Copyright violation really boils my blood. There are images of Laurel Tavern available under a Creative Commons license, but I guess Michael Cavna thought that was just too hard to do. Likewise, it seems too hard for him to contact the artist who he stole from after being called out on it. But, hey, it's not like writing for the Washington Post is his job or anything, right?
One way to get yourself a lawsuit is to ignore someone who's notifying you that you're using their work without permission. Not only is Michael Cavna legally accountable, so is the Washington Post. Who did due diligence on this article to make sure it was legal to print? So, I don't think they're ignoring you because they want to avoid a lawsuit. I think they're ignoring you hoping you'll just go away. That's very unprofessional.
You left a comment on October 27. It's been a week and a half since they have received correspondence that they have violated a copyright. That's more than enough time to contact the artist (you) and make corrections (replacement of the photo or ammends with accreditation and hopefully payment). Even if you wouldn't care to be paid for such a thing, remember that they're making money off your photo and they didn't even ask first if it'd be okay for them to make money off your photo without you getting a dime of it.
In various artist networks, we watch each others' backs and we do report where we see copyright violations. Since this has carried on longer than it should for a newspaper, I have sent the standard Copyright Violation notification messages to both Michael Cavna and the Washington Post. Think of it this way, even if it's not a fight you really care to have over that particular photo, Cavna might think it's too hard to follow procedure for another person's photo... and then another's... and then another's.
- Elle