hello there bookoggers, question for the community.

The Hulton Archive of Getty Images has numerous credits, some of which can make a claim to being the common use name.


Auribus has done a nice profile for 67736 so I reckon we should keep it and turn the others into duplicates and CNV them to 67736, if that makes sense.

Thoughts or comments welcomed.

This is quite complex. At present the four stages of the Hulton Archive are represented in the database as:

Hulton Archive - https://www.bookogs.com/credit/67736-Hulton-Archive (1947-1958)
BBC Hulton Picture Library - https://www.bookogs.com/credit/194707-BBC-Hulton-Picture-Library (1958-1988)
Hulton Deutsch - https://www.bookogs.com/credit/113515-Hulton-Deutsch (1988-1996)
Hulton Getty - https://www.bookogs.com/credit/112168-Hulton-Getty (1996-present)

The question that needs to be addressed, is whether or not it is worth keeping these individual credits or consolidate everything into the latest name credit and CNV all variations.

One problem I have encountered is determining the official name of the Hulton Archive since it was purchased by Getty Images. Wikipedia states "In 1996, the Hulton collection was sold on once more, this time purchased by Getty Images and renamed Hulton Getty." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_Images

The Getty Images website displays the "Hulton Archive" as a distinct collection within their overall catalog http://www.gettyimages.com.au/collections/hulton-archive

I thought I would tally up the numbers. Looking at the books credited to Hulton Archive, out the six, I believe only three actually belong there. There is one book credited to BBC Hulton Picture Library and ditto for Hulton Deutsch. Which leaves 15 books that use some form of the Hulton Getty name. Obviously, the numbers are not vast.

i think that the other credits are cool, we should keep the four separate "ages" of hulton, but having combine the others. but which name to use is the question!

I tend to agree the 4 variations should be kept, even though my inclination is to combine most other name variations. As for the Hulton Getty combo name, my preference is for Hulton Archive/Getty Images.

we should keep the four separate "ages" of hulton

That is probably the best option because of the name changes.

Other option that I wouldn't mind would be to keep three variations, and just go by the name of the actual archive: Hulton Archive, BBC Hulton Picture Library, and Hulton Deutsch. That would of course include keeping Hulton and Getty as separate entities.

Hulton Archive/Getty Images

That would be the most factual option, and we already have that in the database: https://www.bookogs.com/credit/22282-hulton-archive-getty-images

I restored my memory banks from 8 months ago. I agree we should keep:

Hulton Archive
BBC Hulton Picture Library
Hulton Deutsch

Which leaves:
Hulton Getty
Hulton Archive / Getty Images
Hulton Archive/Getty Images
Hulton Archives/Getty Images

So should be combine all of these into Hulton Archive/Getty Images using name variations where required?

If we can achieve a consensus then I will make the transfers.

+1 for Anaideia's

whoops...+1 for Anaideia's suggestion

yep, i think that seems sensible. nice work.

Thanks for the feedback. I will wait another 48 hours before making the necessary edits.

All done and dusted.

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.