...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.