Are terms such as "animal actors agency" instead of "animal agency" justified, or do the supplementary designations only cause confusion?
"Please note that this article is only for German spelling!"
Even the term "animal agency", which is commonly used in the dictionary, is not included, and searching for a term like "movie animal agency" is just as futile. The addition "movie" is the supplementary designation of the field of activity, which assigns it to the film industry and is intended to make it clear that it works in this field for film, photo and TV productions. One would think it is self-explanatory, but the explanation is needed, because the use of the new or supplemented terms would have to be established and is not yet uniformly applied. In German spelling the differences cause confusion again and again, in handling nevertheless designations are like animal trainer, animal training, animal agency or animal school the recognized selection.
Here the attempt of explanation:
The term "animal trainer" is generally known. The work is also known as animal trainer, tamer or even animal tamer, whereby these terms are used to indicate that an animal tamer like the tamer has something to do with predators. As an animal trainer, the best known are works with horses or circus shows with elephants, dogs, cats or pigs. The animal teacher is also an animal trainer. His activity can include both the work as a trainer or tamer. However, the term "animal trainer" refers to the work with a wide variety of animals in the circus' working area. Here in the context of completely trained shows to be booked as well as saleable, completely trained shows. The field of work of an animal trainer, on the other hand, generally refers to work carried out with trained animals.
There are other, additional areas of work of an animal trainer, like working as an animal trainer in film productions or the classic dog trainer. One could claim that the addition with somenthing like "movie-" described here is temporarily valid, the animal trainer would therefore be a movie animal trainer or even a animal trainer for film and TV in preparation for film productions as well as when working on the set. For work that does not serve the purpose of film production, one would work as an animal trainer. Even if, like the animal actors farm Elsässer, one works mainly as an animal trainer for film and TV.
The same can be applied to the addition in the term "Animal actors agency".
According to this, a movie animal agency would only place animals for film, photo and TV productions. But not for theatre or events, which is usually part of the daily business in a pet agency.
A dog trainer runs an animal school and specifies this field of activity, e.g. in terms of the subordination of companion dogs, with the term "dog school". The term "dog school" can also be found in the dictionary. When he now trains his dogs for film, photo and television productions, he runs a movie dog school which is usually part of a animal actors school.
Terms supplemented by "movie", such as "movie animal agency", are certainly justified.
Of course, such a "narrowing down" of the field of activity is not always a characteristic for a suitable qualification, since this specification cannot prove competence either. To do this, one must continue to rely on recommendations and one's experience and not just consult the "new" guidance in the service description.