in the end, though, it does speak to the same sort of copyright and distribution issues, doesn't it?
i'm certainly not going to sue the band or pursue anything of that nonsense, and i don't think they acted in malice. it just would have been nice to get credit where credit is due. when the Globe put 'File Photo' as the source, i wonder what file they thought it was coming from? typically that would imply theirs, right? i would figure that at least they would ask about an image's provenance before they use it, so they are not abetting copyright infringement, no? what's the typical practice for papers and mags w/ issues such as this?
There is only really one way to know for certain how your images ended up in print and you not getting credit, ask the newspaper. Most likely they came from the band and we would put in the tag line "provided by the band". Some publications would put "file".
Here is the thing, does the band even know your name? Just because you told it to them or it was on the CD does not mean they still have it. What probably happened was they copied the CD to a hard drive and trashed the CD along with your name. The band I'm sure has no clue about embedded info on the images. Also if they jacked with the images they may have stripped the data by mistake. All of this could be why the paper has no idea who to give credit so they give "file".
I agree the band probably did not act in malice, they felt they owned the images because you gave them to them for the CD. I would suspect the person with the band that has control of the images is not the same person you gave the shots to. It is probably a PR person or friend who handles this stuff, so since there was nothing in writing they'd have no idea what your arrangements were.