Published photos?

No, but I don't think that matters; certainly I'm not putting a downer on Sir Trev's thread, his abilities and achievements or indeed yours.

[Littlepeahead]

What I meant was, pro or amateur, photographers should be paid if their photos are to be published in a commercial way, in this case a book that has a cover price. The author will expect to make money on sales.

I get calls all the time like this, can we use a photo of Lord's for this or that book, no we don't want to pay. Since they will be paying the editor, typesetter, PR company, and for the printing and distribution why should the photographer be the only one working for free?

So my point is, yes Sir Trev, allow them a one off licence to use your pic, but make them pay something for the privilege.

[Sir Trev]

Surprise surprise - he now has now sourced "other images" which will be sufficient for his book.

FWIW I completely agree with Clare on this. Banking on the lack of knowledge or, dare I say it, gullibility of the uninformed he was quite possibly hoping to save a few quid. There's a good chance he has done just that with images from someone else on the Open House tours that weekend and may even have searched Flikr using those very tags. I shan't lose too much sleep over it.

[mister c]

Some of my pictures from this year's Tandragee 100 races are going to be used in next year's programme. I didn't want any money for them as I feel quite privileged to be asked. It does mean that I'm going to have to go again next year to buy the programme though