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

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.

By: onionbagblogger

onionbagblogger — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 10:09:45 +0000

The good photography folk over at Urban 75 are very good on this issue. They rather rise to the challenge when big media start pilfering photos for free. More HERE and HERE.

By: chris

chris — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:44:57 +0000

I’d be really interested to hear more on this. So far, I’ve been aware of people asking nicely and doing things by the book - but not this.