On my way to DC yesterday, I picked up a copy of PC Connections, a custom publicaiton of PC Connections, Inc., which is one of the myriad "free" publications available on the shuttle.

A short piece on p.9 discusses workplace blogs and their increasing popularity. A privacy and security expert from Proskauer Rose states that "compan[ies are] liable if an employee posts libelous material. . . " The expert's analysis assumes a traditional analysis of publisher liability. But how would this play out in a "news" context, which one might argue is involved in the use of RSS or XML feeds? In other words, is there liability for simply "reporting" the statement of another? Is this publication? If I don't "report" it but link to it, am I republishing it? Are we all becoming legitimate news sources as we are publishers?

Responding to the discussion about the copyrightability of its headlines, Reuters has jumped into the discussion. Their announcement that they do not consider use of their headlines in XML feeds to be infringement of their copyright clearly implies the underlying consensual control the copyright owner has. Under traditional law in the US, the owner is the one to control the enumerated rights for which they are granted protection. But the Reuters statement avoids the key question of whether or not a headline is subject matter that is subject to copyright. As others have stated, a title is traditionally not subject to copyright. This is a definitional fact, much as typefaces are not subject to copyright, nor are public performances. So the relevance of Reuter's statement is premised solely on an affirmative answer to the core question: is a headline protectible. If not, it does not matter that Reuters consents to not enforce its rights because it would not have any rights to enforce.