=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Subversiv_sysl=F6jd_rides_again!?=

and socks too!..

Donna in S. Indiana

It isn't just a matter of whether it bothers you. It bothered you enough for you to complain, and the misattribution upset the Times's lawyers enough so that they paid you. But if you let it stand in Wikipedia, then you might lose the right to complain about the misuse and mislabeling of that part of your work, that is, lose the copyright.

The fact that the Times acknowledged your right as the creator of the photo should be enough to convince the editors at Wikipedia. It would be wise to contact the other magazines that (inadvertently) stole your work, because the more places it is misattributed, the more false support Wiki will have for claiming it wasn't your work.

=Tamar

I didn't actually complain :-)

I mailed to say that I was surprised to see my work being used without attribution. the reply was an apology and a request for my postal address to pass to their accounts department. It was all very polite, with no heat at all. And too quick for lawyers to be involved.

I have the original negative etc. There's no doubt that it was my work, I can provide proof of how it was used originally - back in 1990.

What you say though doesn't enamour me to Wiki :-)

Mary