Photo Credits

[Fred W. Schneider III]

Guess its time to jump back in there.  I am retired.  And I'll openly go on
record thanking Derrick Brashear for driving all the way to Lancaster (PA)
yesterday, loading the software for e-mail, replacing a CD-ROM drive that was
defective, and other things.  And he wouldn't take a penny.  I hope the dinner
was really good Derrick!

And now I'll openly express my opposition to people who put their names on
other peoples' work.  I am personally appalled at the number of railfans who
feel that, simply because they bought a negative or print, that there name goes
on it.  I remember people in the days when prints were traded where an
individual would cross out the photographer's name and put his own rubber stamp
on the print, then pass it onward.  Now the internet is crowded with people who
take credit for other peoples work ... I can identify the originals because I
know the men who took them and they match speck and scratch with the originals
I have.

Common folks.  Just because you buy a Renoir or a Monet painting, it does
change the painter's name to the owner.  And photography is equally an art
form.  Fortunately, some art schools are now recognizing it.

Sadly, then Steve Carlson and I did the first PCC book, I was royally chastised
by one print collector because I was able to identify and show the
photographer's name under the print.  It did not satisfy this person that his
name was in the acknowledgements in the front of the book.  He still deeply
felt that his name should go under the print because he had a print.  It was
even more sad because he was schooled in library science and understood full
well the copyright laws.

I also remember the story of a university prof who moonlighted as a publisher.
Authors were forced to share authorship with this individual if they wanted
this person's money to back them.  It was an easy way around the university's
publish or perish rules.

Tagging onto Josephson's remarks, the only good reason I can think of for
listing the source of the print is to make some feel good.  I still believe
that can be done well off to the side.  The chap who braved the muggy summer
days to photograph a New Orleans car or the chill of Boston in the winter
deserves credit, dead or alive.  Under current laws, his permission (or that of
his or her estate) is required if the person is alive or had been dead less
than fifty years.

Maybe some people have been very lucky that an owner has not pressed a case in
federal courts.

Kenneth and Tracie Josephson wrote:

> brathke at juno.com wrote:
> >
> > There's a good reason for identifying "Collection of..." along with the
> > photographer's name, especially if it's an old photo and the photographer
> > is deceased.
>
> Absolutely. Ken J.