Chatham Journal uses our photo without permission, takes down without explanation

We're scratching our heads this morning about how one of our photos, taken by Eric Ginsburg at the Moral Monday protests last week and published on our blog, ended up in the Chatham Journal alongside an article by NC Sen. Thom Goolsby bashing the demonstrators (see above).

After e-mailing Goolsby and the paper's editor, sending Goolsby a tweet and leaving a voicemail at the paper's office, the photo was replaced with an illustration.

Still, despite requests for an explanation for why the photo was taken without permission of the photographer or YES! Weekly, we're pretty confused. The Chatham Journal knows about buying copies of photos — they have a page on their website dedicated to selling images that appear in their publication.

So what gives? Our photograph was removed, but we still want an explanation. It's unclear to us whether Goolsby had anything to do with the photo's use, but he hasn't responded to our e-mail either. Also, we don't know yet whether the photo was run in print or just online. We're also a little confused that an e-mail to the editor of the publication bounced (which is why we left a voicemail).

Stay posted, we'll add an update when we get a response.

UPDATE (Tuesday, 2:30 pm): The editor of the Chatham Journal e-mailed our editor to apologize.

"We removed the yes image from the opinion piece on the web as soon as we became aware that we did not have permission to use it," the editor wrote. "Our apologies."

The response didn't explain who was responsible for the mistake or if it ran in print. We're still curious about exactly what happened.The e-mail also wasn't signed with the editor's name.

Goolsby's piece generated a pretty significant amount of public attention, including this dig on Buzzfeed.

UPDATE (Wednesday, 10:15 am): Goolsby's piece is really making the rounds, including a mention in the New York Times. Still no response from the paper's editor about how our photo ended up on their page with his article. Not a peep from Goolsby either.

No comments: