What are the legalities of repackaging other's RSS feeds into a new presentation?

Question

I know that services like my.yahoo.com allow you to add content from RSS feeds to your personal page, but in general they are links which draw the user to the site which provided the feed. What are the legalities and implications of using RSS feeds as a data source for a site which repackages the data so as to be unrecognizable that it came from said source.

---

Does credit need to be given? It is a copyright violation? What is ethical?

---

What if credit is stated? Does this change your opinion? Does permission need to be granted?

Answer 1

Talk to your lawyer.

Answer 2

Well, legalities aside it isn't ethical to not give credit to the source. The AP for example wants credit

Answer 3

I would say publishing someone else's work without giving them credit will definitely lead to lawsuits or at least strongly worded cease and desist letters (followed by lawsuits).

Answer 4

In my opinion it depends on the data source company as to whether they allow it in their terms and conditions. It probably also depends on where your servers are located (i.e. Which legal framework they fall under.)

Unless it is allowed explicitly or you have written consent I don't think it's ethical.

It also depends on how big your legal department is.

Answer 5

From AP's RSS site...

AP provides these RSS feeds to individuals for personal, noncommercial use under the following terms and conditions. All others, including AP members or Press Association subscribers must obtain express written permission prior to use of these RSS feeds. AP provides these RSS feeds at no charge to you for your personal, noncommercial use. You agree not to associate the RSS feeds with any content that might harm the reputation of The Associated Press. AP provides this content "as is" and AP shall not be held liable for your use of the information or the feeds. TO THE FULLEST EXTENT ALLOWED, AP DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES INCLUDING WARRANTIES FOR MERCHANTABILITY, NON-INFRINGEMENT AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. You agree to use the RSS feeds only to provide headlines, each with a functional link to the associated AP story that shall display the full content immediately (e.g., no jump pages or other intermediate or interstitial pages). You further agree not to frame or otherwise control the browser window (if any) in which the AP content opens, including limiting the size or position of such window. You agree to provide proper attribution to The Associated Press in reasonable proximity to your use of the RSS feed(s), and you agree that you will not modify the format or branding of the headlines, digests and other information provided in the RSS feeds. The RSS feeds may not be spliced into or otherwise redistributed by third-party RSS providers. No content, including any advertisements or other promotional content, shall be added to the RSS feeds. AP reserves the right to object to your presentation of the RSS feeds and the right to require you to cease using the RSS feeds at any time. AP further reserves the right to terminate its distribution of the RSS feeds or change the content or formatting of the RSS feeds at any time without notice to you. By accessing the RSS feeds or the XML instructions provided herein, you indicate that you understand and agree to these terms and conditions. Note: If you do not qualify to use the RSS feeds under this license or are an AP member or Press Association subscriber and wish to uses these feeds, please contact AP Digital.link text

Answer 6

The difference between what you are proposing and services like my.yahoo.com, Netvibes, Bloglines, Google Reader, etc, is that you are the one choosing the feeds, whereas with those other services the user is specifying the feed, and is therefore aware of it's original source.

Even though content is being published in feeds, and is therefore expected to be used with services like the ones I mentioned above, the publisher still retains the copyright over their content, and would usually expect it to be republished as-as. It is also customary to provide the link back to the original source of the content and republishing content without it would be frowned upon at the very least.

Answer 7

From Reuters RSS site...

Reuters offers RSS as a free service to any individual user or non-profit organization, subject to the following terms and conditions:

Use will be for non-commercial purposes. Use is limited to platforms in which a functional link is made available allowing immediate display of the full article or video on the Reuters.com platform, as specified in the feed. Use is accompanied by proper attribution to Reuters as the source.

By accessing our RSS service you are indicating your understanding and agreement that you will not use Reuters RSS in contravention of the above conditions. Reuters reserves the right to discontinue this service at any time and further reserves the right to request the immediate cessation of any specific use of its RSS service.

If you would like Reuters news for your commercial website, please visit about.reuters.com/media.

Answer 8

Of course it's ethical! What on earth is RSS for if not for syndication, into as many varied and wonderful forms as developers can think up?

Permission, of course, must be asked for - in the form of a "GET /feed/ HTTP 1.0". And it must be granted in the form of a "200 OK" - or denied in the form of a "403 Forbidden".

Screen scraping is at least morally ambiguous, since perhaps the author only wants humans, and not programs, to view the content (assuming you believe it's within the rights of the author to make that distinction). But RSS? Seriously? No one forces anyone to make a syndicated, easily-mungable format of their content. It's not just useful for new presentations, it's meant for it.

Answer 9

I've wondered the same thing for a while and am very hesitant to republish RSS feeds FeedForAll says there is no inherent right to reproduce content. You're asking whether it's ok to mangle the content, I'm pretty sure it's not alright to even reproduce the content. I think it would be like putting

<iframe src='www.stackoverflow.com'> </iframe>

on my website.

BTW. This is not a subjective question and this it is important. I'd re-ask this question or edit the title and get more relevant feedback.