The photographic news

• Bandzählung: 6.1862
• Erscheinungsdatum: 1862
• Sprache: Englisch
• Signatur: F 135
• Vorlage: Hochschule für Grafik und Buchkunst Leipzig
• Digitalisat: Hochschule für Grafik und Buchkunst Leipzig
• Digitalisat: SLUB Dresden
• Rechtehinweis: Public Domain Mark 1.0
• URN: urn:nbn:de:bsz:14-db-id1780948042-186200003
• PURL: http://digital.slub-dresden.de/id1780948042-18620000
• OAI: oai:de:slub-dresden:db:id-1780948042-18620000
• Sammlungen: LDP: Historische Bestände der Hochschule für Grafik und Buchkunst Leipzig
• Sammlungen: Fotografie
• Bemerkung: Seite 1-72 fehlen in der Vorlage. Vorlagebedingter Textverlust.
• Strukturtyp: Band

• Digitalisat: SLUB Dresden
• Strukturtyp: Ausgabe

[July 25, 186- THE PHOTOGRAPHIC NEWS. 350 Jur * It may interest the members of the Photographic Society to know that this little experiment in "appropriation," “annexation,” or whatever else it may be termed by the journal in question, cost the society nearly one hundred pounds! papers read at some p official organ. In such its state tion wi him wb no such tstoac we had quotatit they po As w in whic ments, timorou tamp palliate tomeur on form take cat journal meddler up in Remarks valuabl vith m • done, kir am of the cither a to avoi vith ti acciden of repet tary. Americ but it Wheth omitter best ini calcula tircula tempo: acknov contem 1 should it as i cases i holdin ts, we tion is p My a Others Probal anybo Wil We T8 as we source vith at one temp< takes I perm: its m of SU Occas oppo: have has i inter, to su We a whie dot to su organ in which it appears. Wo might add another reason for this care in acknow. lodgment, which is perhaps more important to our reader than our contemporary's feelings. It is this: that when* quotation is properly acknowledged, all responsibility fot journalistic Ishmael, his hand, in turn, against every one his confreres, and if every one’s hand has not been again*' him, it has been simply due to forbearance or contemp" We resolved, when two years ago we assumed our duty a 3 Editor of the News, we resolved then, if it were possible, 10 live at peace with him, and avoid deforming our pages witl personal squabbles ; and we are therefore most scrupulously in the habit of duly acknowledging any scrap of photogn phic information which in the interests of our readers ** may quote from his pages. We do this with the utmost care : if it ever occur otherwise, and we think it does not, i is an accident. Very rarely, indeed, do we reprint at all from his journal; when we do so, it is, in the majority of instance, provincial society of which he.is tl li cases we always duly credit the writer of the paper, the society at which it is read, and 10 had been specially called to it in a private letter fromli Dawson, and we, in another letter, had promised to extP. it when it appeared. We did so, as our readers will ™ member, distinctly accrediting Mr. Dawson as the "Ttr and our Liverpool contemporary as the Journal. ThS then, stripped of its verbiage, and the “ sound and fur signifying nothing ” is the only special grievance ourc» u : temporary has to relate; the remainder of his allegations consist of vague generalities as false as this is foolish. Our contemporary professes to be injured, and to apP™ hend loss of his identity, by our reference to him as “ o® Liverpool contemporary.” As we have said, we have ner. dreamed of evasion, or meant anything like disrespect ® the use of this term, although it maybe, as he himself seemi to think, that the photographic public are less familiar with his existence and history than we had even given him credil for. But had we intended anything offensive in this phres we must remind him that he initiated the practice of usin5 an insulting alias some years ago. Before the advent W office of the present editor of the News, it used to be ’ favourite joke with our contemporary—and the pun was vastly funny !—to refer to this Journal as “our wemyff temporary!” We have never followed his bad example 111 the use of offensive epithets, and we can assure him that we should never dream of offence in his use of phrase* to designate us analogous to those we use, such as "our London contemporary,” or “our weekly contemporary,”® any other reasonable variation he may choose. Regarding the general charge of non-acknowledgment we might with great propriety, if the allegations of our angry contemporary were correct, simply point to the wel known and universal practice in journalism by which any meeting held, speech made, paper read, &c., and appearin in the public prints, becomes, by universal agreement and understanding amongst journalists, common property. To illustrate : there are some hundreds of newspapers in Great Britain, who daily and weekly publish reports of the pro- ceedings in parliament, &c. Of these hundreds there a® not more than about half-a-dozen who send reporters to the house and obtain direct reports. The only advantage they secure over the press at large by this, is priority of publics tion. The custom to which we refer as recognized b common consent is further endorsed by law; the period of copyright permitted to newspapers, if we remembet rightly being just six hours! We could point, moreover, to th* fact that our contemporary, when it suits his purpose, avail* himself liberally of this custom without the slighto scruple! But let us be understood, as regards our contemporary' alleged injury, we do not avail ourselves of the shelter o any such custom. We simply and entirely deny his charg® We know well the thin skinned irritability of our contew" porary, we know well that during his career he has been* construed. We have been for some time past subjected, in the pages of a contemporary, to a series of petty inuen- does, and covert offensive allusions of various kinds. In accordance with a rule we had laid down for ourselves, we have steadily forborne to notice these puerilities. We now find a long leader making a general onslaught on the con temporary photographic press, in which onslaught, however, we are honoured with especial acrimony. As some of the statements made are false, as well as foolish, we feel it desir able to say one or two words on the subject. These few words of explanation over, we shall again resume our rule for un swerving observance. Our primary offence appears to consist in the fact, that we sometimes refer to the journal in question as “ Our Liver pool Contemporary,” and, it is alleged, we quote its pages without due acknowledgment. In order to make clear the gravamen of this offence, it may be necessary, to some of our readers, to mention one or two facts. Some years ago, an enterprizing photographic society in a large provincial town established a journal to record its proceedings, and aid in the diffusion of photography. This happening at a period when the art was rapidly spreading and growing in import ance, this little journal shortly afterwards became the organ of two or three other provincial societies. At this stage of affairs, the conductors of the journal in question, one fine morning, appropriated the title by which the organ of the London Photographic Society was best known to the world, and published their provincial paper as The Photographic Journal. Legal proceedings were at once initiated by the society to protect its property, and the issue was, that after the loss of a good round sum, it obtained again the sole use of the proper style and title of its journal.* The provincial journal in question did not, however, on being compelled to give up the title of The Photographic Journal, resume its old appellation, but, after some shuffling, dubbed itself, mo destly, as The British Journal of Photography. Well, if it had assumed the title of “ King of the Cannibal Islands,” or “ Brother to the Sun and Sister to the Moon,” we don’t know that any one had a right to find fault, beyond remark ing, that the title was too long to be generally repeated. It has so happened, however, that those who have known the journal longest, and despise its frequent shortcomings in the matter of good taste, have respected it as, in its capacity of organ of the provincial societies, doing some good work, are now,- as they have ever been, in the familiar habit of speaking of it as the Liverpool Journal. There is no disrespect in that title, but honour, as in using it they avoid recalling the act of “ appropriation ” to which we have referred. We are asked by our contemporary, however, in the article to which we have alluded, “ Why Liverpool contemporary ? Why not Man chester, or Birmingham, or Edinburgh, or, for that matter, London, unless it bo to disguise the identity of the British Journal of Photography 1" Why ? Why for the common- sense reason that it is our Liverpool contemporary, that it was born in Liverpool, brought up in Liverpool, and is still printed and published, and, we hope, read there, and for the reason that being all this, there is nothing that we can conceive to be ashamed of in hailing from such a city. We have used the phrase “ Liverpool contemporary ” amongst others, such as Liverpool Journal, British Journal, &c., whenever it happened to flow to our pen, to designate shortly the Journal in question, when we have chanced to refer to it, without the remotest thought of disrespect. As to disguising the identity of our contemporary, such an idea could never have given us a moment’s concern. If that identity is so easily disguised, and our contemporary must know best, why we are sorry for it. The especial article we arc charged with quoting without due acknowledgement, was one by Mr. Dawson on bromides. Now weeks before that article was published our attention