My internal alarm bell went off when Allen mentioned “an intern” found the photo and had not been “schooled” in proper journalistic due diligence. That’s great, but what does that say about the intern and their previous education? If they are of college age, what does that say about their college education? This is both a professional and ethical problem – and not to lump many of the “sub-25” set into this mix, but they have a different view from those of us that are “slightly” older.

I don’t think it’s crappy — it shows its subject well, in a documentary style. (AutoWeek‘s crop, on the other hand, is lame.) But even crappy artworks and forms of expression are covered by copyright. If you’re a Kurosawa fan, for instance, does that mean that M. Night Shyamalan’s works are OK to pirate? Because they don’t meet your subjective threshhold of artistic merit?

It looks like something anybody with a 3 megapixel digital could take.

Why such a mundane image is subject to “ownership” in the first place is sort of odd.

And kudos to Allen for pursusing this so effectively and reasonably!

I’m pleased to say that this issue has been settled and I’d like to thank Ken Ross at AutoWeek, for his cooperation. I’d also like everyone to know that it was not he who used my photo, but an intern who has now been schooled on the correct way to obtain images for the magazine.

Thanks to all for your remarks, and a very special thanks to Professor Lessig for your help!

There is no question that Allen should have been compensated for the use of his image & AutoWeek only offering $50 after getting busted is insulting. Unfortunately, although it is his copyrighted work, he’s unable to go after them in court (all costs aside) unless his image is registered at the copyright office. Allen is in a hard place; he’ll probably just have to take the $50. I’d like to hear LL weigh in on that specifically, since IANAL. It’s my understanding that the copyright office allows you to submit many images at one time by submitting a CD/DVD and a contact sheet (and only pay a $45 fee). Also, I’d recommend Allen take a look at some of the articles on the ASMP’s legal resources page: http://www.asmp.org/commerce/legal.php

It’s also a good idea to include a copywrite watermark with your name and date on it in the photo. Although this can be cropped out, it often is not when people misuse images (more often on the web rather than in print). At least in this case your name is out there which could lead to some potential clients, even though you’ve gotten ripped off.

As far as Allen suggesting that he’d be happy with just a photo credit: while that’s certainly his perogative, working for free just makes it seem “more okay” to steal other photographs. He should be proud of and get paid for his work.

As a fellow journalist and a person who makes a living writing and taking pictures for commercial publications, I was astonished to read what you had to say to a fellow photographer who claims your publication published his work without authorisation. In times when copyright and it’s violation by normal consumers through “piracy” are a major subject of the entertainment and the publishing industry, I think we, the journalists, should take a clear stand for the protection of our work. If there’s reason for Big business to go after students and grandparents who alledgedly violated copyrights by stealing content through the internet, there certainly is reason for the holder of individual coyprights to ask for payment when their work is commercially exploited by publishers without permission and credit.

I am a guest of this country and not completely savvy with it’s legal system, but as a journalist, I made sure I have a basic understanding of intellectual property and the way it works in the US. I am, therefore, shocked to read your answer to Allen Sandquist after he – in a very polite manner, by the way – asked for payment for a picture your magazine obviously printed without permission, without crediting the author and without paying him.

It shocks me, because it shows you are either lacking the basic knowledge of how copyright works (as an art director? I doubt it) or you are trying to bully a freelancing journalist after you have ben caught in what appears to be the act of copright infringement, also known as piracy, also known as stealing.

I’d like to address some of the comments made by John Day. No, I did not contact ConocoPhillips for their permission to photograph their sign. As long as I am on public property, I don’t need their permission. I used to photograph businesses for a living and know that as long as the property being photographed is in public view, it can be photographed, with exceptions (e.g. nuclear facilities, government buildings, some military installations, etc.).

I shot the Unocal 76 sign for personal use on my website and consider it historically significant, as they’re being replaced by a new, flat red/blue logoed sign. Many people have photographed service stations, fast food establishments, etc., through the years. Heck, go to Flickr and type in McDonald’s and you’ll find 9,881 images. I’ll bet you that not one of those people asked for permission.

AutoWeek could have easily asked for my permission to use the picture and I would have been more than happy to let them, as long as it was credited to me.

Maybe Mr. Ross decided they’d save a few bucks if they just copied pictures from the web, rather than paying a photographer for their work.