Bold truth: creators must own the rights to their work, or trusted sources risk misrepresentation and frankly, harm to real people. Here’s a detailed rewrite of the story with the same meaning and key information, expanded for clarity and beginner-friendliness, while keeping a professional and engaging tone. And yes, it leans into the nuances that often trigger debate.
A Canadian national magazine faced scrutiny and issued an apology after publishing illustrations that closely resembled photographs from a photographer, even though licensing the images had been refused.
Photographer Jackie Dives was approached by Maclean’s Magazine about using several of her photos in a 2024 article examining drug supply in Vancouver. Before agreeing to license the images, Dives took the right and prudent step of checking with the people depicted in the photographs to obtain their consent. Among the two individuals approached, one declined.
Dives informed Maclean’s of the decision: she did not have authorization from the subjects to license the photos, and so she could not grant permission on the magazine’s behalf. She communicated this clearly to the publication.
Several months later, Dives learned from a text message that Maclean’s had commissioned an illustrator to create images that were very similar to her photographs and then published them. The revelation was embarrassing for the photographer, who felt the substitute works closely resembled the originals in a way that violated her rights.
In response, Dives wrote a letter to Maclean’s stating that the illustrations constituted a copyright violation—created without her consent and contrary to the subjects’ wishes not to be featured. She emphasized that despite years of collaboration with Maclean’s and more than a decade documenting the overdose crisis, the incident undermined both her ongoing work and the trust she aims to build with her photography subjects.
She further explained that bypassing photographers’ rights makes it difficult to earn a living and signals a broader devaluation of the vital role photojournalists play in credible journalism.
Apology and admission of fault
Maclean’s publicly acknowledged the misstep in a September 2, 2025 tweet. The magazine admitted that two illustrations were based on Jackie Dives’s photographs and were used without her permission, violating her copyright. Editors expressed regret for publishing the images in that manner and apologized to Ms. Dives for the damage caused.
Dives has long worked in sensitive environments, so maintaining control over how her images are used is especially important. When she chats with new photo subjects, the first question she often receives is, “How will the photos be used?” The ability to guarantee that control over publication and dissemination is essential for her to obtain informed consent from subjects.
Resolution and ongoing impact
Dives engaged legal counsel and settled the dispute with Maclean’s outside of court, avoiding a lengthy courtroom process.
Image credits: Courtesy of Jackie Dives.
Note: This piece may contain affiliate links, and if a purchase is made through such a link, PetaPixel may earn a commission.
Thought-provoking questions for readers
- Should media outlets rely on illustrations that paraphrase or imitate real photographs when licensing permissions are not granted? What safeguards would create fairer outcomes for photographers and subjects?
- When is it appropriate to prioritize the visual narrative of a story over strict copyright compliance, and where should the line be drawn?
- How can publishers better verify consent from subjects and ensure licensing legitimacy before proceeding with any publication that features real people?
Would you side with stricter permissions and clearer licensing rules, or argue that editorial illustrations can serve the story without compromising rights? Share your views below.
