While I agree with you Nitro Bob, I have a feeling that the publication had some room to slither around the copyright protection. I was just suggesting that they called it educational or news and therefore could use it.

There are people with degrees, staffs and who make a living, working with copyright and trademark law. I'm not one of them. I only look at it from the perspective of photography and the law, which has some allowances for use without permission.

No matter what the legal fine points are, I don't support stealing someone else's work.

I find it difficult to accept that a magazine could publish John's work with impunity.