Horse and Bear Photos

[Aggie]

I just found out that a UK magazine has used some photos I took for an article on their website:

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/connemara-pony-makes-friends-with-a-young-bear/

Funny how everyday life is newsworthy. The local online press picked up the story at the time, although they interviewed my buddy, not the horse's owner, and at least gave me photo credit.  H&H put a different spin on things, because the horse was definitely not being friendly with the bear... it wasn't afraid but was giving it the run-around and chasing it up trees.

[ivor]

Did they pay you for them?

[Griffin NoName]

That's a fancy upper class magazine  -- the sort found in private doctors waiting rooms.

Great photos. Odd how they always have to spin things. What's wrong with the truth?

[Darlica]

Very nice pictures Aggi, I think you should send this Flora Watkins a mail and set the facts straight and  claim your copyright. It's not like they can't afford to pay you the standard fee for photos for web publication...

[Griffin NoName]

Good point Darlica. Yes, I agree. It is an upper class mag. not a struggling rag. They ought to pay.

[Aggie]

Can't really be arsed to do it, except to say I got paid by a fancy magazine for fich ruckers...

Photo credit would have been nice, at least the local press gave me that.  I gave permission for the photos to be used initially without asking a fee.

[Darlica]

I do understand your point Aggi, but the illustrator/photographer in me is shouting "Don't let the f**kers get away with it again!"
Because it is a problem, magazines and websites are using "free" i.e. stolen pictures, instead of buying them. They turn down professional illustrators and photographers and snatch something from the web instead.

Your photos are if not  unique, very rare, and should be treated like such!
If you had sent in your pictures to the magazine unwarranted with a letter saying "Hey! Look what I captured with my camera the other day! Go on publish them if you like!" They wouldn't  have to contact you or pay you in any way BUT they should definitely give you the credit and put your name under them.

However, in this case they  found the pictures liked them and wanted to publish them (again*). They should have contacted you (for example by contacting the newspaper that published them in the first place) and then nicely asked you if you would agree to them using your pictures for a compensation of cause. And it's not only because it's the polite way to do it.

You see, say that some other magazine had come along before this glammy horse rag and paid you for the exclusive rights in Europe. H & H ( based in UK) publishing the pictures even without your consent would be a contract breach and a legal mess without end would begin for them, for you, and for the actual buyer...

Also there is only under three conditions ones name should not appear by the picture:
1. If you ask to remain anonymous.
2. If you have sold the pictures to the user including all  rights.
3. If you have sold the picture to an picture agency including all rights.


*Just because you gave your local press the right to use the pictures doesn't mean that they are free for anyone else to use. That would be like nobody had to pay Lady Gaga a single dime in royalty when playing her latest song on air except the first radio show that played it!


*sorry I'll step down from my soapbox now*

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Besides, when was the last time you met a generous fich rucker?