Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

I was informed by someone on the Alamy team that one of my images has been removed as 'it was flagged as being glamour.'  It was of a woman's breasts.  No sexy stuff.  Just a straightforward image of a part of a woman's anatomy.  I was also told they would not brook any discussion on the matter.  Ok.  I am not arguing about that image.  If that is Alamy's idea of glamour then that is their problem.

 

But I there are some real double standards going on here.

 

Just enter 'glamour in to the search box and see what comes up.  

 

It's the same double standards when it comes to the London Underground logo.  Mine were removed.  Others are still there and some have actually sold.

 

No doubt this message will be taken down.

 

Dealing with Alamy is so frustrating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know they have sold?

 

There should be no problems with pics of the logo if the image is marked RM and no property releases.

 

Were your images RM or RF?

 

Jill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could it have been your keywords?

 

woman breast: 31,634 Results

That doesn't look as if Alamy is policing this subject.

 

wim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could it have been your keywords?

 

woman breast: 31,634 Results

That doesn't look as if Alamy is policing this subject.

 

wim

Does it really need policing? Breasts aren't illegal as far as I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know they have sold?

 

There should be no problems with pics of the logo if the image is marked RM and no property releases.

 

Were your images RM or RF?

 

Jill

 

Apparently London Transport are very protective of their logo and in a similar vein to the National Trust clearout a few years ago, I had several London Underground images deleted and uploads rejected because of the logo.  I have repeatedly emailed Alamy about images they have not removed (which they did) but gave up when I spotted one image of the logo being used online.  I reported it in the "Images found" section but it  wasn't removed from sale (and it has been re-used atleast once since).

 

Maurice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Penis 5850 results. Seems like all is fair game.

 

Allan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regards to the London Underground 'roundel' (as I understand it) the sign needs to be photographed within a relevant context such as platform, train, station, street scene etc as well as marked RM and no property release.

Edited by digi2ap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jill, with the greatest of respect you have missed the point.  I am not complaining about the image being classed as 'glamour'.  The judgement is Alamy's and I respect their ground rules - although the image has been in the collection for at least 4 years.  Nice to know they keep a sharp eye on things.  I am making a point that there are hundreds of real glamour images still on sale.  My point is that Alamy are working to double standards.

FYI I know they have sold because one was reported.  It doesn't matter if that image was RM or RF. It has nothing to do with it at all. They cannot (or shouldn't be sold) on Alamy.  Again. Alamy's decision.  All my images that contain the London Underground logo are lodged with other libraries and sell quite well.

 

There was nothing in my keywords that suggested glamour.

 

digi2ap - again, with the greatest respect you are incorrect - at least as far as Alamy are concerned.  If the roundel is (in their opinion) the focus of the image then it should be removed.  Unfortunately it can take them a very long time to take the images down.  Maybe they should just enter the relevant keywords in the search box - that way the images will appear.  It's not exactly rocket science.

 

The image of mine that Alamy has removed has already been sold three times with another library and twice with another - in each case it was to illustrate articles concerned with cancer awareness.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The image of mine that Alamy has removed has already been sold three times with another library and twice with another - in each case it was to illustrate articles concerned with cancer awareness.  

 

Gordon,

 

it looks like you've just spotted the resident gorilla.

 

wim

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • 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.