The content creator licenses the content. Not a "get".
17 U.S.C. § 101
A "work made for hire" is— (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire.
Just because it's not a work made for hire doesn't mean the company can't receive the copyright. A copyright holder is always free to transfer the copyright; if AOL has two brain cells to knock together, their contracts with these contractors include a clause saying that the copyright is transferred to AOL.
17 U.S.C. § 101
A "work made for hire" is— (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire.
Collective or supplementary work? Not sure.