A Human Right Sighting


October 11, 2004, 08:25 PM
I was reading The Economist and spotted the following picture in an article about the cultural divisions in the US:

Of course a human right wasn't mentioned.


If you enjoyed reading about "A Human Right Sighting" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
October 11, 2004, 08:30 PM
They could've picked a better model.

I wouldn't trust that kid to watch my back in CounterStrike. :neener:

October 11, 2004, 09:05 PM
"That kid" is a she. The two of them are a couple, if I remember correctly.
I'm sure Oleg could fill in the rest of the details, should he be so inclined. :)

Standing Wolf
October 11, 2004, 10:06 PM
The text should read: "Responsible people {plural} protect their families {plural}" rather than "family {singular}."

Oleg Volk
October 11, 2004, 10:26 PM
Was it in the printed or on-line version? I'd like to see the original, since they used my image.

October 11, 2004, 10:27 PM
in print

Oleg Volk
October 11, 2004, 10:29 PM
Could you scan or photograph the page for me? I am curious if it was modified in any way, and if it was properly attributed.

October 11, 2004, 11:10 PM
There're several bookstores very near me that carry The Economist. I'll stop by in the morning and pick up the current issue. If you can't get a scan from someone, PM me and I'll mail the issue to you (if the one on the rack tomorrow has the pic).

October 11, 2004, 11:13 PM
please do papercut. I saw it several days ago and ment to post about it but forgot. Then I went back and that copy was stolen from my friends common area. So its probably within the last 2 issues.


Larry Ashcraft
October 11, 2004, 11:15 PM
The text should read: "Responsible people {plural} protect their families {plural}" rather than "family {singular}."
Or: "A responsible person (singular) would protect his (singular) family (singular)".

Either way, point taken. The sentence is downright iliiterate.

October 11, 2004, 11:18 PM
daaang, are you going to take that Oleg?

October 11, 2004, 11:25 PM
Either way, point taken. The sentence is downright iliiterate

Hey now, be nice.

Oleg can be called many things, first and formost 'defender of firearm rights' - illiterate is not one of them...

I'll comment upon one person's remark

I wouldn't trust that kid to watch my back in CounterStrike

It's the fact that an apparently unable to protect herself woman like the woman in the photo, is able to protect her family with a firearm that makes the cause so important.

October 11, 2004, 11:42 PM
"That kid" is a she. The two of them are a couple, if I remember correctly.
I'm sure Oleg could fill in the rest of the details, should he be so inclined.

Huh ... well now it makes a little more sense to me ... I always thought it was a mother and son (apologies to the ladies :uhoh: )

El Tejon
October 11, 2004, 11:46 PM
Was there an editorial on the sufficiency of the weapon?:D :scrutiny: :D

Oleg Volk
October 12, 2004, 01:33 AM
That poster dates back many years. My English wasn't as good back then. When I find the Photoshop original, I will re-edit it.

October 12, 2004, 07:30 AM

Send them a nice letter requesting your standard compensation for your work when it appears in a for-profit use without your prior consent. I think $1,000 should cover it. That's cheaper on their end then defending against a copyright violation case.

October 12, 2004, 09:58 AM

Having been a published writer in a previous career, you should know that the tradition is to compensate the writer/artist at 3X-4X whatever the standard rate is for uncompensated use of materials.

Ages ago, an editor called me about a day before the print run started of his magazine, which included a manuscript I had tossed over the transom many months prior. He was aghast when he realized I hadn't been paid, and it was his #1 priority of the day to get a check into my hands.

IIRC, it was $400 for what became a 2/3 page detail callout supporting a larger article.


October 12, 2004, 10:52 AM
Oleg, me thinks you should probably put a sig line on the bottom of your images in case they get pirated?

October 12, 2004, 11:13 AM
If all members of a family protect the family, the statement is perfectly correct.

Oleg Volk
October 12, 2004, 03:18 PM
Still need a scan of the page or an idea of which book stores carry that publication.

October 12, 2004, 03:37 PM
I've seen The Economist at both Barnes & Noble and Borders, as well as at the PX. Your local library might very well have it as well, and they'd probably have back issues. If you're near a university, their library would almost certainly have it.

Andrew Rothman
October 12, 2004, 03:45 PM
Oleg -- My public library has the magazine. Headed there now with camera in hand.

October 12, 2004, 03:57 PM
just got my copy in the mail today. found it. will scan in b&W (don't have a color scanner).

October 12, 2004, 04:04 PM
here's a scan
warning - big! 205 kB

October 12, 2004, 04:06 PM
OK, here's the technical info on the issue in question.

The issue is the October 9th-15th 2004 issue (as shown on the cover; the table of Contents also identifies it as Volume 373 Number 8396).

In the magazine is a special section titled "US Election 2004" with page numbers independent of the rest of the magazine. Oleg's picture is used on page 29 of the special section (NOT page 29 of the main magazine body).

Oleg's picture is part of a small montage across the top of pages 28-29, which contain an artle titled "The politics of values." Interestingly enough, guns/2nd Amendment are not mentioned anywhere in the article.

Oleg's picture is not in original form. Rather, the picture has been cropped somewhat, with the top of the gun holder's head cut off, and the lower picture omitted (i.e., the part of Oleg's picture with the closeup is gone). In addition, the picture is two-color, black and orange (with the peoples' bodies black, and orange where the background and lighter colors would be). The text is intact. There is a pattern of stars resembling those of the U.S. flag in a vertical position that are overlaying about 1/3 of the picture.

And now here's the part Oleg has been waiting for. As far as I can tell, there is no attribution to Oleg or anything that identifies the origin of the picture anywhere in the magazine--not on the page with the picture, not in the early pages (ToC, etc.) and not in the ending pages.

Oleg, I might be able to get it scanned in a couple of days if you need. My offer to mail you a copy of the whole mag still stands.

I picked up my copy at a nearby Chapter 11 bookstore. Barnes & UnNoble and Borders also usually carry the magazine. I imagine that Books-a-Million also does.

October 12, 2004, 04:06 PM
ok another version cropped to show just the offending portion of the page - only 32 kB or so, again only in B&W


October 12, 2004, 04:10 PM
And I see themic has managed to get the page scanned. Yay!

October 12, 2004, 04:16 PM
Tagged for updates and outcome.

Zak Smith
October 12, 2004, 04:19 PM
There's no need to "tag" threads.

Just use the "Subscribe" button at the bottom of the page.


Oleg Volk
October 12, 2004, 04:23 PM
Found the editor email/phone, will send them a message.

October 12, 2004, 04:26 PM
remembering that print subscribers have free online access to all articles, i went and just got the color version from the website. picture only.


October 12, 2004, 04:29 PM
oleg -

from the magazine print version:

principal commercial offices:

25 st james street, london sw1a 1hg
tel 020 7830 7000
fax 020 7839 2968/9

111 west 57th street, new york ny 10019
tel 1 212 541 0500
fax 1 212 541 9378

and a hong kong address too

October 12, 2004, 04:38 PM
Since you seem unfamiliar with the magazine, perhaps we should point out to you that the Economist is one of the foremost news magazines in the world. Certainly, amongst professionals (and upper crust Europeans), it has a far higher rpofile than almost any other publication. . . .Consider it as a Time for the intellectual set . . . .

Of course, along with the UN groveling perspective, they also have a reputation as particularly opposed to firearms ownership.

I wouldn't settle cheap.

October 12, 2004, 04:44 PM
Here is some more info on it - direct from their web page. I've highlighted important info.

About The Economist

• About our History

It is not only The Economist's name that people find baffling. Here are some other common questions.

First, why does it call itself a newspaper? Even when The Economist incorporated the Bankers' Gazette and Railway Monitor from 1845 to 1932, it also described itself as "a political, literary and general newspaper".

It still does so because, in addition to offering analysis and opinion, it tries in each issue to cover the main events—business and political—of the week. It goes to press on Thursdays and, printed simultaneously in six countries, is available in most of the world's main cities the following day or soon after.

Readers everywhere get the same editorial matter. The advertisements differ. The running order of the sections, and sometimes the cover, also differ. But the words are the same, except that each week readers in Britain get a few extra pages devoted to British news.

Why is it anonymous? Many hands write The Economist, but it speaks with a collective voice. Leaders are discussed, often disputed, each week in meetings that are open to all members of the editorial staff. Journalists often co-operate on articles. And some articles are heavily edited. The main reason for anonymity, however, is a belief that what is written is more important than who writes it. As Geoffrey Crowther, editor from 1938 to 1956, put it, anonymity keeps the editor "not the master but the servant of something far greater than himself. You can call that ancestor-worship if you wish, but it gives to the paper an astonishing momentum of thought and principle."

Who owns The Economist? Since 1928, half the shares have been owned by the Financial Times, a subsidiary of Pearson, the other half by a group of independent shareholders, including many members of the staff. The editor's independence is guaranteed by the existence of a board of trustees, which formally appoints him and without whose permission he cannot be removed.

What, besides free trade and free markets, does The Economist believe in? "It is to the Radicals that The Economist still likes to think of itself as belonging. The extreme centre is the paper's historical position." That is as true today as when Crowther said it in 1955. The Economist considers itself the enemy of privilege, pomposity and predictability. It has backed conservatives such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. It has supported the Americans in Vietnam. But it has also endorsed Harold Wilson and Bill Clinton, and espoused a variety of liberal causes: opposing capital punishment from its earliest days, while favouring penal reform and decolonisation, as well as—more recently—gun control and gay marriage.

Lastly, The Economist believes in plain language. Walter Bagehot, our most famous 19th-century editor, tried "to be conversational, to put things in the most direct and picturesque manner, as people would talk to each other in common speech, to remember and use expressive colloquialisms". That remains the style of the paper today.

Established in 1843 to campaign on one of the great political issues of the day, The Economist remains, in the second half of its second century, true to the principles of its founder. James Wilson, a hat maker from the small Scottish town of Hawick, believed in free trade, internationalism and minimum interference by government, especially in the affairs of the market. Though the protectionist Corn Laws which inspired Wilson to start The Economist were repealed in 1846, the newspaper has lived on, never abandoning its commitment to the classical 19th-century Liberal ideas of its founder.

The Corn Laws, which by taxing and restricting imports of corn made bread expensive and starvation common, were bad for Britain. Free trade, in Wilson's view, was good for everyone. In his prospectus for The Economist, he wrote: "If we look abroad, we see within the range of our commercial intercourse whole islands and continents, on which the light of civilisation has scarce yet dawned; and we seriously believe that free trade, free intercourse, will do more than any other visible agent to extend civilisation and morality throughout the world - yes, to extinguish slavery itself."

Wilson's outlook was, therefore, moral, even civilising, but not moralistic. He believed "that reason is given to us to sit in judgment over the dictates of our feelings." Reason convinced him in particular that Adam Smith was right, that through its invisible hand the market benefited profit-seeking individuals (of whom he was one) and society alike. He was himself a manufacturer and wanted especially to influence "men of business". Accordingly, he insisted that all the arguments and propositions put forward in his paper should be subjected to the test of facts. That was why it was called The Economist.

Wilson was not The Economist's greatest editor in terms of intellect. That title probably goes to his son-in-law, Walter Bagehot (pronounced Bajut), who was the paper's third editor, from 1861 to 1877. Bagehot was a banker, but he is best remembered for his political writing and notably for his articles on the British constitution. The monarch, he argued, was head of the "dignified" parts of the constitution, those that "excite and preserve the reverence of the population"; the prime minister was head of the "efficient" parts, "those by which it, in fact, works and rules." The distinction is often drawn, even today.

It was Bagehot who broadened the range of the paper into politics. He was also responsible for greatly strengthening the interest in America that The Economist has always shown. Under the editorship of Bagehot, who argued that "The object of The Economist is to throw white light on the subjects within its range", the paper's influence grew. One British foreign secretary, Lord Granville, said that whenever he felt uncertain, he liked to wait to see what the next issue of The Economist had to say. A later admirer of Bagehot's was Woodrow Wilson, president of the United States from 1913 to 1921.

The paper, however, had to wait nearly half a century before getting another remarkable editor. He came in 1922, in the shape of Walter Layton, whose achievement, in the words of The Economist's historian, Ruth Dudley Edwards*, was to have the paper "read widely in the corridors of power abroad as well as at home", even if critics said it was "slightly on the dull side of solid". That was certainly not a criticism that could be levelled at his successor, Geoffrey Crowther, who was probably The Economist's greatest editor since Bagehot. His contribution was to develop and improve the coverage of foreign affairs, especially American ones, and of business. Its authoritativeness had never been higher.

From the earliest days, The Economist had looked abroad, both for subjects to write about and for circulation. Even in the 1840s, it had readers in Europe and the United States. By 1938, half its sales were abroad although, thanks to world war, not for long. Crowther's great innovation was to start a section devoted to American affairs, which he did just after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour in December 1941. "American Survey" (renamed "United States" in 1997) was aimed not at Americans but at British readers who, Crowther believed, needed to know more about their new allies. In time, however, it earned a following in the United States that became the base for the great rise in American circulation that began in the 1970s.

For most of its existence The Economist has been content with a small circulation. When Bagehot gave up as editor, it stood at 3,700, and by 1920 had climbed to only 6,000. After the second world war, it rose rapidly, but from a base of barely 18,000, and when Crowther left it stood at only 55,000, not reaching 100,000 until 1970. Today circulation is over 830,000, more than four-fifths of it outside Britain. The American circulation accounts for a third of the total.

A recent editor, Rupert Pennant-Rea, once described The Economist as "a Friday viewspaper, where the readers, with higher than average incomes, better than average minds but with less than average time, can test their opinions against ours. We try to tell the world about the world, to persuade the expert and reach the amateur, with an injection of opinion and argument." With readers such as these, and aims such as these, The Economist was bound to find it progressively harder to increase its circulation in Britain. That became especially true in the 1960s and 1970s, when British daily papers started to carry more of the interpretive, argumentative and analytical articles that had traditionally been the preserve of the weeklies. The Economist has survived, and indeed prospered, by building on the internationalism of its outlook and by selling abroad.

In this it has been helped enormously by its coverage of business and economic affairs. Wilson believed that even statistics, so far from being dull, could "afford the deepest and often the most exciting interest." To this day, readers such as Helmut Schmidt, chancellor of West Germany from 1974 to 1982, agree. But few readers buy The Economist for one thing alone, and in recent years the paper has added sections devoted to Europe, Asia and science and technology. The current editor, Bill Emmott, has introduced an expanded coverage of books and arts, a new section devoted to Latin America and Canada and our web edition, Economist.com.

Articles in The Economist are not signed, but they are not all the work of the editor alone. Initially, the paper was written largely in London, with reports from merchants abroad. Over the years, these gave way to stringers who sent their stories by sea or air mail, and then by telex and cable. Nowadays, in addition to a worldwide network of stringers, the paper has about 20 staff correspondents abroad. Contributors have ranged from Kim Philby, who spied for the Soviet Union, to H.H. Asquith, the paper's chief leader writer before he became Britain's prime minister, Garret FitzGerald, who became Ireland's, and Luigi Einaudi, president of Italy from 1948 to 1955. Even the most illustrious of its staff, however, write anonymously: only surveys, the longish supplements published about 20 times a year on various issues or countries, are signed. In May 2001, a redesign introduced more navigational information for readers and full colour on all editorial pages.

Oleg Volk
October 12, 2004, 04:45 PM
I am well familiar with them from their glory days ten or more years ago. I sent an email to the editor and pointed him to this thread as well as indicated what kinds of problems they would run with me and the subjects of the poster (who are as opposite of the conservative Republicans as can be, and likely to take action on that account). We'll see what comes out of this story. And to think they could have just asked...

PS: Thanks to all who helped with the research!

Standing Wolf
October 12, 2004, 04:51 PM
An to think they could have just asked...

Life includes occasional ironies. I'm glad you're standing up for your copyright. I've had to do it myself a time or two, and it's invariably a hassle.

Andrew Rothman
October 12, 2004, 05:20 PM

People here move fast -- a tribute to the high regard in which we all hold Oleg.

I have color photos of the pages in question and the cover, which I'll upload in an hour or so when I get home.

Oleg Volk
October 12, 2004, 05:47 PM
The right to use of of my photos for a year cost $750 last time I made a sale. Magazine illustrations run less (one-time rights) but that depends on the circulation. Unauthorized use should be more expensive. We'll see what the response would be in the morning. We've gone over the legal options last time someone infringed.

October 13, 2004, 12:41 AM
Speaking of which....

Oleg, what happened to that anti gun group that used your image in their message? Did you recover anythign from them?

(Brady campaign? I do not remember.. it was like a year ago)

October 13, 2004, 12:59 AM
I have nothing to add, but to say that this episode simply illustrates why I love the internet. God/Yahwe/Jehova/The Goddess/Cuthulu/bless the free exchange of information.

/Sven! Where are you!

Oleg Volk
October 13, 2004, 09:52 AM
I have yet to hear back from them. Will have to give them a call tonight in case their emails don't get delivered properly.

October 13, 2004, 02:18 PM
A certified letter with the details of the infringment and your expected compensation might be better then a phone call. Even better if it's from your attorney. Just my opinion.

October 13, 2004, 03:10 PM
I wonder if the Economist is running on the "if I change x%" myth. They actually taught us that it was all right in Highschool, but the truth is if you put the image next to the original and you can tell it was taken from it you're screwed. Ask permission first!

October 14, 2004, 10:49 AM
In my opinion, The Economist should be given an option of either (1) re-publishing the poster ASAP unaltered (at least at the same scale -- will take more space), plus attributing it to the author and paying him a regular price or (2) paying 2.5 to 3 times higher premium for what they published.

Also, it would help to have this thread discoverable via Google Usenet search.

An interesting piece attributed to The Economist is at http://www.enotes.com/future-internet/871

October 15, 2004, 05:09 PM
just wondering if there is anything new to report on this thread?

Oleg Volk
October 15, 2004, 05:56 PM
They replied with a request for more info, nothing since.

Harry Tuttle
October 17, 2004, 07:23 AM
I would bet the editor, the art director, the layout department and the illustrator are now emailing each other about intelectual property rights and "finding things" on the internet.

i would send them a bill.

Whats the price of a G4, 17 inch laptop with a gig of ram?

Mr Jody Hudson
October 17, 2004, 08:52 AM
Interesting that the Economist is known for copyright infringement - and has thus prooved it here. :(

October 17, 2004, 09:51 AM
Nail 'em to the wall, Oleg. :D

Highland Ranger
October 17, 2004, 10:07 AM
Longer they take, more it costs, I say . . . .

Oleg Volk
October 19, 2004, 11:42 AM
Talked to one of the editors of the Economist and settled the issue. I get paid, the designer who ripped off my image gets no more work from them, and the next issue carries a clarification with a link to my page with the original. All in all, pretty reasonable. Thanks due to Henry Bowman and others for advising me.

October 19, 2004, 11:47 AM
Great to hear, Oleg!

October 19, 2004, 11:47 AM
Sweet! Good to hear it turned out so well!

Larry Ashcraft
October 19, 2004, 12:19 PM
Great news Oleg. Nice when justice prevails. :)

October 19, 2004, 12:30 PM
Outstanding. Oleg, gotta ask - do you mind when I use an image from your work for wallpaper?:o

October 19, 2004, 12:32 PM

*smirks at the thought of all these uptight readers of The Economist following a link to Oleg's website.*

Mr Jody Hudson
October 19, 2004, 02:38 PM
VERY COOL Oleg. Now FAST, get your site all fixed up and lookin' Gooooood. And, check with your servers and get ready for HEAVY hits!!!!! Tell them what is happening, or rather about to happen. This could be a wonderful professional break! Who knows what work and payments may come of this. AWESOME possibilities! Be prepared!

One idea, lots and lots of little thumbnails on your home page -- people love pictures - and let them know to click for the larger picture and for the captions, etc.

GO FOR IT! This could be like a free ad in USA today! It could be worth tens of thousands of dollars in promotional value for you and your work! :D :D :D :D Wouldn't THAT be cool! And let us know your traffic increases and other successes from this major good fortune!

October 19, 2004, 03:28 PM

(Okay, I posted this before I read the entire thread...but for future reference...)

I really like the work you put into your posters and photographs. I'm an editorial photographer, and can assure you that if you feel your images were used without your authorization, you should ask for compensation.

According to the industry standard quoting guide software, FotoQuote, stock licensing for the electronic counterpart or print of a consumer editorial magazine would be, on average, about $900. for a small image. Unauthorized use could bring you from 3x that much to $150k, whether or not credit was given.

You might also consult with the folks at www.editorialphoto.com.

Keep up the good work!


October 19, 2004, 09:25 PM
Oleg-when you receive this gigantic windfall does this mean dinner is on you next time? :D

October 20, 2004, 01:08 AM
shhwweeettttt... Vigilant eyes gets Oleg some flow. Right on!


October 20, 2004, 08:14 AM
Glad to hear this. I'll add it as another reason why I prefer The Economist over any other news source.

October 20, 2004, 08:30 AM
Good news!

Was it really as easy as it sounds? No run arounds? No screaming or cursing threats? If it did go as smoothly as it sounds that sounds like one classy publication.

October 24, 2004, 09:44 PM
harpethriver asked:
Oleg-when you receive this gigantic windfall does this mean dinner is on you next time?

No, no! He's going to buy us all the compact pistol of our choice!! :D :eek:

October 25, 2004, 12:59 AM
Sound like Oleg won on this one. Glad to hear he got the "job" and got paid!

October 25, 2004, 03:02 AM
Ya gotta love a happy ending.

And the free advertising for Oleg's site is a very good thing.

October 25, 2004, 09:17 AM
I'm so happy that things turned out good for you, Oleg.
I love your website and I think it will be a very good promotion for you and the cause of firearms ownership in general.
I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Oleg, you da man!


Oleg Volk
November 11, 2004, 01:23 AM
At least it is something: http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=3340132

In our US election briefing (October 9th 2004) we published an illustration which included an image of two people, one of whom is holding a gun. The artist used the image without permission from the owner, Oleg Volk. We are sorry for this error.

November 11, 2004, 01:34 AM
Weren't they supposed to run a link to your page??

Brian Dale
November 11, 2004, 02:27 PM
countertop, if nothing else, anybody who Googles "Oleg Volk" will get www.olegvolk.net/ and www.a-human-right.com/ coming up at the top of the list.

I wish they'd posted links, too, but "At least it is something."

If you enjoyed reading about "A Human Right Sighting" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!