Photos: Storm over Half Dome from Sentinel Rock, Yosemite National Park, California
Yesterday, I made a post critical of the mediocre quality of photos used by Travel & Leisure in their online feature, Best US National Park Views. I said a couple were decent at best, a couple were “OK”, and the rest were, well… just plain blah.
Well surprise, surprise, surprise:It turns out that one of those mediocre “OK” images was actually mine.
Thanks to a phone call from former SAA President David Sanger, he had seen the metadata containing my name for the above image that Travel & Leisure had used, but had credited to a photographer named Matthew High. Now I admit when I first saw that image, I had a sneaking feeling that it might have been mine. I certainly recognized the location. But the scan was so light, the highlights so blown out, and I pretty much assumed that I wasn’t the only photographer to take a photo from this vantage point. I gave it no further thought after seeing the photo credited to another photographers name.
Here’s the original:
Besides, when T&L had contacted me originally about using one of my photos, the image they wanted was of Glacier Point at Sunset. FWIW, I found out in retrospect that I did get a follow-up note after I’d asked about payment. It was a short one line reply via email that said, “Unfortunately we have decided to use another image.” (read: Irony.)
Worse; the image was apparently sold by one of my agents. Yet there is no sale listed for this image in the last 12 months. (read: Opps!)
So now, in addition to using a bunch of blah images, they’ve so horribly slaughtered the scan of my own image that I didn’t even think it was mine. I’ve pointed the finger, and called my own photo “mediocre”. (Yes, I admit, I’ve taken lots of mediocre photos over the years. I just don’t shout about them publicly from the rooftop.)
Well this will not stand. Someone is gonna have to pay for this self-humiliation I’ve just put myself through. Oh, wait, Travel & Leisure will pay. Maybe I’ll charge them enough that they’ll think twice before scrounging for “Free” photos. š
And as a Post Script: Let this be a lesson on the Value of Having Accurate MetaData!!! I’ll be paying forward a home brew to David when I see him at the upcoming SF PhotoMetaData.org meeting.
That is interesting Gary though certainly a little bit embarrassing. š This was definitely one of the two that stood out.
When I saw it I though it had potential… if only the exposure was right š
Thanks for the good laugh :D.
If it can make you feel better, this is one of the few that I thought weren’t that bad š
Yikes š
Great illustration of the chaos of stock, though. Any way you can bill them for emotional suffering or damaged reputation?
For what it’s worth, I like the image.
Guy
Simply ironically awesome.
I’m sorry, but I’m getting a different message here: your agent sold one of your photos and there’s no record of it? And you just say “oops”? How many other photos has your agent sold for you? Do you think it might be time to get a new agent?
Gary – I have really enjoyed these last 2 posts. Great work!
LOL Gary, when I looked at that one on the T&L site I thought it could benefited from a bit less zoom and more contrast (clouds and mountains a bit too close in color/tone) – turns out your original pic would’ve fit the bill.
I’d make sure someone pays for the use of the photo – either T+L and/or your ‘agent’ if they gave it away…
John E.
> Great illustration of the chaos of stock
Only of using so-called “agents” that are in fact merely portals.
Congratulations on your new found mediocrity. Best of luck sorting out the lack of licensing notification. This just goes to show how important Metadata is and how important it is for photographers to enter it. Great posts on this topic.
That is crazy Gary, how ironic!
Homer says: DOH! š