« cms house opens in oxford | Main | cafe church 1 »


Blair Cameron

That is weird, and/or rude. Of course it's a commercial use they've put it to; The Age is a profit making paper just like any other.
How did you find out it had been used?

=) B


Jonny - they should have paid you. I'd send out a nice sweet note thanking them for the pic and asking ever so politely who handles billing. This is NOT the same as a fan posting one of your pics on his website.

Graham Chastney

I had a similar thing happen, but they definitely asked permission:



it's no big deal but i think i'll take your advice and send an e-mail. why not?...

Dean Ayres

I've had this kind of thing happen to me a few times. I'm usually torn between being pleased to be in print, and annoyed that they broke the terms of the CC and got a photo on the cheap. On one occasion I got a photo removed from a web page advertising a service I didn't like, on another I got sent a cheque for a nominal sum, and a free copy of a book. On a couple of other occasions my email was never acknowledged. Commercial publishers really should know better.


It's not the worse thing that could happen to a photo you've taken:


I agree with Becky that they should have paid you for your photo. It would be expected if they'd used your work in a printed version of the paper.


it was in the printed version of the paper.


It was in print? That's not cool at all. Too many commercial media outlets seem to think that artists can live on compliments not cash.


If it was in print then they really ought to pay you for the use of that image. By lines don't put food on the table (or whatever the modern equivalent of that saying is)

What is it anyway??

Petrol in the car...
Tunes on the ipod...
Mocha in the mug...


"Let he who hath no illegal tunes on his iPod cast the first email requesting royalties"



Kester - I have lost count of the number of times over the years that my material has been reposted on personal blogs and other non-commercial ventures. I welcome the dissemination of my work in this format as long as I am credited as the author and there is a link of sorts to the original article. (I view this comparison as similar to your I-Pod analogy.)

And there are outlets such as The Ooze where no one gets paid. I chose to write for a select number of sites because I support the mission behind the organization and want to make a contribution. Also, there are sites designed to help aspiring writers/photographers build a portfolio -- I used those places extensively in the mid-nineties to get my writing career going.

However, we're talking a commercial newspaper here - thanks to the Internet, media outlets able to gather high quality content and use it without paying writers and photographers. And because they can get this material gratis, I am noticing an increased emphasis on not wanting to pay writers a working wage for their labors.


congratulations on getting a photo in the paper, jonny. that's fabulous - and the Age is a good newspaper with a reputation for great pictures, so they wouldn't just use crap...

i couldn't find the photo in my copy of the printed paper, but i suspect they had a couple of editions of the paper on tuesday and wednesday of last week [it was a big news week in melbourne] - have you heard if someone else found it? i know it was on the front page of the online edition for quite a while - it's my homepage, and i saw the picture over and over without realising it was yours.

i write on a pretty regular basis for the Age and i have a friend whose photos are used quite often, and they have treated both of us really well. i also know a number of people on the editorial staff, and they aren't the kind to screw people over. they've always been scrupulous about copyright, and have paid me well for what i do. the possibility i'd like to run with first was that it was a subeditor doing sloppy work, not a corporate plot to undermine the rights of photographers and writers. i really hope they don't prove me wrong on this one, and that they come through with a cheque and apology, jonny...

Becky Garrison

Cheryl - I hope so too - that's why I said go for the nice note route.


cheryl thanks. as i said it really is no big deal but i did follow it up with an e-mail so we'll see what transpires. i misread one of your e-mails saying you'd send me a hard copy as saying it was in the printed version which it sounds like it may well not have been. cheers

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


  • jonny profile pic

    i have been blogging for a decade or more in fairly eclectic fashion. i am an advocate for pioneers, lover of all things creative, an explorer of faith in relation to contemporary culture, a photographer and writer. explore the presences section below to find me in other spaces

    about me | profile


  • instagram facebook twitter flickr vimeo links e-mail me


worship tricks

  • series 1series 2series 3series 4

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner


  • typepad monthly archivesmy first blog