A fellow member of Flickr has recently found out that their image of a duck has been used in an edition of the Metro newspaper without due credit.
After being shunted from pillar to post via three voicemails, I finally got to speak to someone who unfortunately was not Danny Boyle who was responsible for the article, but said they ‘could help’.
I explained what had happened, that they’d taken five pieces of my work to fill one of their pages, and they had not given me any credit, and had not even linked to somewhere where people could find out who had done the work. They even went so far as to lie saying that the pictures had been done by ‘a gaggle of Internet enthusiasts’.
The man asked me what I wanted done about it, and I replied that I would like credit where credit is due for my work, and a link to my Flickr set, ‘w/ extra duck’.
He replied that he could get that sorted on the online edition, but there was nothing they could do in the printed edition, not even a small bit the next day saying something like ‘We forgot to mention yesterday that the ducky pictures were done by Misty, and you can find out more about them ‘here’.
I said ‘Yay’ for the online, but that was extremely unfair about the printed one.
He then told me in a rather patronizing tone, that it might be best that I didn’t have my name printed as I could get into trouble with copyrights and so on.
Now, as far as I know, that is bolox, as the original pictures on the Internet are out of copyrights anyway, and also I was not using the pictures for any monetary gain, simply for fun. That I have checked up on, and I’m in the right about that.
If anybody has been in breech of copyright, it has been the Metro, as you can read all about here.
Here is the photo in question:
On the journalism side, I’ve only ever had blunt but polite conversations with people from the Metro. Very disappointing to see them make such a professional mistake regarding images!