A major news outlet stole my photos and attributed it to someone else. And the pictures aren't even good.

A major news outlet stole my photo and attributed it to a distributor-- and it's not even a good picture.When I had just started getting really into photography, I took a few photos and put them on Wikimedia, because they were of a historical landmark and Wikipedia didn't have any good pictures of it. I wanted to support Wikipedia, so they're Creative Commons with attribution.So, if our big TV had station posted and article with my name under the photos, that would have been fine. However, they said Scripps Media owned the rights to the photo, which implies to me that they paid for my photos. Scripps Media is an enormous company.The pictures themselves are really mediocre, which is the saddest part. Poorly processed, etc. I have some photographs of the building that I'm very proud of, but not these.The article went up almost a year ago. I'm just curious what you guys think:http://ift.tt/2g9BwDN's my article with good shots that I'm actually proud of:http://ift.tt/2gRNVdM Obscura did credit me, which feels good:http://ift.tt/2g9xjQE this point, everyone has seen the WCPO article and moved on. I just wanted to vent, I guess. via /r/photography http://ift.tt/2h3NlsI