Vintage photographers and their AKAs - A notebook

[Pepper II]

If there was still any speculation about magazine pictorials credited to RBK this should put a stop to it.

Originally Posted by Pepper II

This 70 page issue features the photography of husband and wife team Rudy and Blanca Kratochvil better known as RBK Studios.

[effCup]

Earlier I suggested that Bob Veze might be an aka for Barry Vincent. That possibility was denied here, although quite how/why was not explained.

Here's another example of a possible linkage between the names Bob Veze and Barry Vincent:

Originally Posted by effCup

Julia Edwards as Julie on the cover of Adam 24-07, 1980. Not my scan. She's claimed here to have appeared inside, and the photog. is credited to Bob Veze--as opposed to Barry Vincent who was credited for the same/related pics. in both Men Only, 1978-11 and Club (US), 1978-11.

[CosmoK]

Rupert Daines = generic alias, so that is why.

[effCup]

Originally Posted by CosmoK

Rupert Daines = generic alias

Yes, you've suggested that earlier.

Originally Posted by CosmoK

so that is why.

Why is it why? What does it actually explain?

To me saying that Rupert Daines is a generic alias raises perhaps more questions that it purports to answer. As you suggest, it looks like it is being used in place of many other photogs'. credits, but what does that really tell us?

There was a generic alias in (a subset of) the film industry, 1968-2000, but that served a specific purpose: to allow directors to remove their name from projects with which they did not wish to be associated. But we're finding examples of sets of pictures that were credited to both Rupert Daines & other photog. names, so why "disown" the set in one mag. but not another? Everything's a matter of taste but they're not terribly bad picture sets (unlike the films) that are being credited to Daines.

We can see mag. pictorials that are not given any photog. credits--e.g. several sets by Hans Larsson in mid-1970s Mayfair, among others. That was at the same time that other of his pics. were published elsewhere under his name, as well as elsewhere again under the Rupert Daines name. And I don't think it was only Mayfair that sometimes gave no credits.

Who decided on using the Rupert Daines name in this way, and when? I'm not aware of there being some sort of skin photogs' union working behind the scenes, creating committees to organise naming conventions, or whatever. That's more like a James Bond world conspiracy fantasy. I'm not certain but I suspect the name Rupert Daines may have only been used in Paul Raymond stable mags.--Men Only, CIUK, Club (US), etc.?

It's not only the Rupert Daines name turning up in credits "mix-ups"--e.g. sometimes Peter Flodqvist & Serge Jacques' names seem to have been switched in the credits for related pics. in different mags., and there are other such examples noted above--i.e. I don't think they're all examples of aliases/akas.

Although it's possible to imagine mags. being a bit careless about photog. credits, how believable is that? I would have thought the photogs. themselves, at least, would be fairly particular about receiving due credit as their name(s) are part of their brand. Yes, there are possible reasons for having multiple aliases but that's still different from the seeming mix-ups.

[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.

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.

[effCup]

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?

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.

[beutelwolf]

Originally Posted by effCup

Although it's possible to imagine mags. being a bit careless about photog. credits, how believable is that? I would have thought the photogs. themselves, at least, would be fairly particular about receiving due credit as their name(s) are part of their brand. Yes, there are possible reasons for having multiple aliases but that's still different from the seeming mix-ups.

Here is my theory, part speculation, part knowledge:

I think the most likely scenario is that some photographers also acted as agents, for a particular national market, i.e. photographer X sold photographer Y a set of pics for market/country Z. The set would then appear in country Z with the Y credit, in another place though with the X credit.

In Sexy/Schlüsselloch quite a few sets appeared under the Meyerpress name, which is apparently only an agency, while Korenjak was both an agency and a photographer. Many other mags were reluctant though to label a set with an agency name, as it would suggest to the reader: stock images; it could well be that some such sets were labeled with the photographers name even though the copyright in that area was owned by an agency.

One should not forget that many of these things happened long before photographers would use the internet, and there were also language barriers (a photographer and/or mag editor may not speak English/German/French/whatever), never mind local legal issues. Thus, offering as a British photographer a set to a French mag based in Montpellier was unlikely to be worth the hassle. Instead you sold it to an agency, probably in Paris, at a knock-down price with no hassle. The agency would make the rounds to the various mags in their patch, bring their vast portfolio along, and say: take your pick.

[effCup]

Just a brief note that David Muscroft is a likely aka for Ralph Medland.

Shelley Regan appeared in CIUK 19-11, 1990, photog. Ralph Medland, see here. Related pics. were in PHDE 1991-05, photog. David Muscroft, see here. Thanks to sinope for both sets of scans.

[Dick Needle]

I have just come across something supporting the theory that Hank Londoner and Rupert Daines may be the same. There is a set of a model called Heather which appeared in Club US Dec 1993 accredited to Chuck Waggoner which I understand is one of Hank's aliases.

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

Pictures from the same shoot appeared in Men Only 58-10 also 1993 this time by Rupert Daines.

Originally Posted by Dick Needle

Also, I don't know if this is of any use, but the set of Eileen Smith (as Tiffany) from Club US May 1994 also appeared in Men Only 59-04 1994 (this time as Janice) and was again credited to Rupert Daines.

Originally Posted by cooljcb

[effCup]

Originally Posted by Dick Needle

Also, I don't know if this is of any use, but the set of Eileen Smith (as Tiffany) from Club US May 1994 also appeared in Men Only 59-04 1994 (this time as Janice) and was again credited to Rupert Daines.

Right, so there you've got 2 sets of Eileen Smith both credited to Rupert Daines. That glass bricks studio setting, however, is usually associated with Stephen Hicks, as can be seen in AUPH 1997-04 here with Eileen Smith as Danielle Dumas, or Eileen Smith as Danielle @Digital Desire, as well as various other models with similar/related settings--in mags. or from the Digital Desire site. The glass bricks set of Eileen Smith was also as Eileen in Cats (Pol) no.03, 1996, with the photog. credited to J. S. Hicks. It also appears on the cover of Oui, 1996-10, although I don't know the photog. credit there.

Above you have both Hank Londoner & Rupert Daines credited for the same set of Heather in different mags.; & now we have 2 credits for Rupert Daines & 3 for Stephen Hicks of Eileen Smith with the glass bricks.