imageplotter

Yes, as I mentioned before. Although it should be said that images (either by in-house togs, or in this case provided directly via the 'artists') are nearly always provided like that, by either the organisers, or organising PR company. That is certainly the case with most exhibitions at all of London's major museums, the same practice is also common for i.e. theatre and dance productions, major concerts, PR events etc. There are then, in addition, still press photocalls and previews where video media, agency staff and freelancers get the chance to take their own shots and file to news agencies or direct to the papers, but with context (the odd shot without may sneak in when you simply can't fit in an assistant, but it's rare and NEVER a whole set), plus, as I said, the caption would have each individual work mentioned. And they do find buyers, because they are often better or more interesting than the in-house pics. But I don't think WLPOTH did a photocall (as I mentioned, there are almost no images from any official photocalls from previous years to be found on alamy or its competitors). Some of the official photocalls are getting more and more difficult in any case, with some organisers setting ridiculous pre-conditions and contracts to be signed by all press togs as to where you can and can't file the images, and for what period of time. Often an own-goal for them, but that's another story altogether....

Yes, but it's also important to stress that what we might 'want' to see as context isn't as relevant as what is required for copyright reasons or specified by the exhibititor. If they were taken at a photocall, then the PR company/exhibiting venue/artist's rep will often specify additional requirements (sometimes draconian, sometimes reasonable). Just having a black frame around a photo (which is even more tricky than a painting/other art work, as the photo can be lifted and illegally sold on as if it was a copyrighted original, rather than just an image of the work) would not be enough, and in some of these images, there is just a black frame. I don't know if there was a photocall for this one, I didn't attend it, but I suspect there wasn't - the low number of images available of that annual exhibition overall (not just on alamy) would suggest that there possibly wasn't one, especially given how heavily guarded the images are for preserving sales of NHM merchandise (books, postcards) of the exhibition and potentially the NHM in-house press pics sent out of the wider exhibition hall etc. And, as others pointed out, if these images were not from a press photocall but a regular exhibition visit, then NHM appear to not allow photography at all. (I tend to visit each year, and have certainly never taken any 'snaps' of the pics, not even with context. Can't remember what it states at the entrance but assume 'no photography' is right). The only images I have found in the press, upon brief search, are direct copies of the photos, accredited to each of the original photographers (artists) and likely sent out officially. I.e the Guardian has an online gallery of some of these from the 2019 exhibition. I didn't see any images by e.g. the PA, G***, AFP or any of the usual suspect wires who would usually be present at a press photocall alongside togs filing to alamy.

No, it's not legit, imho. If those NHM pics were from a press photocall (possible, since they are dated 16th Oct) then they should still contain enough context, ie. assistant or visitors visible. (see for example, press pics of the Sony Photo Exibition images, which do have people in the images) Many of these images don't have much context, and don't even contain the name of artist (the actual wildlife photographer who created the image shown) nor the name of the picture in the caption, which would be in there if they had been genuine press images. I.e. this one http://tiny.cc/0gl0ez If you look through Alamy, you'll see that there are almost no WPOTH images in stock, for good reasons. Those few that are, are there as proper images, so may well have been placed there by the copyright holders.

My capacity for 'sharing the joy' is very limited when my bottom line is hit. Strange, that.

Ah, yes. Go Alamy. And to motivate us all, we'll give our directors a lovely massive pay rise, and you a lovely little cut in rates.

I'm still waiting for 18 sales from May to clear, several of them live news sales. The reponse I received to my query was the usual standard email 'We're aware...'

I find it a little strange that 87% of FFT's spend go to SBL. It wouldn't be my cause of choice to donate to, given my loss of income (not so good for my own urinary tract, to be honest). As you mention, the last research paper appears to have been published 2014. The research quoted for clinical trials and other research areas of focus (i.e. cancer immunotherapy) all seem more than a few years old. That doesn't reflect so well, imho.

Yes, they probably should. Do the contributing agencies care? Nope. Do Alamy care? Not sure. I suspect these tons of images, particular those from the Chinese agencies, often pretty shots and fitting Alamy's 'stock and a bit of soft news weather decorative prettiness on the side' concept down to the tee. Taken in via news to further bolster stock numbers, nothing else. Just my view.

Glad you enjoyed it!

It's best to store the tripod somewhere before going up the Shard, you won't be able to use it up there. If it's a travel tripod and fits in the cam bag, they usually let it through the airport style scanner in the bag, but not for use up there. Bring a black backing or better wear a black long-sleeve t-shirt, works a treat with the reflections there, which can be really bad depending on what your fellow visitors wear, stripes are particularly annoying. I used to go up there a lot for a few years with one of their annual passes but eventually got annoyed by the crowds at sunset. (black shirt also works well on the London Eye). For a reasonably undisturbed shot of the walkie talkie from the Shard, you can...umm...take it from the loos up there. No, I'm not kidding. The only place up there where you get one of the windows+view to yourself (although they can be dusty). Another nice, free semi-aerial view is from the Tate Modern Blavatnik Building viewing platform. Tate security are also not keen on tripods or lots of camera gear, but 1 bag with two bodies/lenses tucked in usually goes through ok. It can get crowded. Used to have good sunset views also, but the recent architectural marvels on its western side are now largely blocking that. The Sky Garden is lovely, if you're just one person you can often get in with a little wait without the pre-booked free tickets (which seem to book a long way in advance), but it's not guaranteed and at busy times they may tell you to come back and try again a few hours later if you haven't booked. The good thing is that un-ticketed, you can stay as long as you like (unless they have an event). It has reflections as well, but they're less tricky than the Shard's (depending on time of day/light). Plenty of tall buildings in the City and elsewhere also have fab views (friends who work in office towers blocks in handy), particularly the roof terrace bars, too many to list but there are plenty of listings online and on a warm summer's eve, most don't mind you taking a few shots if you consume a cocktail or three. Hyde Park Hilton's bar and resto also has lovely view, ditto places like Duck and Waffle ...but they all come with a hefty price tag of drinks/meal. Have a great day in London on Saturday. BTW. Trooping the Colour, EID Festival Trafalgar Square and the Naked Bike Ride are all on (and more)! 🙂 PS. Re London Eye - on a Saturday the queues are very long. Also, whichever time you go, if it's a sunny day, you'll be shooting directly into the sun on either the left or right side. And your fellow passengers can be a pain, many tourists are ruthless when it comes to sticking their selfie sticks absolutely everywhere and not moving an inch.

😂 True, they may have been ancient live news usages. Thing is - without the correct usage date range, I can't tell. Perhaps I unknowingly captured Jacob RM going past in his horse drawn carriage.

Has everyone else just had editorial website usages dropping in with a start date 01 Jan 1900 and end date 01 Jan 1905? Of course there is a chance that the dusty Kodak Brownie in my grandfather's camera collection did produce some extraordinary shots, which are now finally being paid for (we all know that some publications like to take a flexible approach to reporting sales and Alamy payment terms). But I suspect it is more likely that this is a bug or error. Is it one specific publication/publisher?

It does say that on my FileZilla as well, every time (I regularly update it, so don't think that is the issue). I must admit I just ignore it. The message doesn't seem to pop up with other FTP connections I file to, but it could just be a bug, not sure. Doesn't seem to have caused any issues so far. (as far as I can tell...)

Cheers SShep.

Thanks TeeCee. Went in the print version as well.