imageplotter

Yes, I also still have quite a lot of uncleared sales from January onwards. That in itself is not unusual, but in combination with the almost non existent pay out this month, it worries me deeply. I look forward to getting some background on that announced thread. (hopefully)

Ian, I think he just spotted those trainers with the hole in them and thought they looked suspicious! 😀 I guess I've just discover what is possibly the only advantage of being a female in this business (and there are many, many disadvantages in a 90%+ male environment). Despite running around those same Westminster haunts most days with 2 camera bodies dangling off me, I've not been questioned by Police (yet) and only really have to show the NUJ card at the Downing Street gates (where the officers are always faultlessly friendly and professional). I probably just look too innocent. Common misconception.

Absolutely agree. And a lot of harm can be done with false allegations, as we all know. But it's never a good idea to create these worshipped, larger-than-life figures. Just imho.

Yes I do that, too. My comment was more regarding direct sales on the news side.

Journalism is about the full picture. And it serves as a timely reminder not to put anyone on a pedestal, as tempting as that may be in these dark times.

Agree. They're effectively buying market share in editorial/stock.

Yep. Agree on all of the above. This doesn't surprise me though, to be honest, it looked like the business was being beefed up and prepared for a sale for some time now. Direct sales may well be the way forward. I've already further reduced the amount of time I spend doing news in favour of other photography work, which was a financial necessity for me. The news bit is so small and likely not or not very profitable, I'm not optimistic that they'd want to keep running it. I'll wait and see for a while, not looking forward to potentially having to make a large number of stock pics non-exclusive and do loads of work on them to sell elsewhere. But if needs must... I hope they'll keep the stock brand at least, my worst fear would be for the library to gradually be dumped into a microstock environment.

Geographically, it will always remain 'in Europe'. Unless the island suddenly drifts off and docks on to Iceland, Greenland or Newfoundland (get your coats and mittens out, folks), or drifts a bit further and joins Florida (they may turn us into an exclusive gated golf resort called England-al-Lago), or it drifts even further and docks on to the coast of Venezuela (they may turn us into a Corbyn-al-Lago work camp). But a quick look at any map tells me that Ireland may act as a bit of a bumper to any 'drifting of'. 😋

Bit of a shame we haven't heard back from the OP, but I have now deleted the picture from the catalogue (180 days deletion time is outside my control). I agree that 'I was looking around Google' does sound a bit odd but so be it. Especially when typing Imageplotter into the very same Google will have brought up my website with a contact button (it works well, I promise) that sends me a message. My advice: best not to wear a head crab at next Comicon again, because there will be dozens of photographers who may be tempted to snap it. Happy Wednesday before the election, everyone, have a good day.

That thought had crossed my mind (as it hadn't been zoomed). If that's the case...bit sad. Nuff said. Alas, as I said, happy to delete it isn't going to be on a front page any time soon, nor have the National Portrait Gallery called about it yet for next year's awards, so the hassle free solution is to delete and move one, for everyone's peace of mind. Head crabs and all. 😊

Hi Jigget, Sorry, I've not seen the thread until now, I work a lot at the moment (full time photographer) and don't often come to the forum. It's a tough environment for photographers these days, and it only gets tougher. First of all - I'm happy to remove the photo if you want. I don't think it has ever sold. The Comicon shots do sell sometimes, but it's a bit of an over-saturated subject, often the heavily costumed shots do better. But newspapers like these candid or semi-candid shots, often more then the posed ones. It's a shame you don't like the pic though, I think it's quite a nice shot. But as I said, in this case - I'm happy to remove it. I'll to that tomorrow, it'll probably remain visible in the Alamy catalogue for a couple of months because the database updates only so often and the latter is not something I can influence, but I wouldn't worry too much that it sells in the meantime (not because it's so unflattering, it isn't, but because there isn't such huge demand for Comicon pics and there are thousands on file), and it will then be gone from the catalogue after the next update. (2 months or so) Just an additional comment: I regularly photograph Comicon, 2-3 times a year. I am always there with full press accreditation from Comicon (I also hold an NUJ British press card in addition). This means I am allowed to do press shots within the grounds, and inside the venue with the knowledge of Comicon. Comicon do accredit photographers in advance, in writing. In my view, they probably accredit a few too many togs at each event, but that is not for me to judge. If you sat where you sat, you will inevitably have noticed the scores of professional and amateur photographers, some with full mobile studio setups including softboxes, 2-3 lights etc., some doing posed portraits, many doing candid shots, many, like me, doing a mix of both. When shooting, at Comicon and elsewhere, I do try to ask people where possible/appropriate (especially where i.e. minors are featured heavily in the pics or anyone classed as vulnerable), but this is news/press photography and you have to be quick to catch the moment before it's gone. That is what news and press pics are all about. In this case I was quite far away and I liked the moment, 'costumed Comicon visitor sitting on the stairs looking through his (modern) mobile phone, in a bit of a juxtaposition with the costume character'. I took quite a few similar shots of others, it's a common way to show the event, lots of shots like that get taken and published on news/stock sites every year (that means you are very likely on lots of other photographer's shots, not all news agencies and not all stock archives are publicly accessible). Little elves doing selfies, Spidermen and women looking a bit exhausted, Cosplayers on their way home to the tube, that sort of thing. So there is indeed an element of this being a very public event, with usually a very outgoing sort of crowd of heavily costumed players, many of whom not only happily pose but actively seek to be photographed. I'm not in any way saying that that gives me the right to shoot anything and everything without consideration - I am not a pap and never will be, there are many shots where I put my cams down that colleagues will shoot. I won't. But I would agree with some of my colleagues - if you go to Comicon, there is an element of 'know what to expect'. Anyway, hope this helps. All the Best, Chris

Ditto. Image numbers up, sales volume up, revenue slowed considerably. I've adjusted accordingly. Neither stock nor news have ever been a dominant part of my overall photo business or revenue, but they were a reliable add-on, and enjoyable for some time. They no longer are, other types of photography are more profitable, enjoyable and more rewarding overall. They may carry more risks (dealing with clients directly is not always fun) I suppose that's how it goes, the trend is hard to ignore unless you put your blinkers on and pretend it's not happening. Shame, really. But life goes on. Elsewhere.

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.