Skip to main content

The Legality of Republishing RSS Feeds - Professional PHP

Popularity Report

Total Popularity Score: 0

Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...

Rank

URL Tag Cloud

Bookmark History

Saved by 1 people (0 private), first by anonymouse user on 2006-08-13


Public Sticky notes

This is an interesting area of law. Eric Goldman has an rundown of the issues.

In my mind, there's no question that a blogger grants an implied license to the content in an RSS feed. However, because it's implied, I'm just not sure of the license terms. So, in theory, it could be an implied license to permit aggregators to do whatever they want.
...
It is trivial to destroy an implied license, so bloggers can overcome any aggregator use simply by saying so. I'm not sure WHERE the blogger would need to say this (by the "syndicate" link? in the xml feed itself?). Perhaps any disclosure in any reasonable place would be sufficient to destroy the implied license.

So it would seem that Tobias has reasonably withdrawn his implicit license by placing the notice in the feed itself, as a post. The question of where a reasonable place to put such a notice is important. Since one can subscribe to an RSS feed without ever visiting the parent site, I think perhaps the only reasonable place for a terms of service for a feed is within the feed itself. Snow vs. DirectTV suggests that a warning isn't necessarily enough to overcome an implicit license. Of course, I am not a lawyer so my interpretation may be flawed.

Highlighted by ycc2106

Readers (1)