2011-05-20 16:09:46Syndicating SkS content
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
58.166.133.186

Got this request from Newstex:

I'm writing to see if you would be interested in syndicating your posts with Newstex. We aggregate news, blogs, and video for professional users in business, finance, law, government and academia. Our clients are paid information services like LexisNexis and ProQuest that integrate the content we provide into their proprietary applications.

Syndication provides a way to distribute your writing to an audience of enterprise users that might not otherwise find your site. We preserve all links in the body of posts and we pay a monthly royalty based on usage. 

The money is not a consideration at all, I don't really care whether it makes money or not. But if it gets the word out, paid or not, why not, right?! Unless Newstex secretly owned by Exxon, can anyone see a downside?

2011-05-20 17:23:17
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
60.228.113.89

Unless there is some sort of editorial tone that they take, then no obvious downside.

2011-05-21 04:01:37
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.48.136

You might see if you can get a look at their output through a friend with LexisNexis privileges.

Otherwise, it sounds good!

Neal

2011-05-21 05:16:26
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Will syndication prevent other entities from carrying reposts of the same articles?  E.g., does syndication carry with it publication exclusivity?

2011-06-23 15:14:01Non-exclusive basis
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.9.229

The agreement is non-exclusive. If people want to check this out before I add the SkS feed to their system, would be cool:

http://www.newstex.com/data/docs/Newstex_License_Agreement.pdf

They do offer a portion of any income that comes from our feed. I'm guessing it will amount to something like 24 cents per month or some mindbogglingly small amount. If it did come to something substantial, I'm not comfortable with the income going to me - but distributing it among the SkS authors is also probably a futile exercise so I'm thinking we could always spend it on google ads or press releases or whatever. Well, will be a good problem to have if it ever does happen.

2011-06-24 08:20:28
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.69

I know almost nothing about legal agreements and copyright laws but is see a potential problem in this sentence:
"The term "Content" refers to all material that you provide as part of your blog or twitter account, including text, images and other multimedia data, copyrighted or not, [...]"
We often publish copyrighted material based on fair use or non-commercial licences. Their use for commercial purposes might be a problem.

2011-06-24 09:45:52
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.62.211

Riccardo,

I can't imagine that this statement can apply to material copyrighted by someone other than the immediate source. If I lend you my horse, you do not have the right to lend that horse to someone else again. If the material is labelled with the copyright owner (as it should be), it is clearly the responsibility of the 2nd user to obtain permission to use from that owner.

2011-07-02 08:30:38
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.9.229

Have just signed up for this. Will report on any developments.

As far as I can tell, it just involves giving them my XML and Twitter feed and letting them run with it. Pretty low maintenance and can't see a downside (yet).