Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmoK
Effcup, I am just observing that so far, a picture credited to R.Daines could be a photo taken by Mr Daines himself (?), or by someone using a pseudonym, or by any of the various well-known photographers like M.Moreau, S.Jacques, P.Dohollo, and now J.Allum...
So, if I have no idea of the reason behind such use of Ruppert Daines' name, the way this name is used appears quite generic to me.  |
Yes, and I agree that it
looks that way. But you then went on to say that that was the
why. That's the bit I don't see/understand. What part of
why does it explain or address?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmoK
Regarding the question about why the mentioned photographers wouldn't claim credit for their works, I still don't know but a possible answer is that selling your full rights on a picture pays significantly better than just selling the right to print it along with your credit. This worked for magazines as well as for studios and agents, and that explains many of the picture works with credit displaying a different name than the real author.
|
Yes, I have speculated that
may be what happened with some sets by e.g. Peter Flodqvist (or others) re-credited to Hans Moser, Jr. | Sascha Alexander in VTO mags.
But: if there is/was no single photog. person actually "behind" the name Rupert Daines, i.e. if it was only acting as a fill-in, then the behaviour there seems different again. It doesn't seem quite the same as giving no photog. credit, and it doesn't seem quite the same as having a photog's work purchased and re-credited to another known photog. like Moser.
I suspect there probably
are answers/reasons for these different/distinct patterns. I just don't know enough (or hardly anything
) about the industry to be able to guess.
