AOL AOK with Copyight Infringement

http://money.aol.com/top5/general/most-obnoxious-school-costs-2

In the last sentence of this section in an article on saving money on school costs in AOL Finance, AOL advocates copying photos. There's a screenshot in my blog in case they change it before you've had a chance to read it -> http://www.brainbucketmagazine.com/Blogs/mode=display/id=69.html

Mike

 

Thats actually pretty funny, but obviously it was just the words of one writer. I'm sure AOL as a whole would not condone such copyright infringement.

 

I disagree. AOL printed it, so they are o.k. with it.

 

even films come with: the views expressed within the motion picture are the views of the individual authors and not xxxx studio. look in the legal section, they will be covered and as #2 said, aol will not be condoning copyright infringement.

 

By taking a screenshot of the article and displaying on your website - are you not condoning copyright infringement in the same manner?

Surely that act is for some "commercial gain"?

Is sending grandma a "scanned copy" considered "commercial use"?

You'll go to court to collect your $250K for this?

Maybe a better "cost saving tip" is "don't buy school pictures PERIOD" just take them yourself on the day of school photos and then the rights are all yours to do as you wish"...

That be better correct?

 

The screenshot is covered under fair use. Sending Grandma a scanned copy while is not commercial is a violation of the copyright law. And no, I do not expect to recover $250k for that. If you read the comments on the blog in that forum, you'll see that I say that chasing Grandma may be more trouble than it's worth.

And you're right. The best thing to do is to not buy chool pictures at all. If you spend $50 each time, twice per year comes to $100. For about $50 more, you can go to the pro photographer of your choice (like me) and get several poses and a fair number of prints of Johnny.

The point is, that AOL, Smart Money, and Stacy Bradford are advocating breaking the law.

 

So, you think that if a film were to have anywhere in it advice to steal from someone and a person claimed that they got the advice from that film, that a civil suit against the film company wouldn't be an issue?

In a civil or criminal court, I doubt that AOL, Smart Money, or Stacy Bradford have anything to worry about. But it's still wrong! the whole irony is that they would get really bent out of shape if someone did that to them.

 

Ya I get it... anal retentive... going 50.1 mph in a 50 mph zone is breaking the law.

 

No, I don't think you do.

If one person takes a $0.50 candy from the store, who cares. That much money isn't going to affect the prices of the store or that store's bottom line. If a thousand people do it, that's $500.

You have to think of the impact on creative work as a whole when this kind of thing happens.

 

This sort of thing also sickens me! Whilst I do not make my primary Income from Photography, I do make some from it.

I was reading about this on a phottography forum a little while ago, Thanks for the link and the saved screenshot - The page has already been taken down by AOL by the time I looked.

 

Oh ya I forgot... the kid in the center is your creativity... mom & I had nothing to do with it?

Your argument with the candy store in context is my "candy" in your "wrapper"... sorry mate that's "anal retentive BS" just like the cop that stops me for going 50.1mph.