Acetoolguy wrote in post #16265231
You gave them as gift.....do you usually attach strings to gifts?
He gave them as a gift to the person. He didn't give **** to the magazine.
Magazines know better than to run pics without the permission of the author/owner.
blogs wrote in post #16265303
Well wouldnt having your photos published in a mag help you score more work? I cant see the problem-free advertising...? I think u are being a little precious
Not even remotely. I've had the cover of ESPN and USA Today, been in SI, Texas Monthly, Forbes, etc and it does not lead to more work. The only people that read bylines are photographers and the mothers of photographers.
PhotosGuy wrote in post #16266129
I have to agree. IMO "gift" w/out paperwork = no restrictions on how the images were to be used. The OP was given a credit which was a nice gesture, but not required.
Actually, no. The onus is on the magazine to make sure they have permission to publish everything they run. If the OP wanted to sue them, "The guy in the pic gave it to me!" is not a valid defense.
sspellman wrote in post #16266283
Its not the magazines fault that they published photographs given to them for free by the subject. It's your friend the celebrity's fault for giving away your creative property without payment.
Actually, it is the magazine's fault. They are at fault for just running a byline and not contacting the person in the byline to make sure they could use it. This is standard operating procedure for newspapers/magazines around the world.
flowrider wrote in post #16266449
This is like giving a lottery ticket as a gift and demanding half if it wins. Gifts are something without strings attached.
He gave it to the dude. He didn't give it to the magazine. Why should they take advantage of the OP and make money off the OP when they were no a part to his gift?