Pay Arrestees for Their Pics?

Mug Shot

We certainly received some interesting comments on our blog yesterday. Some were in favor of having to pay those arrested if the arresting agency made money on their mugshots. Our guess is these law enforcement agencies will reply that no money is made when one considers the down time in preparing these shots for the purchasers. That's pretty much the rationale for charging for accident reports and similar documents.

Want to purchase court documents? Visit your local courthouse and see how much the circuit clerk charges for these per page. They may be public, but that doesn't mean free.

*****

What about sites copying photos or even articles? Is it a crime? It depends. The owners/editors of both Pen N Sword and the Quad-Cities Daily are not commenting on this topic for legal reasons, but we did talk with someone who publishes a news magazine outside the Shoals. Here's an owner's take on this type of pilfering:

Photos are entirely different from articles. Photographs can certainly be easily copied but even if the original publisher didn't take these shots, it may still be a type of theft. Many online publishers purchase expensive software to make these shots as presentable as possible. They also invest time in cropping, adjusting exposure, and otherwise enhancing these shots. So, yes, when someone copies, it's stealing.

Copy (the words in an article) is certainly off limits. Even if the site using the copy gives written credit, the original site loses viewers. Why take the time to visit a site if you can read the same article on the site you're already reading? When these sites lose viewers, they lose advertising revenue. Not only are they losing revenue, they're making it for whoever stole their material. 

There you have it...



Shoalanda