apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

I find it sad that a big name like the NYTimes can't take the time to understand that your posts increase traffic to their site!
Never before have I browsed the NYTimes website until I followed a link from an AT post.

It's a case of a bully picking on someone small, which erks me to the core.

I hope that things are resolved without conflict and that AT can find other sources for information other than the NYtimes. I don't think I'll be going back there, that's for sure.

"picking on someone small"? There's an awful lot of advertising on this site. "Small" is when you have one guy's website that doesn't pay his bills.

Sorry, but the NYT has every right to their property...as inconvenient as I agree it is.

I can't even count how many times I've loved something in AT that led me back to the Times piece, the corresponding slideshow and other Home/Garden pieces of theirs. Such a shame to do it this way, NYT.

Assuming your linking hasn't been fair use (which it very well may be), I'm sure this is about money. Specifically, getting money from you. The papers are struggling...too bad their lawyers didn't contact you first. Badly played, NYT.

Completely bitchy. I would have expected much more from them. This leaves a very bitter taste in my mouth; I hope you can work something out with them.

Is there some way for AT readers to contact NYT and let them know that there are numerous readers that come to their site and drive up their daily site traffic BECAUSE of AT's site? I usually click through to NYT's page, and then proceed to browse for similar articles because of you guys..

GOOD LUCK!!

This is not at all surprising. Newspapers are on the precipice of becoming obsolete. The San Francisco Chronicle is probably going out of business soon, and other major publications all over the world are facing the same fate. At this point, the NYT has to do whatever they possibly can to keep dedicated readership up in order to keep themselves afloat. This means protecting their property. As much as I've enjoyed the pictures and information, every time a blog posts something from NYT, it dilutes the value of their product. They have to protect themselves.

If I were them, I wouldn't be sending you a warm fuzzy either. It's not personal, it's business.

My advice? Develop more of your own original content.

This is going to start happening more and more so get used to it.

I have to agree a bit with LBhirise; blogs like this are going to have to start paying a bit for content taken from other sites. It's a new thing and no one is sure how it's going to shake out but this is most likely just the beginning. It's not jut AT obviously; the Huffington Post does something similar and they are under more fire than AT.

very shortsighted.

I have to agree with the Times on this one. It's a genuine problem for newspapers when blogs cut and paste the main elements of an article. Newspaper content is available free on line because their advertisers expect people to see the ads on the site. When readers get the content from a blog instead, advertisers don't get that person's ad eyeballs.

How would you like it if I cut and pasted AT content on my own blog, and had advertisers paying me instead of you for the content?

The New York Times isn't the big bully here. They're in DIRE financial trouble. Some media analysts even think they could go bankrupt, largely because aggregate blogs like Huffington Post summarize all their key articles without paying.

AT isn't the biggest offender for sure, but they have a right to look out for themselves. Someone has to pay the salaries of all those writers, editors and photographers.

Big companies don't understand the internet yet. They don't understand that regular people are on the other side of those big scary internets-tubes, and they'll often happily cooperate if asked.

I understand not wanting any pictures taken, but I'm mystified by trying to disallow links. Don't they want more traffic?

Unfortunately, the NYT is in a lot of trouble right now. Newspaper articles are just too easy to cut and paste somewhere else, and they're losing ad revenue because of it. AT was probably unfortunately caught in the crossfire as they freak out at any blogging sites with even a piece of their content.

Ironically there's a pretty good story about what's driving their movites on NYtimes.com, but I guess I shouldn't link it! But it's the top result if you google "blogs excerpting copyright."

This is coming at a time when print media really seems to be in a desperate situation. I'm sure if their newspaper sales were better, they wouldn't mind the little bit of extra traffic to their site. But, seeing as how the site is free, and they're still trying to run a newspaper...
I think it's lame that they went over AT's head, but I understand why they're feeling extra protective.

Maybe AT should have talked to NYT before it started lifting NYT's articles. I do think that AT posts too much from articles...and enough pictures that I don't have to go to the original site to get the rest (see JP Morgan's study).

Would it be so bad if AT bloggers had to come up with their own original content? I, personally, would prefer it over the paraphrase-and-link posts we currently get at such large volumes.

They obviously feel extremely threatened by the blogging world and want nothing to do with it if they couldn't contact you themselves.

What an antiquated school of thought..that blog and editorial content is proprietary. Do they have no idea how content is virally shared? How it increases awarness and drives traffic? Maybe they should start putting watermarks on their images. If anything, with the growth of social media, they should strive to make content sharing easier...

what?? that's pretty ridiculous!

oh well, AT will be a great, full-fledged blog even without the posts giving NYT extra traffic.

Honestly, I just think this is just foolishness on their part. Like any business they should be thinking of the most effective way to make a profit. They are only benefitting from you guys driving traffic their way. They aren't losing readers to you - I would NEVER go to the NY Times website if it weren't for this blog. And now I never will. So now they're REALLY losing money.

THIS is why they're going bankrupt - foolish business practices and the inability to keep up with modern technology.

Very odd indeed. The NYT just ran an editorial about the demise of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and what newspapers need to do to compete in a Drudge Report driven news world. I understand that the NYT is on the brink - they just sold and leased-back their building to attempt to settle some overwhelming debt and every dollar is precious to them. Still, collaboration seems to be the way out of this. AT has a fairly broad reach and anything that would drive the NYT onto PC's nationwide can't be a bad thing.

And the NYT continues to alienate more and more readers and partners for a myriad of reasons, this just be one of the many.

Ps- these companies usually like to employ scare tactics when demanding that content is taken down. Usually they are not backed by any legal substantiation. I had the Apple gestapo come after my linux blog after I posed anti Steve Jobs content. I changed my phone number and told them to go eff themselves and haven't heard a peep since.

This strikes me as very foolish. I am constantly clicking on links to the NYT from AT. I doubt I would even read the Home & Garden section of the NYT if it weren't for AT. Additionally, I never feel like AT is ripping off an NYT story.

Their loss. I have only visited the NYTimes when someone linked to their content, not just on a whim

Read Anne Elizabeth Moore's "UnMarketable: Brandalism, Copyfighting, Mocketing and the Erosion of Integrity" if you want to understand more clearly how corruptive this sort of action is by media corporations.

I understand the NYT's stance, but disagree with how they did it. Their lawyer must be making a bundle.

Many magazines have already fallen fate to the blogs and many more will follow.

In the not too distance future, most newspapers will be only be available on-line, so it is a bit odd that they would be cutting off the hand that feeds them.

so sad. so sorry AT.

They aren't being tactful about it but newspaper folk aren't known for their manners, trust me. And unless you have a written agreement with them, they have just cause.

But rarely is any content truly 'original' these days. Also it is really hard to generate original content without manpower and I'm guessing AT just doesn't have enough to meet deadlines, keep a steady stream, etc.

I think AT should reach out to the readership for content now more than ever before. That's the only road.

I had never had any reason to surf the NYT website until I was directed there through AT. I signed up on their website and regularly read stories there because of AT.

BOO-urns.

Instead of a blanket cease-and-desist, the NYTimes should offer a partnership to AT that would basically allow AT to post NYT items, pictures and articles in exchange for AT paying a sort of content subscription fee. For as much as people love to bemoan the outdatedness of newspapers and other traditional media, let's be honest, AT would not be anywhere near as successful as it is if it couldn't rely on the legwork done by members of these traditional media outlets. AT doesn't pay the personnel and operating costs associated with traveling, reporting, etc.

Welp, sucks for NYT, less traffic for them. Keep soldering on AT. :)

I've been reading (on blogs) and hearing on cable recently about the sad demise of so many publications in the print media. I find it distressing and this is no doubt symptomatic of the NYT own distress. This is likely the first round in a new attempt to charge a fee to view their online content.

I only visit the NYT when AT links to their content. Once on the NYT site, I spend at least an hour reading the story linked and everything else that catches my eye. . . meaning an increase in traffic that they (and their advertisers) would not otherwise have experienced.

I understand copyright concerns, but it seems like they are addressing the issue in the wrong way.

Um... that would be soldiering... not soldering, I'm guessing AT doesn't sit around making cables all day. :)

Interestingly enough, Google just recently reported that a bit more than half of all the DMCA Takedown Notices they get are bogus and a full 1/3 have no copywrite claims at all.

I'm not saying that's what's happening here but I personally don't see the difference between walking by the newstands and seeing some photos and a headline and maybe reading a bit and what happens with sites like AT that aggregate links. Unfortunately, it would take a court fight to determine if you were in the clear or not, so it's probably not worth fighting. The EFF just recently posted a legal guide for bloggers, maybe it has some information you could use.

Think of this, also, from the viewpoint of the wonderful photographers who are having their works lifted and republished.

I work in the publishing industry -- what a glorious day it would be if we could just taken any ole thing we find any ole where and publish it. We'd be glad to give credit, of course, but we wouldn't have to pay for it. Nice for us, but independent artists, photographers, and writers would suffer terribly.

And while some people see the NYTimes as a huge entity, the photographers whose works are appearing on this site are likely people who are struggling a bit (especially in this lovely economy), and not being paid a penny while AT makes money (lots or little, it doesn't matter) in part because of these photographers.

I love AT . . . NYT could have been more tactful.

I hope it get resolved.

While I enjoy perusing your site, the New York Times is perfectly within their rights to protect their intellectual property.

Forget about the warm & fuzzies. It's not like you're not in business to make a profit here.

It's business. They pay the reporters & expenses to create original content, and blogs take it, and post it, claiming it benefits the Times. Sorry, but it's ridiculous to try to play the doe-eyed innocent then claim you benefit them by driving traffic to them. They were doing fine long before you came along.

Blogs that have their own advertising should pay for the content they take from other entities - plain and simple. Either legitimately license the material, or create your own original content.

I agree with jordand3. Newspapers and other mainstream media need to explore ways to work with the blogging world rather than declare war on it, in a way that's beneficial for both. (Shutting down Napster didn't save the corporate music industry, did it? No.) But having worked at a newspaper and seen the crusty attitudes of top management, this cease-and-desist doesn't surprise me. At all.

I'm a journalist, so I find these comments pretty fascinating. There are tons of theories out there about how to pull newspapers back from the brink, and most of them involve getting people to pay for online content. I think that's why they may have freaked out about this.

Think of it this way...the NYT has paid someone to research and write that story, and in a sense though AT is crediting them, AT is still capitalizing on someone else's labour. Everyone has gotten used to getting their news for free, but that won't sustain an organization like the Times.

Everyone in the newspaper industry is grappling with online content right now. I'm not saying they were right to be so aggressive, but as a media person myself, I understand why they're getting serious about protecting their intellectual property.

I've been a Times reader for a long time. I don't want the physical paper though. I also don't generally care for the opinion columns and other blather that they tried charging for a few years back. I care about the articles, the good news coverage. I would be *happy* to pay for them. But, they don't have anything where you can pay them for good journalism and photography, read online.

Why they don't just charge some minimal amount for reading them everyday online, which some other large papers do, I don't understand. Eliminating people's ability to find their great articles isn't going to help their pocketbook! Then someone might link to them, might be able to do fair use, but readers would pay a few pennies to actually read that full article and see all the pics from their site.

pfft. I agree with the camp that AT should get their own articles.

It's their right, but pretty dumb. I NEVER buy the Times, but when you started linking, I started buying on Thursdays. And the only reminder was really the link. Old school don't get it

I was going to comment, and filled a page with my anger over the NYT's treatment of bloggers. Instead, I'm going to leave it with 2 words: that will go unwritten since this is a family show (aww, but you thougt I would didn't you!)

Does anyone here REALLY believe that somehow AT's use of NYT images or URL's will save one job, increase NYT ad revenue by $1, or somehow improve their DIRE financial situation?

For the record, AT does come up with a great deal of original content, often inspiring print and commercial media (et tu Jamiealyse? tsk tsk) and inspiring trends, for example The Cure series.

This is just one more action in a laundry list of actions NYT has taken against blogs in the last 18 months, it has very little to do with money but everything to do with Print Vs. Blog.

Although they handled it poorly, I agree with the NYT on this one, for all the reasons mentioned above.

I had already stopped looking at links posted to Times or Met Home stories anyway. They are almost always about pretentious rich people and their fancy houses--not what I come to find on AT.

Booo New York Times! The traffic occurring due to viewers coming from AT links will be missed. I can not think of a better way to lose viewership than to ban peole from linking your site and photographs. That's what happens when more lawyers than writers run the show!

AT seems to "borrow" a lot of images--did you license those Simpsons shots?

I am one person who never read the NYTimes until I discovered AT. I understand their want, but this whole thing is being handled unprofessionally on both sides. NYT should have requested first instead of demanding, AT shouldn't whine to their readers (thats what this post feels like). You should have just informed us and complied. Just be careful now with other sources you use.

The idea that AT "drives traffic" to the NY Times is absurd. Clearly, the opposite was true -- that AT felt NY Times content would draw readers to THIS site. In the days before blogs, the type of people who read AT used to BUY the paper every Thursday for the design section; a percentage of readers clicking the link isn't really a huge favor to the Times.

I'm not a lawyer, but I have worked in publishing rights and permissions, and I don't think what AT was doing fell under "fair usage." I love AT, but in this instance, the Times is right.

chicagomom77, I don't disagree that AT does come up with a lot of good, original content. And I do see little comments about AT in various magazines, etc. That being said, I don't see why they need to bury their good content with stuff they 'borrow' from other sites. Sure, outside stuff has it's place, but I think that AT is overloaded with posts and paring it down a little bit would be a good idea.

I have a few gripes with AT, but overall I enjoy this site. And that's why I keep coming back since I first discovered this place last summer. I just wish they would listen to the helpful criticism I hear from commentors over and over again - it would make this site even better.

The New York Times has a history of doing stupid things in relation to the web -- does no one remember how you had to have a subscription, a pay account, to view anything the least bit "old", or the op/eds ? (stupidly limiting the reach and thus influence of their columnists)

It took them a while to see the light and change policy. I am surprised they are at it again -- it will cut down on their traffic for sure. If it weren't for the reminders on AT to check out their stories, I wouldn't.

In recent months I have read many posts on various blogs, mourning the loss of various shelter magazines. However, I feel that those very blogs helped create the failure of those mags. Why should I buy a copy of Domino when I can get the low-down on all of its content on AT & carious other blogs for free?

The writers at these newspapers and magazines work hard and pay a lot of money to create original content. How would you feel if you spent weeks researching a story in order to drive up readership (and ad revenue) on your website, only to have the NYT post it in their paper & not pay you a dime for it? How would you feel if this happened over and over and over again and you had to sit back and watch their readership & ad revenue increase because of their coverage of your stories, while your numbers stayed stagnant?

Granted, I think there is a delicate line here. Perhaps the internet buzz of articles like the no-knead bread recipe have brought more attention to the NYT, but did that result in more readers for the NYT? If so then the NYTs needs to come to an agreement with the blogging world. Frankly, though, I suspect they did not reap the benefits of the buzz. Why should I buy their paper or sign up for an on-line subscription when I can get the recipe for free on websites like The Kitchn?

I would encourage the NYT to come to some sort of compromise. Perhaps they should ask websites like AT (that generate ad revenue) to pay a special rate in order to cover their content. In the mean time, blogs like AT will have to learn to do what the NYT does every day: create more original content.

Does anyone have any numbers as to the amount of traffic that AT drove to the NYT?

I don't think quoting from the stories is such a worry, but using photos without attribution or permission is a big problem. It's entirely possible that a NYT photographer or freelancer blew the whistle--and why not? Why use the work of those people without permission? That's not MSM vs. brave new bloggers, it's theft.

AT could make a deal with various photo agencies to get a special rate, which is what a number of higher traffic pro-blogs do.

I'm with the times on this. I can't count the amount of times that I didn't need to explore their website or some magazines because I only needed the gist here. Looks like someone is reading my blog posts. http://www.unplggd.com/unplggd/the-lifespan-of-a-web-site-075740#comments

The NYT is striking out, in their death throes, at the only hope they had to survive.

This is why newspapers are dying and it is time for those that can't, or won't adapt, to die.

Screw em.

Blogs should post very little content and a small photo to drive the reader to the source of the content, instead of posting the gist of the story that makes clicking through useless.

I work at a magazine that publishes its content online a month or so after that issue hits newsstands. I understand that having other websites link to ours is a good thing, it gets some people to our side and at the same time improves our google rating. But if they posted the entire story or enough that left readers not needing more, then I would have an issue with that.

When I post something to my blog or facebook, I essentially post one tiny photo, a short one-sentence description and then my own thoughts about the story and encouragement to check out the link to see what I am talking about. Maybe you should do something similar?

Not being a NY-er or anywhere near there, I would never ever visit the NY Times site if it weren't for AT. Doesn't hurt me if I never see another NYT article or image again. I wouldn't even bother paying anything to cover their stories, just never mention them again; and if it hurts them, they only have themselves to blame.

In a funny way, the short-sightedness of the Times in this case reminds me a bit of something I experienced back in the mid-80s, when I was just establishing myself as a freelance writer. I succeed in getting a magazine interested in an article about a young classical musical group (string quartet or trio, I forget) ... and when I told the ensemble the happy news, they wanted to know how much they'd be paid to be the subject of the article. They knew I would get paid (a paltry sum), and felt they should be, too. They were too dumb to understand that it was valuable PUBLICITY, and normally the person who worked on behalf of young musicians to place such career-enhancing articles was a publicist actually paid BY the ensemble (not to mention the fact that I was the one doing the work)! But they were completely hung up on the "use" of their "image" ...

While I can see the legal implications this all has a very similar taste to early on music uploading and cd burning issues. (Which seems to have died down thanks to people knowing more about the Fair Use Act than they once did.)

I don't believe it is right for them to flat out bully your hosting provider, when the issue could have been more civilly dealt with by contacting you directly. All this has done is cause, myself and other readers to think less of them as a company.

Also, as a person with a degree in economics who works in marketing, I can tell you that this is very short sighted as well on that front. Clearly you are sending them "business" that they would not otherwise have. They are the ones who decided to make their articles free online and therefore should be aware that they can and will be used in a manor such as the one that AT frequently uses them. They need to really consider the sort of partnership that AT and NYT could have before they do this sort of thing. They already have people paraphrasing their articles even without using the internet on TV news shows and radio shows like Wait, Wait on NPR. The point of a newspaper is to dispense news to a wide audience.

The only problem is that the news industry is just that, an industry. They need to be worried about the bottom line. And, unfortunately, although the aim should simply be to dispense news, profits are extremely important. And in our current economic downturn as well as our turn to more technologically advance ways to receive our news, newspapers, even the giants, have been struggling. In addition to that, I do have a bit of an issue with you using photos from the site, only because my good friend is a professional photographer who takes photos for these giant news organizations and I would be very sad to see that one of his excellent photos was not given all of the credit it deserves.

I think overall it was a pretty low blow, but I will now step off my soapbox and go on my way.

... so they missed out on that exposure for free! Wonder where they are now? Hmmm...

If AT stopped posting articles originating from NYTimes, I would not be sad. Heck, I probably wouldn't notice. AT is too crafty and creative to depend on their dull, drab design news. (The NYTimes is only vaguely aware of the West Coast, let alone my beautiful Pacific Northwest, anyway... They are not a news source/design source for me)

Jane -
Are you not party to any of the negotiated union agreements that writers get compensation when their articles are reprinted on the web? Or do you believe, like so many others here, that it's a big "marketing" favor to you if someone uses your work without paying you?

As a blogger I feel for AT. But I have often felt that AT and other blogs make too much use of content from other sites. I'm sure I have violated the law on my own blog (which has no ads, by the way), but I do try to limit what I take and to make it very clear what the original source of the info is.

As others have said, the times and other papers are going to have to start making a lot of $$ from their online sites given the drop in advertising due to the recession/depression. If blogs like AT simply snatch their stories, that becomes a lot harder.

Lets be clear here. That letter is not about copyright infringement. It is about desperate, disorganized efforts to prop up a dead business model that NYTimes continues to insist it can revive. Pretending that they can turn back the clock on inexpensive and linked content is like the music industry pretending that the $20 cd is returning as the preferred music format. One can try and force the issue, but that line has already been crossed. The world never moves backwards.

I think the model of micropurchasing page views is probably the only one that will get these companies where they think they want to go - but it is still going to require that places like the NYTimes take a massive pay cut and reorganize their finances accordingly. The old model is dead, the organization is grieving, and they just moved from the denial stage to the anger stage. I would suspect that the next group to feel the sting of their rage will be people who read their content online for free.

At the end of the day, they are on the wrong track. Just as iTunes was able to bridge the gap between outrageous cd prices and illegal free downloads, there are models that could provide an inexpensive, revenue generating middle ground. But handling their problems with a cease and desist letter isn't getting them any closer to that solution. It is just wasting valuable time and trashing their own brand.

Lisa:
As a freelancer, I was never part of a union (and I was working as such WAY before there was an internet for most people). But AT isn't reprinting articles, just commenting on them (and driving folks to the Times site as a result). And isn't that what lots of other blogs do? (In fact, isn't it sort of a point of pride to get "blogged"?)

No! It's NOT a point of pride to get blogged when you are a publisher and someone else is using your content without paying. The New York Times isn't some indy band.

Good luck with freelance writing in a world where everyone thinks articles should be free.

I think that the writers/photographers on AT would be frustrated to find that their work was used on another website without being asked.

Because the NYTimes is a large commercial entity it doesn't have time to sugarcoat or individualize every DMCA. Because Apartment Therapy used images and content Apartment Therapy is at fault. Because you took these images, you have to deal with the consequences.

I think that it is disingenuous to say things like "warm and fuzzy feeling" when the New York Times is merely asking you to play by the rules.

I should say that I really enjoy the content here on this site and do visit it often, however, like when a good friend makes a pass at my boyfriend, I'm not cool with bad behavior. Especially when the friend complains to other people about my inevitable negative response.

I'm a bit confused here - I assume we're just talking about the photos here?

I've always assumed AT had some type of deal with the NYT for use of the photos. When I wanted to use a photo from the Wash Post food section on my own blog, I contacted them and, not surprisingly, because of my relatively small traffic numbers, they didn't respond. So I had to find some other image to use.

Even assuming NYT is in the right here, their heavy handedness might be short sighted. I go to the NYT's home and food section only through AT, as I'm sure many others here do. So, AT is driving traffic to the NYT site - causing readers to also click through ads, including google ads - that would otherwise be nonexistent.

well said richardinla ^^

I'm a published writer, and after first serial rights payment I see my work go far afield with and without credit. I dislike this, and I have yet to ever be paid for a second printing. While I profoundly dislike this, it has brought me opportunities - paid ones - to write from people who did find me when my work was properly attributed.

I also love Apartment Therapy blog. It is, really and truly, my favorite blog, and I do not want to see it shut down.

Information distribution has changed drastically, and while I think that the New York Times approached this in a terrible, troublemaking, all-or-nothing way that only a lawyer would think is beneficial and could only truly benefit a lawyer, I also think that Apartment Therapy is at fault for ignoring some fairly clear guidelines about reuse of its images that New York Times has posted.

With these thoughts in mind, and knowing no one has asked me, here's what I suggest be the course of action:
Apartment Therapy:
Pull down any and all references, links to and images of the New York Times. It's going to take forever, and it's going to suck. I'm sorry. Email me privately and I'll arrange for the first staff coffee delivery.

Apartment Therapy Readers:
While it's not 100%, citizen activism can and HAS helped in these situations. But first, put on your empathy hats. NYT has thousands of jobs on the line in the face of its possible death. How would YOU feel if you were working for the NYT? So, taking time to think carefully and be polite, write them - possibly with ideas to help them deal with the new media, using Apartment therapy as an example that could work out positively.

I believe these are the effective email addresses to write to:
# TO WRITE THE PUBLISHER OR PRESIDENT
Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Chairman & Publisher:
publisher@nytimes.com.

Scott H. Heekin-Canedy, President, General Manager
president@nytimes.com.

Well wishes to everyone. I love Apartment Therapy and I daresay it's changed my life. I really wish for it all to work out for the best for everyone.

-Diana, from Minneapolis

a) Agree that the NYT heavy handed legal approach is dumb
b) Think that NYT has a point, to some degree
c) Think that AT has more to offer (or should) than recapping NYT content. If AT stopped covering NYT, I personally wouldn't miss it.
d) Personally think AT would be better with fewer high quality posts of original-ish content

Did the NYT pay you and other websites when they wrote stories about you/them? What about the stories about the Gillingham-Ryans and their tiny apartment? What about Circuits, the technology section, and all the websites they write stories about? I could go on.

Subscription to Sunday Times canceled. We've been thinking we can't afford it anyway. This just sealed the deal. Thanks for saving us money.

The Times is entirely within its rights to deny the unauthorized use of its images. It's not a matter of paying the people or websites one writes about -- I'm sure the paper generated its own images and copy for all the stories Pixie mentions, or obtained permission to use any others. If you can't secure permission, don't use the content.

As I think others have mentioned, it's only fair to the photographers that the paper go to bat for them on this issue, if that's what's happening. We freelancer writers and photographers make pocket change for our work these days. And the Times gets to decide whether it needs the extra traffic it might gain through AT. This discussion reminds me of situations where people (who clearly needed the publicity more than I did, though that's neither here nor there) have posted my articles online without my permission and then when I complained insisted that I should be grateful for the publicity. It doesn't matter what they think about it, but what I do sure does.

I love many things about Apartment Therapy, but a little humility and respect would be appropriate here.

I also have to agree with the NYT on this. I'm sure many journalists and the papers that pay them are tired of doing all of the legwork only to have blogs usurp their content. Even if you're only taking it "in part", it's not your work.

Blogs should be about creating their own unique content, not trolling others sites and then showcasing someone else's work. If you think of how hard it'd be for AT to pay writers to write unique pieces all the time (and not search for Flickr pictures, news articles, catalog content, etc.), you'd have more empathy for them. It's a huge investment to create your own work and someone else shouldn't profit from it by riding on your coattails, even if your profits increase a tiny amount as a result of what they do.

I think if AT had just said, there's an interesting piece at the NYT about X and linked to the ad then wrote their own developed piece related to it but not copying it in any way, this would not be happening.

I work in the arts and have found my stuff lifted with and without attribution and always without pay. Writing is a lot of work, as is photography, and if you stuff's ever been appropriated you'll know it's never a good feeling, whether the taker is a small blogger or the NYT.

The NYT may seem like a huge organization but it's actually a bunch of individuals who make pretty paltry sums for huge amounts of work. Personally I'm a huge fan of NYT, and want to see them around in 5 years.

I'm also a huge fan of AT but honestly the displays of NYT photos has always made me uncomfortable. Bottom line, I think AT has enough other cool, user and staff generated content they don't need the NYT stuff.

DMCA sucks. That said, you have a lot of links in your articles that take you to other AT sites and pages, not to the original material being blogged about. I know that is adding clicks to the site, but it also sucks when you want to see the original article and end up caught in endless internal site loop. I would check the links being complained about and see if they are internal linking.

Is anyone else getting these from the NYT? It may also be that you are doing multiple photos from the same article.

Unfortunately, the way the law is written now, there is no clear definition of what is or is not allowed.

Saw this at BoingBoing. So why not generate more original content and then just do a roundup of what's in the papers?

But why does Maxwell say that "After four years of working with the NYTimes"?

How has he or AT been working with the NYTimes?

The NYT is entirely within its rights, and AT is without a leg to stand on.

If you want to do pieces on NYT articles, do it without showing half the photos and reprinting half the story.

Pretending that the aim of these posts is to drive traffic back to the original rights holder is disingenuous at best.

My advice? Develop more of your own original content.

My advice? Develop more of your own original content.

My advice? Develop more of your own original content.

My advice? Develop more of your own original content.

My advice? Develop more of your own original content.

My advice? Develop more of your own original content.

My advice? Develop more of your own original content.


nuf said?

Being a lawyer who has a blog of her own (although an infrequently updated one!) I was inclined to leave a rather detailed comment about this, but after scanning through some of the comments here I don't see the point. So many people are so thoroughly confident that the NYT is "entirely within its rights" and so forth -- what difference would it make to talk about the principle of fair use? It's extremely disheartening to see so many people reflexively come down on the side of a very ill-considered DMCA takedown notice without having much knowledge of the law. It is one thing that really, really, really upsets me as a lawyer, to see people assume that the law is more draconian than it is, and to urge others not to exercise their rights.

I'm siding with the Times on this one. Apartment Therapy doesn't have any legal justification for taking their content (linking to them, driving traffic and being "very conscious to never take too much from them" aren't good enough).

But what bothers me the most is that the author acts disappointed that the NYT didn't try to come and talk to them before sending the DMCA takedown, to try to "work WITH them." It is upon Apartment Therapy to approach the NYT to use their content BEFORE just taking it without proper permission.

Also, whether or not it's strategically smart for the NYT to allow or pursue copyright violation is irrelevant.

Most seasoned journalists have to make it their business to understand the nuances of fair use, so don't worry -- you don't need to explain them to us.

My last comment wasn't a response to yours, Matt23, but to the previous one, as you can probably tell! I agree that the aggrieved tone of the post is bothersome -- AT shouldn't have expected the Times to approach them about this first.

This reminds me of how the music companies and now the movie studios fought the changing business models instead of embracing them and being leaders in a new cooperative environment of internet distribution of content. Well the music industry failed and let Apple get the upper hand and Hollywood suffers from movie pirating. The newspapers are doing the same thing. These businesses are all the same....run by greedy old men and women who resist change. They will all be the losers eventually.

Tiny Banquet is more articulate than I am and says it better, so I'll just say I agree with everything in her post.

@AE--I'd hardly call the Sulzbergers greedy. And the fair use argument might hold water, but it doesn't sound like Maxwell or his hirelings were even pretending to critique or comment upon the Times stories.

There's a big difference between the music industry fighting people who download for their own enjoyment and an entrepreneur using another's work to make a buck.

A waste of the Times' $ (though good for their lawyers). Especially as print pubs are going the same way content aggregation in order to boost circ. I can't object to their wanting to control their brand, but do it in a way that encourages their content to be absorbed, not their business practices to be mocked.

FantasticMrFaux...........I agree with you on the point of an entrepreneur using another's work to make a buck. That is a valid point. However let me clarify my position. The world is changing rapidly and maybe The NY Times needs to partner with blogs and other online news aggregators to improve their position or risk becoming irrelevant.

Well, did Maxwell ever approach them? They've certainly done stories about him, so he must know the section editors.

This complaining over using copyrighted material comes off as whiney and entitled. AT has used a LOT of content from the NYTimes, to the point where it sometimes felt like AT was in the main a NYTimes recycler/ reposter. And NYTimes is a business entity which must pay its writers and copy editors ( ahem). But more than this, AT could definitely stand to stop thinking about the NYTimes's business model and think more about of its own - and what they can post if they arent reposting other people's work. If the answer is fewer, better, more compelling posts then so be it.

I want the NYT to stay around and be viable. In our democracy we need them.

They need to protect their work to stay in business, just as you do. They are within their rights.

I am just as loyal to you. When another site starts taking advantage of AT, I will support you putting a stop to it.

Just for the record:

While I may look at the NYT for their news and arts, and maybe science sections - I have not, and do in any foreseeable circumstance EVER see myself picking up their homes or leisure or lifestyles [see - i don't even know what this section would be called!] section to read an article about so-and-so's apartment or house. I'm just not interested in it. HOWEVER, because, and ONLY because of the content on this site - I have clicked the links from this site TO their site to read at least 4 articles about those topics. AT doesn't take their content in any way which would compromise the stories over at nytimes.com. The few stories I found interesting never contain the full content, and only drive traffic over there.

I say heck with them and don't include anything from them, since without AT pointing it out - I would NEVER find it on my own - and - at this point - I wouldn't miss it.

How do all of you who think the Times are bad guys for this think information is acquired? People spend time finding it and then writing about it and they have to be paid for it. Aggregators like AT just spend their time doing searches on the web and then regurgitating the information. They also lift the pictures and repeat parts of the articles. Their investment in time and money for the content they use is almost nothing, particularly since they rarely (if ever) add qualitatively to the content by editorializing or adding to it.

The issue is far more complex than people realize. If AT or other aggregators provide little or no incentive for people to peruse the Times site because they sift through it for them, they undermine the Times potential to profit from their work. Even if you click through to look at an article (and given how much AT copies, not everyone even needs to click through), you will not go back again and check other articles until AT spoon feeds you another URL.

The bottom line is that AT and other aggregators wouldn't exist without other news sources to poach from because they create so little original content. This isn't about a new world order or preserving print media. It's about making profit by piggybacking on others work and undermining their ability to profit form their own work or distribute it as they see fit.

Do any of you really think that AT drives so much traffic to the Times that it carries enough value to make up for the traffic or readership it siphons off?

For non-lawyer folk, here's a brief rundown of the factors used to determine whether a particular use constitutes a "fair use" (in other words, whether it's okay to use the material without prior consent).

The courts look at:
1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is commercial in nature or for nonprofit educational purposes;
2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;
4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Since as a for profit venture, AT fails #1 and arguably #4 and often, likely also #3 (when a substantial portion of the copyrighted article and images are used in the post), it seems like a good idea to consult a copyright lawyer and perhaps rethink how NYT (and other copyrighted) material is used on the blog.

It would be nice if the Times had reached out before clobbering AT, but the Times' action presents an opportunity for AT to develop a smart strategy and policies for the future. Some small consolation: they only come after you if you're successful. Ah, well...

Dear Maxwell,

I look forward to hearing your assessment of the above "observations" and I personally hope that it will include a tiny bit of chagrin about a few of your phrases, because, you see, you have won my heart with your foundational thinking about how to live well in this world. And, therefore, I want you to live well in every way possible.

And, the world is turning; several comments above were quite informative about how it is turning, don't you think? I will pray for you, and for all of us, because these are real concerns that are, or soon will be, affecting each of us.

God bless your heart, your mind and your spirit, Friend,
Jude

Tiny Banquet nails it. There is such a thing as fair use, and it's not clear to me at all that AT has (in general, anyhow) stepped over that line.

One thing I do know for certain - the NYT website will be receiving less traffic going forward due to this action, not more. That means less revenue for its owners, writers, photographers and freelancers. They may preserve the precious sanctity of their content, but as fewer and fewer people visit their website the value of that content - and their ability to pay to produce more of it - will continue to decline.

Instead of working against bloggers, it would probably be smarter for the NYT to produce their own authorized summary of every article they publish, one designed specifically to drive traffic back to the NYT website. Then bloggers get content and the NYT gets a net increase in page views.

Instead, what I suspect is going to happen is that the larger blogs will start to hire their own freelancers in various locations - depending on the subject matter covered in the blog - and begin producing their own content. This will absolutely destroy location-based publications like the NYT, since web surfers have shown they're far more interested in information aggregated by topic than by location.

The only time I ever visit the NYTimes site is when there is a link to it from AT.

Just a further note to clarify what I said earlier: There are two issues here. Whether the NYT is in financial trouble is an entirely separate matter from the issue of whether AT has violated its copyright law. The latter issue is not going to be answered by the question of "justification" alone, or by knowing what sort of pay structure the NYT has with its writers and photographers, and it is certainly not going to be answered by the far more general (and legally not very relevant) question of whether this is a wise strategy for the NYT to pursue or not.
Also: Anyone who would offer specific advice to AT or other websites in a similar position without even having seen the takedown notice (!) and without even knowing exactly which content it pertains to (!) is being quite irresponsible. Copyright is one of the least-settled areas of the law, in part because technology and content creation and usage are perpetually evolving, and in part because the copyright clause of the US Constitution is, like other constitutional clauses, not super-specific in its wording. Anyone well-informed about it knows enough not to be very confident in offering a quick opinion on whether or not it's been violated in any particular instance. The answer is almost never a matter of black-or-white. That's why it boggles my mind that so many readers here are so reflexive in forming their opinions and urging them on others.

Adapt or die.

I'm sure AT can get along without NYT content. I'm not sure NYT can get along much longer, period. Certainly not as it is now.

I, also, would like to hear a response from Maxwell regarding these reader comments.

I used to work for a company that used photographers, and this is not a minor issue. There are major legal contracts about how those photos can be used. We had photos that could be used on the website, but not in print and vice versa, and lots of payment issues based on where the pictures appeared. I don't think this is unreasonable at all.

I always thought you were working with the NYT, since you covered them so regularly and did not cover other sources at all. Can't you contact them and ask how you can work with them?
Why can't AT have a weekly media review? For example NYT home section, Elle Decor, World of Interiors, etc.

Good for the Times. I seethe when a big, commercial, for-profit blog like Apartment Therapy steals someone else's work and then innocently claims the "who, me?" defense when called on it. Perhaps Apartment Therapy should actually pay a photographer to create content, instead of leeching off the Times -- and then having the gall to claim that the Times "just doesn't get it."

How about this: What if I get a book contract for "The Best of AT House Tours" and use your images without paying. How could you possibly object, since it's such good "publicity" for you?

many many other advertising-supported web sites with paid staffs seem to have arranged where they can republish NYT content.

but they probably PAY FOR IT.

AT is a site I visit regulary, I am disappointed by the whining and death wishes for The New York Times. If one is a reader of both the NYT and AT, it's no secret that if you read the Times much of the content on AT is like watching a rerun. Below are the Times' guidelines for rights and persmission, which may be found on the NYT website. AT seems to be a "commercial business", unless you're hosting the West Elm, Pottery Barn, Target, Hoover and other ads free of charge. One can proactively pursue the proper channels to use content generated (with considerable expense) by others, or you can "Take it" and take your chances until the "copyrights police" come after you. Once you're caught, it's like the shoplifter who says I would have paid for the merchandise if only you'd asked, I don't understand why you called the cops.

NYT Policy as stated on their website is:
"Trademarks, Copyrights and Restrictions. This site is controlled and operated by The New York Times Company. All material on this site, including, but not limited to, images, illustrations, audio clips, and video clips, is protected by copyrights, trademarks, and other intellectual property rights that are owned and controlled by The New York Times Company, its related companies or by other parties that have licensed their material to The New York Times Company. Material on this Web site is solely for your personal, non-commercial use. Such material may not be copied, reproduced, republished, modified, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way, including by e-mail or other electronic means, without the express prior written consent of The New York Times Company. Use of the materials on any other Web site or networked computer environment, or use of the materials for any purpose other than personal, non-commercial use is a violation of The New York Times Company 's copyrights, trademarks and other proprietary rights, and is prohibited."

To those that have never been to the Times site until seeing the content on AT, and now vow never to visit the Times site again. So what, it's an indication of a lack of understanding of what's at issue.

Asia,
That notice is only part of the story. The argument comes down to two things: whether Apt. Therapy's selections fall under fair use (which I guarantee NYT takes full advantage of themselves) and the fact that fair use has been subverted by institutions with vast amounts of money which can outlast individuals seeking legal redress by making their claim to fair use in court. Even if Apt. Therapy is in the right, effectively their chances to assert their rights is nil. This is why Lessig and the EFF are working so tirelessly on others' behalfs.

A link to the site of origin...fair use.

Posting actual NYT photos and edit content on your site without paying the neccesary rights and permission fees required by law.....something else

Most enlightened publications realize that being featured or discussed on a blog is a "good thing". For example, AT's constant features on Domino and Wondertime was what motivated me to get a subscription to those 2 (now defunct) magazines.

If the business model newspapers are using is anything like that of magazines, then subscriptions or newsstand revenues do not begin to cover costs -- which is why Domino, despite its very impressive number of subscribers, went under; they simply could not sell enough ad revenue.

As for making electronic users pay for content, well, in most instances that has driven users away, partially because they can get (most of) that content elsewhere. Unless all news organizations around the world simultaneously adopt identical pay-for-use internet news policies, they don't have a hope of success.

Looks to me that the real problem lays with being unable to properly value ad rates in the increasingly exclusive internet news environment (can't think when I last bought an actual newspaper, come to think...).

As to copyright, well, I think I am with Tiny Banquet on this one...

Photographic images and references to text, or quotes themselves, have never been treated like songs or movies with respect to royalties and residiuals, as far as I am aware. When quoting an author in a paper, does anyone submit a royalty? No. A published writer is considered paid through the book deal they receive or the direct payment for an article. And so it is with photographers and newspapers. So long as the images are properly attributed, the article not plagiarized, but discussed, and links leading readers back to the original site are provided, then I think it is fair use. But hey, I'm no lawyer.

I think AT does not need to mention NYT articles or content -- the most interesting stuff on AT are the "good questions" and home tours, and issues people raise. If the NYT does not want ATers to discuss anything they raise as an issue on the AT site, so be it.

Really unfortunate that they've pulled a Metallica on you.

I enjoy their paper -- especially their magazine, which is just about the best news magazine in the country -- but your site can easily do without them entirely.

AT is stealing: plain and simple. AT is a commercial enterprise and is using content without permission. No one disputes that.

If someone steals my artwork, my writing, or my photography without permission I will (and have) use legal action against them.

One point most people have failed to mention is that AT is just ONE site stealing from NYT content...but how many others? One leech isn't a problem, hundreds of aggregate sites sucking your content is deadly. NYT has done the right thing and should continue to do the right thing.

Somewhat ironically, the post following this leads to Washington Magazine, and the one after that leads to Met Home. All stolen content.

Asia - that's untrue. If you're using excerpts, whether images or text for the purpose of commentary, they can fall under fair use. Size of the image can be a factor, as well as meeting the criteria of commentary.

I think print media are realizing that putting content on the web for free was a mistake. The only way for newspapers -- and the original journalistic content they create -- to survive is to charge money.

A big reason all newspapers (except WSJ) are free is because they worried what would happen to readership if they charged money and their competitors didn't. But now that EVERYONE is going bankrupt under the free-content system, I wouldn't be surprised to see ALL newspapers start to charge money in a few years. (And it could work. A few years ago, no one thought anyone would pay money for music on iTunes because they got it free on Napster.)

But if you're planning to charge for your content, it's critical to make sure no one else is in the habit of giving it away for free. It's the only way to survive.

UPDATE:

I reached both the NYTimes legal and marketing on Friday and they called off their take down notice pending our initial conversation. I'm currently trying to work out a way to blog the Times and use some image to flag the post. We are not interested in stealing their business, only in covering their great articles and sending readers on. If they say no images at all, that's what it will be. We'll still blog them, it just won't be as pretty.

Admittedly, even as we've stepped up our efforts at careful crediting and sampling of images, we've been lax at times, and the boundaries have shifted dramatically as well. Whenever we've received an complaint (which is rare) we've always responded to it and done our best to come to an agreement for use, short of takedown. This has been successful nearly 100% of the time, and our awareness of and respect for photo copyright has grown each time. Most of the time, we receive thank-yous for directing readers to people's businesses, sites, products, designs and articles, giving them added exposure and helping to grow their business. That's our goal, too.

Back in 2004 I began blogging by borrowing other bloggers images and having others borrow mine. All that was important was that they credited me and properly linked to the post so that the traffic would flow through. In fact, it was flattering that people liked my stuff enough to blog it.

I still feel the same way. As long as you give me credit, and ultimately send people on to my post, you can can borrow what you want. But that's blogging.

Over time this blogging culture seems to have run headlong into the professional photography and media culture, where the business of rights management is well established and necessary to protect the business. These two cultures don't mesh too well.

I hope that we can all work out a satisfactory solution in which rights are protected and sharing is allowed to remain.

Best, Maxwell

The obvious solution is, stop making posts about what OTHER media think about design. It isn't right to say, 'well, we do it, but if you CATCH us doing it, and ask us nicely, we will take down the content we stole' and think that is a rational solution. It isn't 'flattering' to the NYT photographers to steal their images, and frankly, its insulting to readers to assume we cannot find the NYT on our own, but rely instead on editors to find it for us and link to it.

Put another way - why should the NYT be happy that bloggers steal their pictures and essentially boil down the content of stories (such that readers won't click through to the actual NYT site), and that bloggers who do this make a living off of the stolen content?

Nuni, the point is that we want people to click through and it's easier with words to describe a "quote" than with pictures.

If you borrow one picture, is that a quote of the series and a prompt to click through, or is it stealing too much content?

With pictures there is no fractional agreement yet.

Wow, this is a bummer, I use them all the time, with full credit given and links over to them. I would think they'd be happy to have increased traffic via the links (not that I generate all that many with my small following, but still).

I suppose it's a fine line from a litigation and web traffic policing standpoint between a link that whets the reader's appetite and drives them over to a NYTimes article, and one that steals enough that the reader does not bother to click over to the original source. Thus, they have probably just created one legal stance to all people using content.

As a blogger, I know that the images are often what entices a design blog reader to read the actual post and click over, so it's kind of useless to the blog to just say "read this" and provide a link. I notice on their "share" links they are happy to have everyone link over to facebook, myspace, what have you. I really wish they would add a blog component to this part. hmmmm. tricky stuff!

Maxwell, you are being disengenuous in the extreme to suggest that AT uses one photo when it steals from the NYT. Your editors do not use one photo - maybe one photo before the jump, to encourage your own readers to click through to a second AT page, and thus increase your own ad revenue, but I ran a search on NYT on the AT site and found an astonishing number of posts where the AT editor took a large percentage of the total photos from the NYT story, which for AT readers, means there is no need to click through, since they have seen the best photos and been given a synopsis already. yes, posts do say there are more photos on the NYT site, but so many are already at AT that there is no point in clicking through.

8 photos, in this one, and it isn't unusual, I don't think: http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/ny/blogging/house-tour-color-pattern-in-israel-nyt-31208-045199
that isn't a 'visual taste', that's making money off of other people's work.

If the NYT doesn't want you to use their content to earn your own living off of their work, why not just respect their wishes and stop using their content? Surely, you'all can find EVEN MORE stuff at Ikea and West Elm to link to, instead.

AT,
Take one entire week and blog only your own original content. Nothing else. I think you'll gain a whole new appreciation for the NYTime's point of view.

Newspapers are quickly becoming dinosaurs and going extinct as well.

So, buy a copy of the paper, scan the page, and use that as the image. Make everyone happy. Or just make a screenshot of the page with the story.

Can't help but wonder if this post is what caused the new comment policy.....

As someone who has found their material reposted on Apartment Therapy (uncredited), I understand where the NYT is coming from. And I have seen photos here from other blogs & newspapers that don't appear to be properly credited or using more than a significant portion to be "fair use" ... and without any editorial addition to the content.

Yes, it would have been nice if the NYT contacted you and had a nice conversation about it but I have tried to contact you guys before for a nice conversation and have gotten nowhere in the past. (And have had similar problems with HuffPo.)

I agree with sjvsjv, sites that create wholly original content are constantly battling with aggregation sites - yes it's "nice" for the exposure, but aggregators can't survive without someone out there actually writing, kitchen testing & photographing this stuff to begin with.

Like you, "back in 2004 I began blogging by borrowing other bloggers images and having others borrow mine. All that was important was that they credited me and properly linked to the post so that the traffic would flow through."

And like you I let people use under the terms of my creative commons license.

However - I have a caveat: I only allow my work to be used freely by sites without advertising. I don't wish for anyone else to profiteer from me without my knowledge or permission.

Where I differ from you is that my own site remains defiantly noncommercial.

Also, these days, because it's not difficult to be aware of basic copyright law, especially if you have been blogging for 5 years, I ask before I use a picture that is not mine. In fact I guess I was the only person in the world to ask permission from the owner of a random photo before I used it in a Facebook meme where people make up album covers.

Like Cybele above, I rigorously defend any of my photographs that are stolen by commercial sites and will continue to do so. The issue is not black and white and just because its on the internet, it doesn't mean we are automatically entitled to make it our own.

the problem with the outrage here (sorry late comment as I found this via a search related to dmca), is that blogging culture of sharing and redirecting, in the case of actually diplaying the photos in the way you were, is in direct conflict with the law, particularly the digital millenium copyright act...it's against the law, quite simply, culture or no...

Personally, I am also a blogger, and appreciate the culture and am generally ok with it, though now that I am also more of a photographer and well aware of the law surrounding copyrights, licensing, use, etc, I am very careful not to break it...ignorance does not excuse illegalities as inconvenient as it may be...

If an image is copyrighted as all rights reserved, those words have meaning, quite simple. Now a way to get around this via fair use, may be to make screen caps of articles, and quote very small amounts of text and link...you may be able to fall w/i the law there, but I am no lawyer...