Is this normal?

Last February, I made a unsolicited submittal to a regional travel magazine following the guidelines on their website. I never heard anything back and they did not return my CD even though I included a envelope with return postage.

I found out yesterday, the magazine published a full page copy of one of my photographs in the current issue (on the back side of the cover). They never informed me they would be using the photograph. It was a complete surprise to me. Is it normal for a magazine to publish a photograph from a submission without informing the photographer? Further, their website states a pay range, which I'm fine with, and states payments are made 30-60 days after publication. Should I contact the magazine and ask about it, or just wait to see if payment shows up in the next month or so?

Definitely contact them and be nice about it. It may be just an oversight on someone's part and you should alert them to it.
If you feel they are deliberately trying to avoid payment, that's a different story. I would start by sending an invoice via certified mail, with signature required. I would also make sure the images are registered with the Library of Congress (you're allowed to do it within a certain time period after a copyright violation) which will enable you to recover not only the image fees but other expenses and compensation.

Guy

I got the cover of the local phonebook this year. Even though we communicated well before it was printed, the communication stopped, and nothing more was said about payment until I prompted it after publication. It seemed pretty apparent to me that they were hoping I would forget to charge them the agree upon fee. Oddly, they felt it was OK to print and publish the book without first paying me.

I did consider getting a lawyer and demand that the phonebooks be withdrawn. They did respond with a check after another email asking for payment or billing instructions. They did not reply with any sort of letter, just the check. In the land of bible belt manners and decency, I felt very poorly treated. Perhaps this is the photographer's lot.

I don't agree that it was a mistake. No editor worth a nickel is unaware of the use of unauthorized copyrighted material. I agree you have to be nice, but I don't agree that it was a mistake. Normal editing and final review of the printed materials would include assuring that they were legal on all the images. It may be prudent to be polite, but certainly it is undeserved.

MD

Unfortunately this sort of treatment is quite common, at least with travel magazines.

When I first read you posting, I recalled another situation. I sent off requested images to an editor and gave him two versions, one watermarked and another not. Additional images were sent watermarked. (I had wondered why you submitted un-watermarked images, unsolicited.)

This particular client had a problem a while back with outright misuse of an image and there was legal action. In this instance, the photo was painted and then published. Honestly, I probably would not object to that, as long I got attribution of some sort. I routinely let painters use my photos as models. This was not my image, and not my call, and I do understand if some see that differently.

Anyway, my combo submission of watermarked and unwatermarked photos sent my new potential customer into a rage I guess. He or she won't talk to me now. I think the situation above was so difficult for them and they were running on the ragged edge. I genuinely felt I was being helpful by submitting watermarked material as well as originals to the prime contact.

I think sometimes we photographers are seen as a sub-class of creative professionals. What we do is romantically considered the easy life and our work day perhaps 1/500th of a second. I guess unless you actually take pictures, you have no idea what goes into it, and with nature photography, how hard we work to get "the shot" with "the anmal" at the "right moment". Its really 1/500th of a second, and weeks, and still there is some luck.

I would like to hear other's thoughts about submitting un-watermarked photos. It seems like an invitation to piracy.

MD

This is normal. It is easy to see how busy editors can assume that photographers have read the guidelines and thus accepted the terms before submitting materials, especially where most of the material comes from repeat providers who know what to expect. There are a few instances where you are supposed to bill the publisher after the images have been used, but I doubt if this is the case in this instance. I believe it would so state in the guidelines. Wait 30 days most of the time. I think magazine pirates are rather scarce. I expect slides to be returned from publishers but not disks. Sending large files to non-professionals, however, would make me nervous. If this was Northwest Travel, I would say you have nothing to worry about. The Spooners will probably be sending you a check in 4-6 weeks.

Joe,

If it's the regional magazine I'm thinking of, this is normal. Just about everything I've had published in their magazines has been a "surprise". So much so that once a friend of mine called to congratulate me. I said "thanks. What for?". He then informed me I had the cover.
They usually pay within a month or two.

Thanks for the input everyone. RL, you hit it on the nose; it is Northwest Travel. As long as I get paid, I could use some more "surprises" like this. The guidelines page of their website asks for accepted contributors to fill out a W-9. I shall do that along with a nice letter saying how much I appreciate being published.