What does the panel think . . .

. . . about the press deliberately cropping images to remove embedded acknowledgments, like these below, and 'forget' to acknowledge the photographer

This one from the Hamilton Advertiser



This one from The Daily Record, with credit to the Hamilton Advertiser for the photo.
link

Lastly, my original . . .

If the Hamilton Advertiser bought the image from you with all rights then, other than the lack of ego massage by way of a byline, what is the problem?

If the Record used it without them buying it from you or the Advertiser; or if they bought it from the HA and you reserved rights then you can pretty much demand what you like from them.

Crucial to the argument is how the the HA got the image in the first instance.

I would say the crop is more to fit on the page rather than to crop out your name.

Newspapers share images all the time particular within stable papers. Images from our local paper for example will end up in the daily mail if there is a national interest. This happened recently when sacha baron Cohen appeared in a pub in Cleethorpes doing some film research. The local paper saw a local guys camera phone image on twitter and asked if they could use it, the same image was then shared around various uk newspapers with the mail group earning licensing rights and the guy on twitter earnt nothing.

So did you send them your photo to use Peter?

They didn't buy it from me Ken. I took the photo of the young biker recently. When he asked for a few images for a newspaper article, I gave them to him on the condition that I get an 'ego massage', not too much to ask I thought.

As the kid is only 11 I quite suspect that probably his father dealt with the paper and gave them the photo(s).

Peter, if you gave the images to someone without any written agreement in terms of how the images can be used. Doubtful that you can really do much to address issues you may have in relation to not being credited.

Hindsight is great and is how we learn from our experiences. Next time I am sure you won't make the same choice. I think this happens to a fair few photographers and makes them a little smarter next time round.

On a positive the image looks great in the paper.

I'd ask them nicely for a published apology for the acreditation error.

Tight crop to image is routine for press use.

You had a "verbal contract" with the lad and his father. When they gave the image to the paper they were (or should have been) asked if they had full rights for the use and publication. Whatever answer they gave the editor should have questioned you name on it.

I would say 80% paper, 20% father/lad for the missing accreditation.

Ask them to publish a small thumbnail of it 40mm square with your name and details.


edit to add

Thinking about it: 75:20:5 Paper:Father:You

No newspaper is going to publish a photo with a watermark on it this just doesn't happen. What would have happened is the picture editor most likely looked through the image metadata saw no copyright notification or editorial instructions by yourself and so put the image up without a credit.

As for hassling for an apology or update just makes you out to be a bit of a pita. I would let it go but tell the bikers family in future you must get a credit. I would also consider filling in all the metadata within the image and supplying them with a new JPEG so this doesn't happen again.

I emailed the journalist who has apologized and will try and get an apology printed in the next edition of the paper as well as changing the credit on the Daily Record site. I can't ask more than that. It appears that my images were 'doctored' before they were sent to the paper.

Have a look at the EXIF data and tell me what I missed.

Here's the image I sent:-

All looks good, if they where cropped before being sent to the paper then the exif data most likely would have been stripped on saving hence it then becoming an orphan work and this situation arising.

All sorted now. The Daily Record site has been changed.

The EXIF has your name and a copyright notice in it.

In Photoshop the details are again there. The only thing I would add in the Copyright Notice section is an email address and a further statement that unauthorised use is prohibited - just to re-inforce it.