By way of Nielsen Hayden we find that the AP's "Terms of Use Content Agreement" contains this gem:
You shall not use the Content in any manner or context that will be in any way derogatory to the author, the publication from which the Content came, or any person connected with the creation of the Content or depicted in the Content. You agree not to use the Content in any manner or context that will be in any way derogatory to or damaging to the reputation of Publisher, its licensors, or any person connected with the creation of the Content or referenced in the Content.
If, say, AP reporter Nedra Pickler writes something that smacks of Republican propaganda - and our old friend Nedra is notorious for that - you can't use even a sentence to illustrate the point.
Granted, this only applies to those who have contracted with the AP. But even this becomes murky as it appears that anyone who quotes from an AP article has pretty much contracted with them and owes them at least $12.50.
Somebody should let the them know that Congress defines copyright and the AP does not have the power to change those laws.
Finally, kos dares the AP to sue him:
Lots of blogs are calling for boycotts of AP content. Not me. I'm going to keep using it. I will copy and paste as many words as I feel necessary to make my points and that I feel are within bounds of copyright law (and remember, I've got a JD and specialized in media law, so I know the rules pretty well). And I will keep doing so if I get an AP takedown notice (which I will make a big public show of ignoring). And then, either the AP -- an organization famous for taking its members work without credit -- will either back down and shut the hell up, or we'll have a judge resolve the easiest question of law in the history of copyright jurisprudence.
That's a court battle I'd pay to see.
.