This photo look familiar? Well it should. I recently used the photo to head up a post entitled, Rosemount City Council is Wrong About the MVTA. Strangely enough I saw it today on my front step when I got home from camping. No, my wife didn’t throw the computer out of the second story window and onto my sidewalk, Thisweek’s delivery people put evidence of their defiance/ignorance of Creative Commons licensing (non-commerical, attribution required) and ethics right there next to my front door by delivering this:
Now, I realize that Thisweek just might not be all that well versed in the world of Creative Commons and Flickr but being that other photos on the front page give attribution/credit where it is due (e.g. “Photo by Tad Johnson”) you would think they would have said to themselves, “hmm, maybe I should do some research first.” Unfortunately for them they did not.
While I would not have granted Thisweek permission to use my photo for free, I wouldn’t have charged them anything astronomical. When asked for commercial use of my photography I generally charge $200 or more depending on the use. In this case, because it was printed in at least 18,633 papers and it was done without my permission and without the slightest bit of attribution, it’s going to be $300 for them (
did this article appear in any other Thisweek publications? If so, please do submit the photos! It did not appear in any other editions I am told…and verified in Lakeville and Burnsville). Thisweek, you can expect a bill in the mail this week and be glad I didn’t charge you even more. Another Flickr user seems to feel that 3 to 4x the amount is acceptable for licensing violations like this.
Have you ever had a photo used without your permission? What did you do when you found out? Do you think that it’s right that they not only took this photo and printed it on the front page of the paper but did so without even putting my name under it? Whatever you feel about this issue go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear what you have to say.