for a “hot news” misappropriation claim as recognized by NBA, the claim is preempted. We therefore reverse the judgment of the district court with respect to that claim.

The NBA case mentioned refers to when the court found that scores and stats were not considered to fall under the hot news doctorine or copyright law. You know, because they’re facts.

As far as that bit about Google and Twitter, it doesn’t seem like a total loss for them, as in the ruling, it also says, “The defendant-appellant, TheFlyontheWall.com, Inc. is among other things, a news ‘aggregator.’ For present purposes, an aggregator is a website that collects headlines and snippets of news stories from other websites. Examples include Google News and the Huffington Post.”

Michael Calderone, in an article at Yahoo News, talks about the Associated Press monitoring CNN, and claiming that the netowrk is routinely using its reporting, even since CNN announced it was dropping the AP’s service. 

According to Jennifer Van Grove at Mahable, McDonalds experienced a 33% increase in "foot traffic" to stores with a Foursquare campaign. The company’s head of social media says the 33% increase was in check-ins, and they consider check-ins the same as  a person entering the restaurant. 

Danny Sullivan talked to Eric Schmidt this week about Google’s ranking factors. Watch the amusing response from Schmidt in this video Sullivan posted:

Google is doing a lot with predictions these days. At Google I/O earlier this year, Google announced the Prediction API. More recently, it launched Google Instant, with the goal of giving you your results before you even finish typing the query. Today, Google is talking about some research its doing in trying to predict when searchers are frustrated with their results. The company also launched some new features to the Prediction API.

Philip Elmer-DeWitt at Fortune reports that notebook sales growth has gone negative, suggesting that the iPad might have something to do with that. 

Is the AP asking its reporters to do what it has frowned upon in the past? Share your thoughts.

The guidelines apply to AP reports in print, broadcast, and online news, and stress the importance of giving proper attribution to other publications that break stories.

"We should provide attribution whether the other organization is a newspaper, website, broadcaster or blog; whether or not it’s U.S. based; and whether or not it’s an AP member or subscriber," writes Oreskes. "This policy applies to all reports in all media, from short pieces, such as NewsNows and initial broadcast reports, to longer pieces aimed at print publication."

Oreskes says attribution doesn’t have to be at the beginning of a story, and that sometimes it can be two or three paragraphs down.

"If some information comes from another organization and some is ours, we should credit ourselves for what’s ours and the other organization for what’s theirs," he writes, adding that if material from another source turns out to be wrong, that will be cited in corrections later. (emphasis added)

The AP is one organization that has famously expressed disdain with blogs in the past (ones that quoted AP stories and gave credit), and was cited among various other publications earlier this year by Danny Sullivan as one that failed to credit where it got its information (most likely his article, at least somewhere in the chain) about a particular story.

It is interesting however that these guidelines appear to suggest that its reporters can freely do what the AP has in the past complained about others doing – using snippets of content. Now, the guidelines don’t exactly say anything about using "snippets", but it’s either that, rewriting, or regurgitating something that’s already been discussed elsewhere (even with some additional original content added). Am I wrong? It’s a matter of fair use, and the AP’s stance on fair use in the past has basically been that there isn’t any when it comes to the AP’s content. Is it a double standard? Clearly, this is admission that the AP has participated in this same type of reporting.

It’s good to know that they’re recognizing that this is just part of how it works in this age of online news, but you still have to wonder what side of the fence they come down on with regards to their own content. I guess we’ll see if AP reporters abide by these guidelines and whether or not the AP attacks anybody for using the same methods with AP content.

The whole thing is very related to the AP’s stance on search engines and aggregators as well. These sites do, after all, provide snippets, links, and credit to the sources. The AP just reignited a deal with Google, by the way. 

While stressing the importance of attribution, Oreskes does also make a note of telling reporters not to use other sources so much that it appears they’re "free riding" on another organization’s work, and stresses matching or further development of the story. 

What is not mentioned once in the guidelines is the word "link". There is no mention of linking whatsoever. It is unclear whether linking is included it in the proper attribution described or whether they deem simple credit to be sufficient. While obviously you can’t link in print or broadcast (one reason why online content is more valuable to readers), linking has become commonly looked upon as necessary to attribution in online news, so those who deserve credit for breaking a story can in turn get traffic to that story.

The letter does say that it will continue to use "information from" lines with URLs, but that attribution should be in the body of the story as well. However, it is unclear whether or not this attribution will actually include links.

It will be interesting to see how the AP proceeds in this regard. Without links, the organization is setting itself up for a great deal of criticism.

Thoughts on the AP’s guidelines? Let’s hear them. 

"We’ve extended our existing licensing agreement with the Associated Press that permits us to host its content on Google properties such as Google News. We look forward to future collaborations, including on ways Google and AP can work together to create a better user experience and new revenue opportunities."

Adam Ostrow quotes a statement from the AP, saying the companies "have reached a new agreement on the continued licensing of AP content by Google (Google). Under the agreement, AP and Google will also work together in a number of new areas, such as ways to improve discovery and distribution of news."

Google and the AP have had an interesting relationship through the years. The AP has famously expressed its discontent from news aggregation services, and Google is the big kid on the block in that area.

Danny Sullivan says "a source familiar with the deal" says the deal is pretty much like the original deal between Google and the AP inked in 2006. This is probably why Google refers to old announcements for more information. Sullivan has a nice timeline outlining the events that have transpired between the two organizations.

Or maybe it’s not as dramatic as that. Maybe you cover an event that others are covering simultaneously, but later coverage uses a particular spin, image, or assessment that was unique to yours until that later piece, but no credit is given. Sure, there is the occasional coincidental instance, but often that is clearly not the case. It happens all the time on the web. We can whine about it, or we can carry on with our lives. We usually go the latter route.

Mainstream news publications have pointed the finger at "bloggers" many times in the past, claiming that they are "stealing" their content, but as Search Engine Land Editor-in-Chief Danny Sullivan illustrates in a post on his personal blog Daggle, it goes both ways. We spoke with him about how the "traditional media" engages in some of the same practices it has accused blogs of engaging in.

For all intents and purposes, Search Engine Land is a blog. While to many of us, blogs can be considered just as reputable (if not more so) than mainstream news outlets, the site is generally looked upon as a blog (Google News, for example, has it listed as such). If you ask me, the lines between blogs and other news sources are anything but black and white, but some traditional media agencies clearly look down upon blogs. Internally, maybe it’s a different story.

This past Friday, Sullivan posted an article about a Utah woman suing Google after getting hit by a vehicle while following walking directions on Google Maps. According to Sullivan, nobody had written about this until he did, and his source was a tip from Gary Price of ResourceShelf). Then after his post had been live for a while, more publications began to report the news, and some as if they had broken it themselves. Some even went so far as to include Danny’s own modified screenshots, or the Scribd document of the lawsuit that he had uploaded, but without linking to Danny’s article or acknowledging that these materials came from this to begin with.

Some of these publications likely got a great deal of traffic from aggregators that picked up their stories as well. Traffic that could have sent more to Search Engine Land. It’s not that it isn’t fine for these publications to get picked up by the aggregators and get some traffic of their own, but if they had linked back to the original source, they could’ve sent some of that same traffic back where it belonged as well. For example, Drudge Report linked to a NYDailyNews.com article, which linked to AOL News, which as Sullivan points out, just links to the Scribd document.

As I said, this kind of thing happens all the time on the web, and it’s pretty much unavoidable, as long as you are creating content and sharing it with people. Danny’s rant about the subject, which is quite interesting, is less a whining session, and more finger pointing at "traditional" media hypocrisy.

"I’d like to see a lot less finger-pointing and much more acknowledgment that the origin of news is a messy business," says Sullivan in his post. "So why point fingers in this case? To help keep things even. I think it’s very well known how traditional sources get cited by alternative ones. But while the opposite is true, that’s a story that’s rarely illustrated."

We asked Danny how greatly the public’s perception is skewed when it comes to where news stories originate. "I think the public has no idea where news comes from, but to the degree they think about it, they assume big outlets have reporters that hunt it all down," Sullivan tells WebProNews.

He does have experience working in traditional media. Sullivan says he worked for daily newspapers for about five years, and that he was trained to cite any fact that wasn’t commonly known. "If the fact only could come from a rival publication, then my job was to try and independently source the fact, so you didn’t have to mention the competition," he tells us.

Do readers generally care about the sources of information as long as they don’t have reason to question accuracy? "I think readers don’t care about sourcing but instead put trust in the publication itself," he says.

You have to wonder if there isn’t a larger percentage of stories being lifted from blogs, Twitter, etc. by mainstream media outlets without credit than there are being lifted from traditional sources by bloggers without credit. While it is certainly not always the case, bloggers are traditionally not shy about linking.

In fact, Sullivan touches on this in the comments of his post: "Bloggers tend to cite mainstream sources more than those sources cite bloggers, that’s my gut feel. It’s something I hope begins to change."

The AP has famously expressed disdain with blogs in the past (ones that quoted AP stories and gave credit), and the AP example (as one of many) that Danny displays certainly stands out, representing the other side of things.

"I think a substantial amount of news is coming off tips seen on forums, blog posts and elsewhere on the web," he tells us, when asked how often he thinks mainstream media outlets are taking stories from bloggers, Twitterers, etc. without acknowledging the sources. "Not a majority. But a noticeable amount, I’d wager."

What do you think? 

I’ve contacted some of the publications Danny calls out in his post for comment, but have yet to receive a response. He did get a couple apologies in his comments section though.

Should traditional media be held to different standards than those publications they think bloggers should be held to? Share your thoughts.

It’s called the Publish2 News Exchange, and was formed by Publish2 Inc. It allows publishers to create and manage content sharing networks, retain full rights to their content and control over who can use it, as well as where and how, create their own content newswires that partners and customers can easily access, and connect their publishing system to automatically import/export content via feeds or FTP.

We reported in March of 2008 that the company had received $2.7 million in funding, but then it was looking like the company was going after more of a Digg-like model, only powered by journalists. Now CEO Scot Karp is calling it a "new Associated Press for the 21st century."

"With Publish2 News Exchange, newspapers can replace the AP’s obsolete cooperative with direct content sharing and replace the AP’s commodity content with both free, high-quality content from the Web and content from any paid source," says Karp in a contributing post at Seeking Alpha. "With Publish2 News Exchange, we’ve created what the AP should have become, but can’t because of a classic Innovator’s Dilemma. The New AP is an open, efficient, scalable news distribution platform. We’re enabling newspapers to benefit for the first time from the disruptive power of the Web, and from the efficiency of content production on the Web."

"Publish2 News Exchange solves the problems that have prevented newspapers from creating an efficient, scalable alternative to the AP," adds Karp. "We bridge the gap between print publishing and Web publishing by connecting natively to outdated newspaper print publishing systems. We support the standard formats used by the AP and the technologies that newspapers already use to move content between print and Web systems. Our self-serve permissioning system enables newspapers and other publishers to distribute content to whomever they choose on whatever terms they choose."

So far Publish2 has newswires for such publications as AutoBlog, Engadget, WalletPop, Aol Small Business, TechCrunch, and others. We’re talking about web-based publications going to print.

The service has already raised questions about the point of catering to the dying print model, but Karp maintains that print drives not only newspaper operations, but web publishing, and as long as print is around, he wants to make it "more like the web."

The Publish2 News Exchange is available for free to news organizations and journalists around the globe.

The department said the registry is not likely to reduce competition among news content owners and could offer procompetitive benefits to both participating content owners and content users.

The registry would consist of a centralized database containing news content from multiple content owners. It would allow content owners to register and list individual items of news content, specify the uses others may make of that content, and detail the terms on which such content may be licensed.

"The AP’s registry may provide a new, efficient way for news content users to identify applicable terms of use and purchase licenses for Internet news content," said Assistant Attorney General Christine Varney.  

"The registry may benefit both news originators and content users by reducing the transaction costs associated with securing licenses for Internet use." 

The registry would be a non-exclusive method of accessing, licensing and using content on the Internet. It would be open, on nondiscriminatory terms, to all owners and users of Internet news content. Content owners would be free to select which, if any, content to include in the registry. They would be allowed to offer registered news content outside of the registry. They would also be free to join other competing Internet registry services. 
 

AP Live coverage of the 82nd Annual Academy Awards will feature social media elements, on-demand clips, photos and news.

AP Live is available on a Facebook fan page and syndicated to AP publishers and other distribution channels, including AT&T Entertainment.

On March 7, AP Global Entertainment Editor Alicia Quarles will be reporting live from the red carpet from 6, to 8 p.m. During the awards show and the after-parties, AP reporters will post updates to Twitter and Facebook.

AP Live also allows users to embed video to their Facebook profiles or their blogs. After the Oscars, AP Live will continue to focus on entertainment, featuring daily and weekly celebrity interviews and other content such as movie previews and a look at upcoming summer blockbusters.

"Through this strategic content and platform deal, we have launched the AP Live player which will feature year-round entertainment events coverage and daily live celebrity interviews," said Livestream CEO Max Haot.

"We look forward to supporting AP as they move forward to cultivate their events-based reporting for millions of fans across all screens and platforms."