BluesWest wrote:
This entire thread would have been unnecessary if you all had read Carolyn Wright's recent blog "Excuses, Excuses (Part 2)". She addresses all of these points, including the issue of "fair use".

John


+1 @ Carolyn ... I spoke with her and Ed Greenburg (both) regarding my issue a couple years back.

Thanks for providing a good link ... especially points 9 & 10.

Call Ed and chat with him on the issue and you'll come away with some NY style "soul searching" @ "not quite stealing" that is very resonating. Carolyn is definitely not the same "New Yorker" style that Ed is ... but they are both singing the same tune.

RustyBug wrote:
Send them an invoice for payment? While not your first "publication", it still warrants payment for services rendered (you did the work) and usage of your works.

Well, consider that his indicated *price* was <free>
--if they'd asked. Invoice that.

AND ... just because they only put it in their yard or business, but never "sold it" for monetary profit ... they still benefited / gained / profited from using it.


Let's think about who stands the greater benefit : the thief
or the now-advertised photographer. ("Any publicity is good ..."
--and this looks to be better than mere "any"!)

Really, since this clearly isn't going to go some some lawyer'd route,
the choice is between making oneself a persona non grata to one
unasked publicity outlet, or maybe securing an arrangement for
subsequent exposure. Photogs are supposed to be big on exposure(s).

NOTE: ... the point is to get the concept across to the OP : his images were either taken without permission (i.e. stolen) or they were taken in advance of his permission. The terms of his granting permission have remained undefined to this point. He now needs to define the terms of his permission granting usage. His choice @ permission for free vs. permission for credit vs. permission for $$$ vs. no permission (i.e. take down). I just want to get into his head that in NO WAY, NO SHAPE, NO FORM did they have rights to do so ... despite the OP sounding like a "nice guy" that would have done so for credit alone, had they originally just asked for his permission.

Fine, with this : and informing the blog site about such
conditions for use can come in a firm but amicable way, in hopes
of garnering more --rather than the pseudo-tuff-guy manner
espoused in other posts which do little but vent. Beggars
can't be sue-ers. Perhaps one could expose the conditions
given to the other publishers.

-drofnad

That's fine that his probably indicated price would have been free had they asked. But they didn't ask and they took it upon themselves to determine the value @ zero.

He could invoice them for a cup of coffee or $0.00 if he likes ... but the point is that the owner gets to determine the value ... and send the message that it is up to him to assign the value. Yes, this is largely a matter of principle ... but if you feel that you've been wronged, (+1 @ multiple ways to proceed), I'm only suggesting that you should present the value of your work to the individual that either dismissed its value (and needs educated otherwise), or realized its value and took it anyway (and should compensate accordingly).

A billion dollars, a cup of coffee, an article highlighting work, credit only or nothing at all ... it doesn't matter, the owner is still due the opportunity to assign value. If the 'blogger' doesn't want to agree to the terms of the OP, then he doesn't have permission to use it ... and no exchange of rights of use is made.

I'm not suggesting (never have) that people go about it "tuff guy" like a bull in a china shop with force. But, I am strongly suggesting that you don't dismiss the fact that you were robbed of your opportunity to participate in a fair market exchange ... and it is within your realm to exercise your right to do so, despite that someone else tried to cheat you out of it. I do so because so many "good guys" think they simply have to accept it because it is such a "common practice" ... but that doesn't make it right or you wrong for being angered by it. There is a rational, objective basis for you being upset by it. You were deprived of your opportunity to engage in the exchange and subsequent assignment of value.

You were wronged ... period. How you play it ... your call.

Btw, OP, why not disclose the URL to the blog and infringed photo?!
That would give some insight to the use, "fair" or otherwise,
and maybe to your potential w/the blog beyond this incident?

You were wronged ... period.

Okay, let's leave it as a matter of emphasis --half-empty vs. half-full.
And here, it's the "were wronged ... period" that I'm arguing is the unhelpful perspective :
there could be some *right*-ing in the publicity, along with the *wrong*.

I'm good with the "right-ing" part, even in the form of publicity ... as long as it is agreeable to the "wronged" party. I've made "lemonade outa lemons" many a time.

My beef is with people who aspire to dismiss the "wronged" part of it by claiming the "publicity" as being justification of a greater value than the wrong committed ... thereby perpetuating the mythical notion that already plagues the industry that "credit given" makes it alright to take what isn't yours.

My point at emphasis on the "wronged" part is that many times people (especially good natured ones) won't "rock the boat" thinking that they are being "greedy" over something "petty". But the fact of the matter is that someone stole from you. Yes, it is totally your call at whether to "forget", "forgive & forget", "forgive & not forget" or make an effort @ amending it such that the wrong has been righted (infinitely variable).

But as long as the one that committed the wrong (stole the image) is the one deciding the terms of use/compensation ... the wrong has never been righted. The "invoice" is but one means of the rightful owner to re-establish the propriety of his ownership to the offending party ... and (as originally referenced) is a much easier path than some of the other legal route options. Despite how it might sound ... I'm "old school" where a man's handshake and his word are powerful things in their own right and the need for "legal" matters should be minimal. But when you are dealing with someone who has started things off by stealing from you ... such merits of honor aren't always on the top of a thief's priority system, so one should be prepared accordingly, if need be.

Granted, equating a "blogger" to a "thief" might seem over-the-top to some, but however you want to label them, the "offending party" wronged the rightful owner ... whether by intent of deceit (hoping nothing would be noticed or said) or "innocence" of ignorance (not understanding how the wrong was being committed) ... the wrong was still committed and "credit given" doesn't change that.

Again, if the rightful owner of the image is agreeable to a Billion dollars, a cup-o-joe or total anonymity ... no worries, his call. The part that bothers me is when people go around saying that the owner "should be happy" he got credit for his stolen work ... despite the fact that he was never even given the opportunity to be part of the "transaction" and usage determination of his rightful property in the first place.

If someone IS truly happy that another took their work without asking because of the "publicity" ... send them flowers, a thank you note and make a donation to their cause, take them out to lunch, wash their car, walk their dog, put their kids through college, etc. (infinitely variable) to express your gratitude. But, I don't find telling someone else who is NOT happy (OP was not happy) about being wronged that they SHOULD be happy just because they got credit appropriate ... trying to suggest that propriety of giving credit overrides the impropriety of the theft.

Kinda like shoplifting a steak and claiming that because you paid for the potato (after you got caught) ... so it's all good, right?. Just because the blogger did "one thing right" by giving credit (paying for the potato), does not exonerate or mitigate the fact that he still took another's work without permission and used it without right to do so.

Wrong is wrong ... and the OP was wronged.

I've been on vacation and have just caught up with this. I don't feel like sharing the site because I woudl prefer to deal with it myself and not subject anyone to possible "vigilante" internet hazing (not that anyone here would do that). I'm comfortable that it was not editorial use and that I should have been consulted before it was posted. That said, I am not willing to start wwIII over it either given the use to which it was put.

Thanks for all the helpful comments, especially the link to Carolyn's blog.

What did you decide to do, GC5?