By-lines

[Richard Tugwell]

Whats the general arrangement about by-lines for images? eg in publications. I see my published images attributed only to "Alamy". Don't I get a by-line?

[chrumu]

Unfortunately this is very common nowadays. Pictures often only get attributed to the agency.

 

 

BTW, are you sure you have the necessary permissions from the copyright holder of Dandy to use his work as your profile picture?

[fotoDogue]

Here in the US writers get by-lines. Photographers get photo credits.

[John Mitchell]

Here in the US writers get by-lines. Photographers get photo credits.

 

Unless the same person did both the writing and the photography.

 

Once upon a time, when I called myself a writer / photographer, I used to supply features to magazines, and the by-line usually read "Text and photos by...."

 

There seems to be no rhyme or reason among publications these days when it comes to giving photo credits. Not sure why that is.

[Allan Bell]

 

Here in the US writers get by-lines. Photographers get photo credits.

 

Unless the same person did both the writing and the photography.

 

Once upon a time, when I called myself a writer / photographer, I used to supply features to magazines, and the by-line usually read "Text and photos by...."

 

There seems to be no rhyme or reason among publications these days when it comes to giving photo credits. Not sure why that is.

 

 

 

Probably because so many images have been nicked they assume it is better not to credit any in case they get it wrong.

 

Allan

[John Mitchell]

 

 

Here in the US writers get by-lines. Photographers get photo credits.

 

Unless the same person did both the writing and the photography.

 

Once upon a time, when I called myself a writer / photographer, I used to supply features to magazines, and the by-line usually read "Text and photos by...."

 

There seems to be no rhyme or reason among publications these days when it comes to giving photo credits. Not sure why that is.

 

 

 

Probably because so many images have been nicked they assume it is better not to credit any in case they get it wrong.

 

Allan

 

 

You may have a point there...

[fotoDogue]

 

Here in the US writers get by-lines. Photographers get photo credits.

 

Unless the same person did both the writing and the photography.

 

Once upon a time, when I called myself a writer / photographer, I used to supply features to magazines, and the by-line usually read "Text and photos by...."

 

There seems to be no rhyme or reason among publications these days when it comes to giving photo credits. Not sure why that is.

 

 

 

I've seen it both ways. Sometimes they just say "Photos and text by....." Other times there's a separate photo credit alongside the photo and a by-line either above, or below, the story. It all comes down to style.

 

If you've used layout software you'll see that when you place a photo most software will include the caption but not necessarily the copyright info, which is located in a different part of the IPTC header. So in theory, placing your credit in the caption should increase your chances that you'll get a credit in publication or on the web, because the layout person won't have to look for it. It doesn't always seem to hold true though, I've had two photos in the same story, one credited to me and the other to Alamy,  but the fact that Alamy Live News uses this style supports my theory.

[TeeCee]

Some contributors have weird - in some cases fairly ridiculous pseudonyms. I suspect some publications now choose to just credit the agency, rather than have to print someone's peculiar sense of humour.

[gvallee]

You might have noticed that I report images found on BBC Online in the 'Have you found Alamy images' thread.

 

I found that sometimes, the photo credit on the BBC website is the photographer's name/Alamy, but when I locate the image on Alamy, it is under a pseudonym. Interesting.

 

Gen

[Niels Quist]

- as long as it isn't bye-lines  

[Robert M Estall]

We've been knocking this one about back to the 1988 copyright update and before. From 1988 onwards, the creator could insist on being credited as the copyright holder, but I guess 90% of magazines and newspapers simply ignored the nicety. Book publishers were better, but often listed the credits on a page at the end rather than on the pages. If the publication gets their images from a stock agency, they consider naming the source as good enough. Some publications only credit photographers when they have been commissioned. Within many publishers, it's down to the editor and perhaps the art director. Some scoundrels trade off credits against payment. We've all heard that proposition, and I hope just about everybody resists that offer.