Monday, March 5, 2018
When a magazine miscredits or otherwise somehow misappropriates a photo, there are a few usual suspects:
- the picture editor who got the details wrong;
- the sub-editor who didn’t fact-check properly;
- the writer who was lazy with the details when obtaining the image;
- the designer who carelessly left details from the previous issue in the page template
Not every magazine is so well resourced, but it’s ultimately the editor who must wear the mistake.
Anyway, that’s how it works in theory.
Today, I went straight to the editor of a publication that misappropriated one of my photos. As a 20+ year veteran of the media, I have never seen such a breath-taking amount of buck-passing from an organisation that claims to take pride in fostering the future of Australian journalism (a claim I’ve always chuckled at, to be honest).
As a professional courtesy, I’m not going to name these people – which is far more than the courtesy they showed me.
About today’s photo: This style of lighting might be incredibly common to the photos I take, but don’t ever make the mistake of thinking it comes cheaply. I know it doesn’t seem like much, but every photo does, in fact, require some time and effort to take.