I got a shot published in our daily paper today. It's the bottom one of the two dogs: http://www.rrstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041230/ENTERTAINMENT/41229015/1015

In the print version it lists my name, but here it just says "Photo Provided". Problem is that I didn't provide the image. I work with the person who owns the dogs, and took the shot over the summer. I gave it to her sized as desktop wallpaper just because I thought she'd like it. She knows the person at the newspaper who wrote the article and sent it to her.

After she did that, she asked if it would be OK if they printed it. I said that I would want the newspaper to contact me first - after all, if they want to print it, it must have some value.

I don't want to make a federal case out of this but I'm not happy. I'm not worried about a few dollars (but wouldn't turn it down either!) but the fact that they published one of my images without my permission makes me a little, well, mad. Any ideas on what I should do - if anything?

You should at least talk to them, tell them you were the photographer. Tell them the situation and that you want the credit you deserve. Maybe they will run it again with your name or run a correction or something letting their readers know that Steve Muntz took that particular image.
What ever you do though, let us know.
Good Luck!
Brian

Interesting that when they click on it the enlarged pic has "copyright 2004" on it and there is a link for ordering a reprint.

I think that a talk with their photo editor is in order. If you think you might want some future relationship with the paper you could use that talk to let them know that you hadn't given permission for its use and find out at the same time what kind of submission policies they have for things you might have in the future - kinda keep it all real friendly and think of it as a door opening. Credit should definately be given on the website and they shouldn't be offing reprints without some arrangement with you.

Brian, they do list my name in the printed version - just not the web version.

Chunk, I hadn't noticed about the reprint - that's their "standard procedure" but of course I'm not interested in letting them do reprints of my shot! I don't think there will be any future relationship because they don't work with freelancers. This shot is the rare exception, I see one "provided" a few times a year.

Think I'll give the photo editor a call this afternoon... Thanks for the replies.

I talked to both the Photo Editor and the person in charge of the Library. Both were surprised that the shot was printed without me signing off on anything (oops!) and understood why I was calling - especially when I brought up the point about re-print services (thanks Chunk!). They said they'll check it out and let me know what they can do, but I'm not very hopeful. As long as they call back I guess I'll figure that they took it seriously.

I had heard from someone that they never hire freelancers, confirmed by the fact that I've only seen staffer photos printed except on rare occasion. Since I was talking to the Photo Editor anyway, I asked him about that and he told me that they don't have a budget for that. Oh well, free advertising, not the end of the world I guess...

I've nothing to contribute here but found this post very valuable. And thanks for the follow through at the end av.

...that really is a cool photo, Steve.

As for your situation, the only thing that seems a little off is the "order reprints" part.

I'm not a legal expert, but from what I understand, when a newspaper or mag runs an editorial piece using provided artwork, their only responsibility is to give proper photo credit (if possible), and they did that. And actually, saying provided photo pretty much covers their butt, too.

It was really the responsibilty of the person your gave the shot to (and who gave it to the pub) to run it by you first, BEFORE they gave it to the paper.

Publications, especially newspapers, deal with a tremendous amount of provided artwork, and while there is a Photo Ed (and most likely assistants), a lot of stuff falls through the cracks.

The bottom line is they can use it legally, because it's news, and any credit or compensation to the photographer is more of a courtesy than anything. Like Brian said, they will often "smooth things over" with an unhappy photog after the fact by printing a correction or tiny credit buried somehwere where no one will notice it.