People like … to confuse aggregation with wholesale misappropriation, which violates copyright law. At HuffPost, aggregation goes along with a tremendous amount of original content, including original reporting and over 300 original blog posts a day. And we love it when someone links to one of our posts, or excerpts a small amount and links back to us.

I hope these words don’t come back to haunt her.  Regardless, the preceding sentence was our commentary, and we’re hyperlinking to The Guardian where her article originally appeared.

Attention all bloggers and news sites. The Citizen Media Law Project is launching a new program, Online Media Legal Network (OMLN), that will provide free legal help to small news sites and bloggers.

OMLN aims to assist Web publishers with a broad array of legal issues, ranging from intellectual property matters to defamation lawsuits, as well as business matters.

They already have a list of participating law firms as well as law school clinics. The law firms include Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Holland & Knight LLP, King & Spalding LLP, as well as Winston & Strawn LLP. Participating law school include clinics from the University of Southern California Gould School of Law, University of Pennsylvania School of Law, Harvard Law School, and Fordham Law School.

The Citizen Media Law Project is jointly affiliated with Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society and Arizona State University’s Center for Citizen Media; the Knight Foundation is funding the new initiative.

The new program is designed for independent journalists who write about matters of public interest. For-profit ventures can qualify, as can individuals, but the program has income and revenue restrictions. Single individuals must earn less than $45,000 to qualify, and for-profit organizations must have annual gross revenues of no more than $100,000. Nonprofits must have annual operating budgets of no more than $250,000.

For more information or to see if you qualify, go to OMLN’s FAQ page here.

Christopher Knight took offense to our brief analysis of his attack on The Art Law Blog’s Donn Zaretsky, Art in America, and blogging in general. His remarks were made availabe earlier this week, but in case our readers missed them, here are his comments:

lambast, verb (informal) “to thrash or scold severely”

Here’s how I lambasted blogging as a critical apparatus in the post to

which you refer:

“…to my knowledge he’s never made a sustained argument explaining

[his position]. Usually it’s just asserted in a quick comment on a

deaccessioning story in the news, in a snarky reference to a quote from

someone else (including me) or even as a stand-alone non sequitur. Such

is the nature of routine blogging.”

Wow! What a thrashing! Call 911!

Routine blogging is not conducive to extended argument, as I know

because I do blog. As I also know, it’s easy to step outside

routine–if one actually has a sustained argument to make about a major

issue.

However, Knight must agree that given his use of “quick comment,” “snarky reference,” and “stand-alone non sequitur” followed by the conclusory and unanalyzed “such is the nature of blogging,” one cannot help but make the logical conclusion that Knight believes all blogging is genetically impotent. Here is the direct quote from his LA Times story:

Usually it’s just asserted in a quick comment on a deaccessioning story in the news, in a snarky reference to a quote from someone else (including me) or even as a stand-alone non sequitur. Such is the nature of routine blogging.

We agree with Knight that many times blogging can be “snarky,” and used solely for “quick commentary.” In fact, we at Clancco practice the latter many a time. Yet this must be accompanied by a brief explanation. Those of us that practice law are many times ethically (and legally) obligated to abstain from legal commentary or analysis for many reasons. However, given these restrictiosn, this does not keep many of us from indexing and highlighting the important (and incidental) news surrounding visual culture and law.

We would like to make two suggestions to Knight: one, to not take the emotional and easy way out of what could be an enlightning and productive discussion about the art of deaccessioning, especially given the current crisis. And secondly, that if there is a strawman that was created, it was the classic and predictable one of the “lawyer as ambulance-chaser.” We can guarantee Knight one thing: people, including artists, will never need an art critic in a time of personal crisis; we all know who will be called upon.