Jump to content

Recommended Posts

wildlife-photographer-of-the-year-at-nat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the wildlife photographer of the year:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/gallery/2019/oct/16/wildlife-photographer-of-the-year-2019-winners-in-pictures

 

But here's another article about the fakery of a lot of entrants:

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/apr/30/fake-animal-photography-taxidermy-baiting

 

Presumably there's more 'cheating' that doesn't get discovered because they pay more attention to the eventual winners. That said, I guess the original raw file needs to be submitted. Can you wipe the record of changes that have been made from a raw file's metadata?

 

It seems tremendously lucky to have photographed at that very instant. I'll reserve judgement, but will maintain a healthy amount of scepticism....

 

Steve

 

p.s. I like how the British website is trying to tell me I'm spelling scepticism wrong....! :) Or is it just Firefox?

Edited by Steve F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the rules of the competition? Does it place all images in the public domain?

 

Don't know if the Alamy contributor has permission for this but it does look dubious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinda doubt it myself, but who knows these days.

 

There was a time when the camera didn't lie (not as easily and not as often, anyway). 🤐

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

What are the rules of the competition? Does it place all images in the public domain?

 

Don't know if the Alamy contributor has permission for this but it does look dubious.

I'm guessing that was the aspect of Sally's question, rather than over the authenticity of the original photograph. Would it come under similar guidelines for artworks? Seems a little risky to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Avpics said:

I'm guessing that was the aspect of Sally's question, rather than over the authenticity of the original photograph. Would it come under similar guidelines for artworks? Seems a little risky to me.

 

 

it's pictures of the exhibit.  Photographer, who seems to be a major reportage artist uploaded each one.  It does seem "in context", but the image do seem easily removed from the context.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

it's pictures of the exhibit.  Photographer, who seems to be a major reportage artist uploaded each one.  It does seem "in context", but the image do seem easily removed from the context.  

Perhaps it should have someone standing inspecting the image with an 'is that a genuine image?' expression on their face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an infringement in my book. Damages, however, would be minimal unless it was licensed, and then against the publisher, not the photographer.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Avpics said:

Perhaps it should have someone standing inspecting the image with an 'is that a genuine image?' expression on their face.

 

 

5 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

That's an infringement in my book. Damages, however, would be minimal unless it was licensed, and then against the publisher, not the photographer.

 

 

it does seem to be one of the artist's niche, so Alamy appears fine with it.  Even when there is someone included in the image , they are always off the side, so the artwork can be lifted. 

 

 

i think as we saw last time, there is a significant reputation risk for Alamy, no financial

Edited by meanderingemu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Avpics said:

I'm guessing that was the aspect of Sally's question, rather than over the authenticity of the original photograph. Would it come under similar guidelines for artworks? Seems a little risky to me.

Indeed it was. Taking a photo of someone else’s highly acclaimed photo in an exhibition (not to mention all the other images from the same exhibition) seems highly dubious to me and I would have thought would open the contributor up to an infringement action. I am surprised that this is acceptable to Alamy.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely unethical. Quite immoral IMHO as well.

I recall when I visited the last exhibition (entrance is by fee payment and ticket only unless u are a member of NHM) had a no photos sign - wonder if its on the ticket as well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

it does seem to be one of the artist's niche

 

Artist? 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

Kinda doubt it myself, but who knows these days.

 

There was a time when the camera didn't lie (not as easily and not as often, anyway). 🤐

 

I once saw a mind-blowing exhibit at the Metropolitan Museum of Art about photo editing before Photoshop - negatives may not have lied, but prints certainly could. 

 

I'd like to see what else could make that squirrel make such a face, LOL. I'd assume the judges would do some pixel-peeping.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like they've taken a lot of photos of the photographs on display in that exhibit.  I've been to that exhibit a couple times when it traveled to Canada and the photography is amazing.   But taking photos of the winning photos and then selling them?  To me that's unethical.    And I'm pretty sure no photography was allowed at the exhibit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A timely tweet from Alamy:

 

Reminder from the Alamy #Copyright team - Images of artwork should only be submitted if shot in a wider context, and should be restricted for editorial uses #stockphotography

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume that this set of images was submitted as News so would have been seen by Alamy staff and considered appropriate?

 

To me the caption doesn't really describe what it claims - it doesn't illustrate the exhibition within the natural History museum in London,  it illustrates the design/layout of the framing of a photographic image. The black surround is hardly 'context' more like negative space or huge film margin.

 

I suppose the lay out of the text does illustrate something or other that could be of technical editorial interest to other people who do design/layouts of images for exhibitions.  But realistically that is not really what each image is about. If it were about that, and the lay-out is identical for all images, it would only need a few examples not comprehensive coverage of all the images on display. 

 

 

Edited by geogphotos
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The little critter on the right says it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Avpics said:

I'm guessing that was the aspect of Sally's question, rather than over the authenticity of the original photograph. Would it come under similar guidelines for artworks? Seems a little risky to me.

Okay, I interpreted "legit" wrong then... #facepalm

 

In that case, the 'artwork' is the principal subject of the photo and there is almost no context. So presumably not permitted by Alamy....?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

I assume that this set of images was submitted as News so would have been seen by Alamy staff and considered appropriate?

 

To me the caption doesn't really describe what it claims - it doesn't illustrate the exhibition within the natural History museum in London,  it illustrates the design/layout of the framing of a photographic image. The black surround is hardly 'context' more like negative space or huge film margin.

 

I suppose the lay out of the text does illustrate something or other that could be of technical editorial interest to other people who do design/layouts of images for exhibitions.  But realistically that is not really what each image is about. If it were about that it, and the lay-out is identical for all images, it would only need a few examples not comprehensive coverage of all the images on display. 

 

 

 

 

Based on rest of work of contributor, work seems to be submitted as Reportage more than News (since images from the 22nd are already into collection), so i wonder if this bypasses all reviews

 

not sure if discussing someone else's work unrequested is allowed in Forum TOS, but the captioning appears in line with their work, ie, General captioning for a whole series of image, and nothing particular on each one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That looks as phony as a 3$ bill. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether the original photo is legit, is an interesting question. It rather reminds me of this though:

https://petapixel.com/2018/04/30/a-closer-look-at-the-stuffed-anteater-photo-contest-scandal/

 

Whether taking a photo of a photo in a gallery is legit... reminds me of another recent case that was discussed on this forum. For me, I'd want more context if it were my image... include someone looking at the photo which would be a much wider shot.

Edited by Matt Ashmore
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Matt Ashmore said:

Whether the original photo is legit, is an interesting question. It rather reminds me of this though:

https://petapixel.com/2018/04/30/a-closer-look-at-the-stuffed-anteater-photo-contest-scandal/

 

Whether taking a photo of a photo in a gallery is legit... reminds me of another recent case that was discussed on this forum. For me, I'd want more context if it were my image... include someone looking at the photo which would be a much wider shot.

 

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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Panthera tigris said:

 

Artist? 

 

Someone gave me a red down vote for that? What has this place become?

 

I am also surprised by the amount of people who think the photo itself maybe "fake". To me its quite clearly a "moment in time" something that all wildlife photographers attempt the accident of every time they press they press the Shutter button.

Edited by Panthera tigris
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.