ok, so i’ve got a theory or two about what might have happened. but i’m not sure. after all, they’re just theories. all i know is that i got a message that i would “likely” see a picture i took along with credit, and that it was assumed that it was ok to be used since i allow downloads on flickr.
point #1: i don’t know if the image was offered to the examiner, or if the examiner somehow found it on their own and either asked “hey, can we use this?” and the reply was “sure, he has downloads enabled, go ahead” or what. either way, i wasn’t contacted about this ahead of time. ultimately, in my not-so-authoritative opinion, i’d think the examiner is the infringer here since they’re the ones actually printing the image.
point #2: let’s say that i was contacted about it ahead of time. for the way that it was used, you bet i’d have asked not only for credit but for $ compensation from whoever’s using it. the examiner has a circulation of 250,000+ (as compared to the baltimore sun’s 246,000) [source], that’s a quarter of a million people. my photojournalism instructor turned me on to fotoquote for determining pricing, and for an image that’s about 1/4 of a page that appears to be part of an ad that will be seen by 250,000 to 500,000 people… well, that’s a good chunk of money.
point #3: sure, i’ve got downloads enabled, but that’s not for commercial groups to pick out photos to use as they need ’em. it’s for regular folks to use photos noncommercially. i’ve let ccrg use my photos for their website/program in the past because a) it’s a relatively small, targeted audience, b) it’s volunteer-based, and c) i was asked in advance if they could use photos with credit in the programs. also, using the photos on the website and in the programs is more of an editorial use, illustrating what happened at the previous bout. it’s a lot of work and time/equipment/maintenance = $$$, but i get into the bouts for free so i guess it evens out a little bit. i also suppose that when i’m at a bout taking/editing photos, i feel like i’m more like a fan… off the rink, i think more about advancing my photography business if i ever want to do photography professionally in some capacity.
but basically, i see two reasons why my photo was used:
(what concerns me about point #1 is that if it was submitted to the paper — i don’t know if that option is for only online submissions or if sending something there goes into the print edition too… either way i can’t find any evidence that it’s on the website — their terms of use state something like their liability for material is limited to $100, and this image costs way more than that for the size of the image and the circulation of the paper. also, it states that the examiner can’t be held liable for person A posting infringing material that belongs to person B if person B gets upset. but again, i think that these terms of use apply strictly to the site itself and not the printed paper.)
i just hope that i’ll be able to be paid by the examiner and not have to invoice ccrg for the use of this photo in what amounts to a commercial advertisement that i didn’t give permission for. in other words, i’d prefer to be more of a dick to the editors of the examiner than folks i know with ccrg about being compensated. 🙂
my photojournalism instructor called me today while i was at work (i sent him an email about it) and he asked if i would like him to call the examiner on my behalf and i told him no, that’s ok… for now. i said that i’d like at least to try contacting them myself first at least. he brought up the ads from virgin mobile using flickr images (which i saw on the internets before) and did a small rant about publications that are gung-ho about accepting citizen-journalist submissions. he sounded like he really wanted to complain to the paper about it. part of our conversation went something like this:
him: “how big is the examiner?”
me: “uh, well, it’s about the same size as the baltimore sun…”
him: “do they think they’re a real newspaper or just some rinky-dink publication??”
(he also mentioned how he needs some paid help with editing some wedding photos and asked if i’d be interested, which is awesome.) he later replied to my original email about it with “those dirty rats… they should be hung from their toenails etc”, and that cracked me up. kind of a “you already know that they should be hung up by their toenails, so you should know what else should be done to them”, hahaha… i don’t think he has much patience for newspapers that like to steal content.
i found a thing on the examiner’s website for having infringing stuff taken down with the email address legal @ baltimoreexaminer.com, but it’s for the website only. i think i’ll may just email that address and copy the editor / publisher as spelchec suggested, since i can’t find any other contact information on the site. i just hope he doesn’t decide to point a shotgun at me! (NICE!) but i found their “main phone number” too, so maybe i should call that instead? i don’t know…
whatever i do, i’m first going to drive back to the apartment. my new pants are out of the dryer!