Charlie Brown Violates AEDA

From Red County:

A few things from the weekend; We saw the ad below posted on Craig's List. If it is from the Brown campaign it may have violated ADEA which specifically prohibits age discrimination. For a candidate who espouses elderly and veterans issues it seems hypocritical that Brown would prohibit them from applying for a job lots of folks 40, 50, 60,70,80 and up can walk and talk, but I guess Brown doesn't think so; below is the ad and a link to the EEOC: THE AD IS FROM THE LABOR COUNCIL: IF YOU CALL THE NUMBER AND ASK FOR INFORMATION ON WORKING FOR CHARLIE YOU ARE CONNECTED TO A WOMAN WHO SIGNS YOU UP.

"We need to hire people between the ages of 20-40 to walk precincts for Charlie Brown for Congress. This is a very temporary position from now until November 4th. You must have a car and are able to walk for long periods of time and are articulate. Must be able to read and speak well. Pay is $10.00 an hour. Hours of work are Mon-Thur. 2PM-8PM; No Fridays; Sat. 9AM-5PM; Sun. 1PM-7PM, hours for November 3rd and 4th may be higher. We will also provide people with lunch or dinner. Only people who are serious and can commit to the hours may call Teresa Villasenor at 916-927-9772. If you are interested please come to 2840 El Centro Road, Sacramento, CA 95833 between 1PM and 4PM on Friday, October 24th for an interview, be sure to bring ID and Social Security card. You can also call for an appointment."

See http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/age.html

ADEA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 strictly prohibits age discrimination in employment. This colud lead to a complaint with the EEOC...

SPECIFICALLY:

The ADEA generally makes it unlawful to include age preferences, limitations, or specifications in job notices or advertisements. A job notice or advertisement may specify an age limit only in the rare circumstances where age is shown to be a "bona fide occupational qualification" (BFOQ) reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the business.

While we are talking about breaking the law, below is part of an AP story that ran over the weekend where the Brown Campaign finally admits to stealing photos; looks like they blamed their media consultant, who still claims "there was no legal problem in using them." This is false; anyone who deals with photos and brochures as Jaye does knows you can't use copyrighted photos; Below is the AP story and a quote and contact info from a copyright attorney; there is little doubt that the Brown campaign broke the law; we call on them to fire Jaye immediately.

"Brown media consultant Eric Jaye said the Brown campaign would no longer use a photo of McClintock taken by The Sacramento Bee that appeared in a Brown mailer. McClintock's campaign had accused the Brown campaign of using that photo and another by The Associated Press without the necessary licensing.

The Bee asked the campaign not to use its photo, Jaye said. He said the campaign hasn't heard from The Associated Press but would also honor such a request from the AP, though he said the photos were publicly available on the Internet and contended that there was no legal problem with using them."

From copyright attorney:

"Most fair use situations involve text. It is difficult to imagine any situation involving the Internet where someone copying a photo could claim the fair use defense. In typical infringement activities, such as unauthorized posting to Usenet, stocking websites from Usenet trolling, scanning from Playboy magazine, or simply copying from other websites-the fair use doctrine does not apply. Because the pirate is taking 100% of the work, not acknowledging the creator, hurting the work's market value, competing directly with the creator or licensed users of the work, and for other reasons."

"From The 7 Deadly Myths of Internet Copyright"
by Los Angeles Attorney David L. Amkraut

Email: CopyrightFacts@Earthlink.net
Fax: (818) 637-7809

Law Offices of David L. Amkraut
2272 Colorado Blvd., #1228
Los Angeles, CA 90041

David L. Amkraut is a Los Angeles-based Attorney at law. His practice emphasizes cutting-edge Internet-related copyright matters, especially cases involving photographs. He was attorney for the Plaintiffs in Louder v. CompuServe, a class-action case involving publication of 930 photographs of models by the 2nd-largest Internet Service Provider in the world. Recently he served as counsel in KNB v. Matthews, an important case about the relationship between copyright and the "Right of Publicity." He has repeatedly obtained judgments in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and represents some of the best-known glamour photographers against web sites which infringe their work.