spacecadet

I would have confidently captioned this as mullet- I've seen them a few times in my life, and that's what they look like.

I don't know where you get that idea. You can't infringe your own copyright. My point is that IMO the original photograph doesn't infringe copyright. The only possibility of redress against the photographer might be if he misrepresented it as having a property release, but that's a breach of contract, not copyright infringement. AFAICS the BI doesn't have a contract with the photographer so can't sue him in any case.

Still, IMO, the photographer hasn't infringed- he's taken an editorial image, in context, in a gallery where photography was permitted, or at least not explicitly forbidden. BI cropped it to remove the context and published it and if Kander doesn't want redress from them it's his business but I still think he's barking up the wrong tree.

Is it a cheesecake?

Only as far as Alamy's end is concerned- I wonder if certain parties' lawyers have been in communication. Anyway BI's lawyers seem to have told the BI the facts of life. No mention of infringement in that statement, claimed or not. One hopes Kander has now had the correct advice. Saying you don't know what's going to be in your magazine doesn't say much about your journalism.

That's Alamy's prerogative as per the contract. Probably as there's a dispute they thought it prudent. But I stand by my comment. Alamy has put out advice on context- I happen to take a slightly different view but there you are. It won't change my own policy. Personally I wouldn't have singled out a gallery photograph in that way as a matter of professional courtesy, but everyone must take his own view.

Sonys are usually no problem at 3200, but you do need that control next time, because you could probably have got these at 1/30. Going under by a stop or so would probably have made them unusable.

There's no telling what a publisher will do, but as long as you've captioned properly you're not liable. You can't prevent an image being cropped to remove context and you don't have to.

I don't know if this is a problem for you, but I should have a careful look at the licence- Wikipedia seem to think it's under a CC licence and it's not credited. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sir_Simon_Woolley.jpg#mw-jump-to-license

Paywall. Can't see it.

Dubai news website, distro, $, 5 years.

Flippin' eck, I wondered where they'd all gone- I've been using the inferior ones for weeks. Thanks for that.

I don't know the site- care to let us know?

Makes you wonder why they put up with us.

Ed, I think you might have invented that term. I'm borrowing it. It'll contrast nicely with "oop north".

I've had one of these, but it's only my second ever NU as such, so I'll stay put. The first one was in 2011 and was for less. Rough with the smooth. Well, rough with the merely bumpy, but hey ho.

A film industry website I frequent does- an Invision template very similar to Alamy's and it's definitely not for consumers. They haven't got the new emojis, though.

I'd expect older images to accumulate more sales simply because they've been around longer to sell, until they're old enough to be replaced by more modern versions of the same subject. I certainly have a bump in my sales like Doc's, but over the years rather than months.

Here's mine at that price. Sir Josh at the RA. First of the month as well.

I've changed versions without it affecting the catalogue. LR does any conversion that's required, as I recall.

DBH41b is some bread rolls🤨

Eek.....40 is my nuclear option, for when I'm downsizing as well to get an image I like through (or should that be past) QC. Still on LR5.7 here.

Same here on a PC.

Not on Alamy you can't. It would be a breach of contract. 2 Submission and deletion of Images You cannot submit identical or similar Images to Alamy as both Royalty Free and Rights Managed. The licence type on Alamy for an Image must be the same as the licence type for that Image and similar Images which you have on other agency websites.

I think many will agree that RAWs are inherently sharper, just because they're uncompressed. Jpeg conversion guesses out some of the detail. It's probably not significant as low ISOs but you can still see it at 100%. I had a spot of bother a few years ago and took a bit (OK, a lot) of convincing by the forum that RAWS were just better. But I was convinced. Once you get used to a RAW workflow it doesn't even take much longer. Certainly if it does I've long forgotten about it.