Photo/Photography credit(s) to the respective photographer(s)

[vince123123]

I was just wondering, what does this phrase mean? I always thought that credits are to specific named photographers. However, when this phrase is used, no specifically named photographer is stated.

I do appreciate that this could be an "efficient" fast way to credit multiple photographers (although not practiced in the industry), but even the photographs itself also do not show who took the photos.

Then the question is, what is the use of such a phrase? A lulled sense of security that to stem complaints of leeching since "I've already put credits!"?

 

[vince123123]

No comments?

 

[SniperD]

for professional events or contest, the above statement will have to name the photographer and tag it along with the displayed works.

Like you said, this could be just a gimmick to lure photographers to give their works just becoz of this statement. The fine print in the release form may say otherwise.

In all fairness, the contributing party (photographers) must insist that in such instance that they be credited with their name tagged to their work if not insist on usuage rights be paid with a fee on top.

 

[wrkshy]

My guess:

It's probably used when there are many photos and the publisher feels it isn't convenient (no space, or it'll affect the design layout) to name each photographer next to his/her respective photo.

Perhaps publishers use the statement more to cover themselves. Just in case the photo is misused by a third party, the photographer cannot blame or go after the publisher.

By 'publishers', I mean web publishers. I see this statement used more often on the Net, hardly ever in print.

 

[vince123123]

The purpose of a credit is to give goodwill and reputation to a named person. If the person is not named, why even bother?

 

[vince123123]

Hmm exactly what I was saying, its like a halfwayhouse measure of trying to cover one's backside, and it doesn't even do the job it was supposed to. By saying "photography credit to respective photographers" and there si no way to ascertain the identities (there is no separate page of list of photographers or link or anything), what then is the purpose?

My guess:

It's probably used when there are many photos and the publisher feels it isn't convenient (no space, or it'll affect the design layout) to name each photographer next to his/her respective photo.

Perhaps publishers use the statement more to cover themselves. Just in case the photo is misused by a third party, the photographer cannot blame or go after the publisher.

By 'publishers', I mean web publishers. I see this statement used more often on the Net, hardly ever in print.

 

[vince123123]

I think in a lot of these cases, the contributing party may not even be aware that their "credits" has been watered down to such an unidentifying form, or in some cases, that their work is even used!

for professional events or contest, the above statement will have to name the photographer and tag it along with the displayed works.

Like you said, this could be just a gimmick to lure photographers to give their works just becoz of this statement. The fine print in the release form may say otherwise.

In all fairness, the contributing party (photographers) must insist that in such instance that they be credited with their name tagged to their work if not insist on usuage rights be paid with a fee on top.