Bobby Veach original photos advice

[mr2686]

Looks like the same negative but cropped slightly different during printing.

[Michael B]

They rotated the negative about 5º or so counterclockwise for the second print. In both photos you can see that his right shoulder is parallel with the upper deck façade. In the first photo the façade is almost parallel with the top of the photo. Also the field level wall runs directly across the photo. In the second photo both the façade and wall slope downwards right to left.

[BuzzD]

That seems like best explanation, but...

The earlier version has a International Newsreel credit. I always assumed that this reflected a copyright on the image(?)

If Conlon was photographer, given markings on the later photo referencing Washington, he must have sold the photo without his stamp to International Newsreel used in the earlier photo, and then later in the year provided same to Cleveland News?

Can anyone shed some light on how these credits work?

[prewarsports]

Photographers and news services shared images all the time. These were not seen as important items beyond a few days after they were first used and they often reciprocated with images at later dates. I have seen lots of letters between editors at papers and even some notes on the backs of some images sent from one paper to another with things like "Thought you could use this for your sports paper". I believe within the circle of newspapers, there was a very loose handshake agreement about copyrights of images. Outside that circle, say in the world of commercial advertising, I believe the rights of the photographs were a bit more protected.

[SAllen2556]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

Photographers and news services shared images all the time. These were not seen as important items beyond a few days after they were first used and they often reciprocated with images at later dates. I have seen lots of letters between editors at papers and even some notes on the backs of some images sent from one paper to another with things like "Thought you could use this for your sports paper". I believe within the circle of newspapers, there was a very loose handshake agreement about copyrights of images. Outside that circle, say in the world of commercial advertising, I believe the rights of the photographs were a bit more protected.

I agree. It's weird. I have seen photos of Detroit Tigers credited to Conlon that I know for a fact were taken by William Kuenzel of the Detroit Free Press.