When Will AP, Murdoch Pay Their Sources?

OK, so Associated Press wants to charge bloggers (and others) for using as few as five words of their stories, and Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. is talking about removing their content from Google's search services.

Good luck with that.

Now I'm wondering how much those organizations will be compensating the people they interview and other sources for their contributions to "original" content. Information published by AP and News Corp. is a finished product with a set financial value. And all finished products have raw materials. And all makers of finished products pay for those raw materials. It's incomprehensible that the value chain begins and ends with the publisher.

Oh, and guess which website journalists go to first when conducting research for their stories?

I suppose AP stringers could be equipped with waivers for their sources to sign. They'd say something like "I hereby cede all ownership and authority of the information I provide to [insert publisher here], and grant said publisher any and all power to restrict access to this information from those unwilling or unable to pay for it."

Kinda wondering what would happen if Facebook put something like that in their terms of service.

You can't litigate your brand back

Social media marketing folks have said it for a while now - companies no longer "own" their brand online. Eric Goldman reports on a case where a company is actually suing to take it back:

My my, look who's decided to go back into court! It's none other than 1-800 Contacts, the online retailer with a lousy trademark and a love-hate relationship towards keyword advertising. This time their target is their chums LensWorld.com for buying "1800Contacts" as a keyword.

But I did find this interesting:

Ironically, 1-800 Contacts also has routinely bought third party trademarks as keywords.

This action sets some very dangerous precedents if the company is allowed to control these keywords. Of course, I see these actions as completely consistent - the company is consistently protecting its own interests. But what if a lawyer or a medical organization wants to get the word out about a faulty batch of contact lenses? Contextual ads are no longer an option if the company has its way.

Ultimately, this kind of action will only serve to elevate negative messaging in the non-sponsored search results in Google. So it's a Pyrrhic victory, if a victory at all.