My impression is that it’s not necessarily legal, but going after bloggers and proving damages based is just a huge waste of their time. OpenAI came by with their fat stack of funding and changed that.
No, in US law at least there can be no copyright of facts, only presentation. If you convey the same facts in different words that isn't a matter of fair use, it's never even a matter of copyright in the first place.
I was inarticulate. Imagine a business that goes to some trouble to review businesses or products. Can we lift those and serve them ourselves? Non facts…
What parent poster meant is that it is normal that news organisations reference each other and report/cite/rephrase each other reports. For example all other news papers reported about the Watergate scandal reported by Bernstein&Woodward in the Washington Post.
No, it is very specifically and deliberately fair use. That is the primary intended purpose of fair use. The New York Times doesn't own the news; they just own their articles.
It is legal. Fair use. People have been doing it for ages. Almost every article you've ever read has some fair use of another article, book or news item, etc.
The Tolkien estate should get busy suing all the fantasy writers, comic artists, game developers and board and card game companies. Lots of cash there.
They have done some of that actually. Tolkien will be public domain in the nations that are at aithors death+50 in a few days. Sadly, it will be a much longer wait in mine and many others.
