GateHouse claims that the New York Times Co. unit is building community-oriented sites that rely on the work of GateHouse journalists.
The lawsuit alleges that Boston.com displays copyrighted content from GateHouse publications, The Boston Globe and other blogs in a way that creates a false impression that it has been licensed, authorized and endorsed to use.
-------------------------------------------------------
I have a feeling this is a very messy situation. And GateHouse may have a good case for their claim.
If they had original content and Boston.com (owned by the NYTimes) created a new section (which it appeared they did) based on GateHouse's original content but did not give credit to GateHouse or gave the appearance that the content was their own (Boston.com) then that is a very stupid thing to do.
These are all allegations at this point.
One thing that really strikes me is the extent that Boston.com went to and beyond to "scrap" the contents of GateHouse's published content even after GateHouse blocked Boston.com.
Yikes! This could be trouble.
If we have RSS feeds on our site, it may be best to make a disclaimer identifying the source.
Typically the Joomla templates I use will auto fill in data indicated the site is copyrighted by me.
If this is the case, then perhaps I have violated other's rights by publishing their content without credits.
The site Boston dot com does have a © 2008 NY Times Co. which would lead one to believe that all the content is theirs or used with permission (such as AP, Reuters, etc).
Hmm...newpaper suing newspaper is nothing new.
But the rss feeds, violating TOS?
