Legit?

[Steve F]

11 minutes ago, Panthera tigris said:

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.

 

Hey Paul, not sure why you got a red arrow.

re. fake, well, because we know the photos by competition winners have been faked several times in the recent past. See my link to 'fakery' above. So it may or may not be an actual 'moment in time'.

Steve

Edited October 23, 2019 by Steve F

[DJ Myford]

After the wolf debacle I would think that WPoTY would take extra care to ensure the genuine nature of the winners. They do require RAW files for examination, to ensure there has been no significant alteration to the image, other than the basic adjustments allowed by the rules. DNG files are not acceptable unless they are the native RAW format of the camera used.

[meanderingemu]

1 hour ago, Panthera tigris said:

 

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.

yeah, interesting first assumption now is fakery.   

[spacecadet]

2 hours ago, Panthera tigris said:

 

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.

I treat red arrows as a bit of a joke- capitalise them and come up with some witticism on name of the air display team. Passes the time.

[Sally]

9 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

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. 

Yes Reportage bypasses QC. 

I came across this by searching for one word: 'fungi' on Alamy. 

Edited October 23, 2019 by Sally

[meanderingemu]

3 minutes ago, Sally said:

Yes Reportage bypasses QC. 

I came across this by searching for one word: 'fungi' on Alamy. 

 

 

i know it bypasses QC, but does it bypass any review whatsoever?  News at least goes through the News desk, so they can decide what to push, so i would assume it could be blocked there.  But i wonder if Reportage could almost become a free for all.  

[digi2ap]

Having read the caption I can't think who would be the legit buyers of this image?  That's because original images are provided for press review see the Guardian's article  - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/gallery/2019/oct/16/wildlife-photographer-of-the-year-2019-winners-in-pictures so why should any editorial publication buy an Alamy download?  I agree with those who think this is rather dubious practice.

[imageplotter]

43 minutes ago, digi2ap said:

Having read the caption I can't think who would be the legit buyers of this image?  That's because original images are provided for press review see the Guardian's article  - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/gallery/2019/oct/16/wildlife-photographer-of-the-year-2019-winners-in-pictures so why should any editorial publication buy an Alamy download?  I agree with those who think this is rather dubious practice.

 

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.... 

[Panthera tigris]

I find this subject very interesting. But I don't know enough to pass any judgment on a legal basis (rather than ethical or indeed moral). Not that I want to pass judgement, just to understand the limits of these sort of things legally regards copyright (UK).

With all the complications we have seen on the international scene with "derivative works" and some huge payouts for using another person's base image to create one's own image I am not sure on this one but would assume the inclusion of text makes it legally OK for editorial?

 

BUT what if the picture was the main subject, with no text included and perhaps part of the black background included . How would this be legal (sincere question not rhetorical)?

 

 

Edited October 25, 2019 by Panthera tigris