Jim,
that's my issue as well. I know that most people think they own the prints they get and therefore think it's just hunky dory to scan them. But the editor of a magazine has to know that it's not legal.

When folks send us files from win photos, we ask if they purchased that file from the photographer and have his/her release. If they send us prints to scan, we call the photographer and ask for a release. In most cases, the photographer is happy to simply know it's being published and to grant a written (email) release. Which is the irony of this case: had she mentioned that she was going to use the images in advertising, I would have advised her to purchase the hi-rez file and make her own prints. In the long run, she'd have paid less.

Preston, more "make-busy" work for me isn't going to change people's behavior nor make it any easier to get compensated for it. Sure, registering copyright material is probably the right answer but what good does it do? It means that I could win a suit if I chose to pursue it. That's a lot of time, energy and $$$ for a $65 violation. The fact is, none of us have the time to chase these cases especially when you consider how many of them we'd have to chase.

Julie, you're right. Regardless of how many times you argue correctly that it's a copyright violation, most people won't believe you. This is clearly a no-win situation and it's going to repeat itself over and over as long as we continue to send out prints.

PeggySue, I think the right answer is to explain that she could have saved money if she had told me the truth about usage when she first contacted me. I'll also have to lecture her about her responsibility as a publisher. And I'll have to do it all in a way that is friendly and non-lecturing (which for me is very difficult ). I'm going to have to assume ignorance rather than intent. My objective is not to alienate but to educate. What good will it do? Probably none. As Julie says, everyone does it so it must be OK.

Jim