Comments on: Did AOL steal my work? I need your help…

By: Leo Lyons

Leo Lyons — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 23:09:40 +0000

Found this thread as I find myself in a similar but not identical position with AOL. On AOL Music they have used one of my photographs to illustrate the biog of an artist. Links on the same page then allow users to buy her tracks from their partners (eg Itunes. I used to be a professional photographer and it looks like they have just lifted the photo off a single cover. When I was commissioned to take the photo many years ago it was for use as a single sleeve and anyway the record company went bust years ago. So who gave AOL permission to use my photo and can I demand they pay me or take it down? I still own copyright and surely this is a commercial use for which I doubt very much they are paying anyone and certainly not me. I find my pictures all over the web and usually if its a fan site I don’t mind but may ask for a credit but AOL?

By: Sree

Sree — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:44:34 +0000

Editorial use on a commercial site is commercial use..FUNNY!!

By: Pigsaw Blog » Blog Archive » Non-commercial photo use by commercial organisations

Tue, 27 May 2008 14:39:35 +0000

[...] similar — but distinctly more convivial — experience to Neil McIntosh’s run-in with AOL. I got a mail about a photo I put on Flickr: it’s nominated to be included in a forthcoming [...]

By: Neil Mc

Neil Mc — Thu, 22 May 2008 18:37:21 +0000

Hi Torsten – yes and no. We use Flickr pictures, but we’re clear on what constitutes commercial use – and don’t use pix that (like mine) forbid it. And if you see any that break that rule, you know where I am

By: Torsten de Riese

Torsten de Riese — Thu, 22 May 2008 16:11:23 +0000

actually, I noticed that the guardian has the same policy as aol and displays flickr images in editorial articles…

By: Torsten de Riese

Torsten de Riese — Sun, 11 May 2008 06:34:37 +0000

Completely agree with Vin. As far as I know AOL hasn’t registered as a charity yet… This is clearly commercial use of your content and you should insist on either a reasonable fee or ask them to take it down. I can’t believe how cheeky these guys are!

By: Craig McGill

Craig McGill — Sat, 03 May 2008 15:15:00 +0000

Chancers. Out and out chancers. What if you worked for a media company that frowned on that sort of thing? You could get bollocked for letting your work appear elsewhere.

I think it’s time to revise the creative commons argument for saying non-commercial, non-editorial, non-advertorial and non-advertising use.

By: Shaun Milne

Shaun Milne — Thu, 01 May 2008 06:29:30 +0000

Back in the good old days I think it would have been called an Advertorial – words and images helping you promote an area, product or subject to encourage commercial activity.

This is Wikipedia’s definition:

An advertorial is an advertisement written in the form of an objective opinion editorial, and presented in a printed publication — usually designed to look like a legitimate and independent news story.

By: Vin Crosbie

Vin Crosbie — Thu, 01 May 2008 01:41:08 +0000

Editorial use on a commercial site is commercial use.

Unless AOL can provide you with an affadavit certifying that the advertisers on that page neither paid nor bartered anything in exchange for AOL placing their ads on that page, then AOL has made commercial use of everything on that page, including your photo.

By: Kyle MacRae

Kyle MacRae — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:41:46 +0000

I’d say their argument is bollocks. There are certainly valid distinctions to be made between editorial and non-editorial use of imagery, but price isn’t necessarily one of them.

The key question here, imho, is whether the end use was commercial or not. And you’ve nailed that already – yes, it was, because it was on a page produced by a company that monetises web traffic through advertising. Doesn’t matter if it’s a news story or a holiday feature – the ‘customer’ – AOL – is a commercial entity and it used your pic in a commercial environment. So far as I’m aware, CC does not specifically *exclude* editorial end use from its definition of ‘commercial’, so AOL’s argument is, I think, spurious.

Which means you can and should bill them for 2 month’s usage at normal commercial rates.