The Case of the Vanishing Photographer

[jlw]

This morning's edition of my local newspaper marked the death of former US President Gerald Ford with a huge full-page-width photo: a dramatically backlit black-and-white image showing Ford wearing a thoughtful expression and wreathed in pipe smoke.

Whatever you may have thought of Ford's politics, his administration was notable for its unusual openness, exemplified by his willingness to make private moments available to White House photographer David Hume Kennerly, and I felt this fine photojournalistic portrait was an appropriate memorial.

Immediately I was curious to see whether it was Kennerly's work or that of another photojournalist, so I looked down at the corner for the credit line. It read: GETTY IMAGES.

Wow, Mr. Images certainly is a fine photographer, I thought, and come to think of it, his brother Corbis also seems to be rather talented with a camera, judging from the number of credit lines I see.

But wait... of course these are just the names of picture agencies -- vast Internet-searchable stockpiles of images, virtual versions of the endless government warehouse seen in the final scene of Raiders of the Lost Ark.

What about the individual human beings who pressed the shutter button? Someday art historians may want to know their names, not just the name of the corporation that bought the rights.

I'm not really complaining here, since there's nothing specific to complain about. I just think it's a shame when such a striking picture appears at such a significant moment, while the identity of the individual who created it disappears...

 

[dazedgonebye]

I would have to agree.
I don't suppose that any laws require attribution to anyone but the copyright owner, but still....

 

[like2fiddle]

I, too, agree. It's not that most of us take photos because we want to be recognized for taking them, it's that the photos are always more interesting when one knows more about them, the photographer being one piece of the puzzle.

 

[lZr]

This depends purely on the agreement between the Agency and Photographer. The issue can happen for every proffesion on the planet. Remember the case of the first Intel CPU and the long trial with happy end?

 

[Joao]

It is the same as if you show a Mona Lisa reproduction and state only “ by courtesy of Musée du Louvre” not mentioning the painter. Will it happen in the future???
Regards
Joao

RF: Zork(1, 4), Fed(5, 2), Sokol (Automat, 2), Junost, Iskra, Kiev-4,
TLR: Komsomolyets, Lubitel (2, 166B), Flexaret
SLR: Zenit (3M, E, EM, ET, TTL, 12XP, 122K,19, Photosniper), Kiev-10, Olympus OM-2
Other: FED-50, Kiev35A, Smena (7, 8M), Estafeta

 

[dazedgonebye]

I, too, agree. It's not that most of us take photos because we want to be recognized for taking them, it's that the photos are always more interesting when one knows more about them, the photographer being one piece of the puzzle.

For a professional photographer, I'm sure attribution has more to do with income than interest.

 

[kbg32]

There is a big problem with some particular photo agencies. They can get away without crediting the photographer his/her due. Getty/Corbis - their bottom line is the almighty dollar. They have to answer to their shareholders. Photographers to them are nothing more than a commodity to be had at the lowest common denominator, as long as it garners the company the most in profit . As well, the people who work at these agencies don't really understand photography and are not the best educated or versed in what photography is about. I can't totally blame them, this is the way of the world - streaming video, camera phones, etc.. Technology has reduced the photographer to anonymity. Somewhere along the way, the photographer was known, but due to Getty's aquisitions of other companies, they can get away with just crediting - Getty Images.

You may have to do some research to find out who the photographer was behind the photograph.

 

[amateriat]

I just pulled down my copy of Kennerly's Shooter, and while I didn't see the photo of Ford as you described (on the newspaper front page), I have a strong notion that it was shot by him. Lots of interesting photos bracketing both Ford's sudden entry into the Oval Office, and his exit. Kennerly's text gets a bit puffy at points in the book (Henry Kissinger's pull-quote about Kennerly on the back of the dust jacket should be ample warning), but the book is still worthwhile, and, of course, there are the photographs themselves (the first pic in the book, a two-page spread of Kennerly and crew in UPI's Saigon office, where he was bureau chief, will make any Nikon F devotee drool).

Corbis and Getty? Don't get me started. Corbis almost bought out the agency I worked for; it fell through for a number of reasons, but they were on one hell of an agency shopping-spree at the time. This is sort of like the railroads here in the US, where over time we've gone from several dozen thriving outfits to a very small handful of megaliths, leaving a few withering independents hanging on, waiting to be bought out or picked off.



- Barrett

 

[kbg32]

My agencies were bought by both Getty and Corbis. It certainly did help my income, but there is no one to speak with anymore.