Verboten or Tricky Subject Matter

[Harry Harrison]

Just now, spacecadet said:

Say no more, as the saying goes.

 

.....well,  I will say just a little more, that obviously explains why it came under the Alamy magnifying glass, in their words "we actively sweep for street art and murals to identify images that could be problematic" so of course some poor soul is searching for murals and going through them all (or could it somehow be AI?). I'm surprised they thought that one was 'problematic' but they have the inside track on that. I just thought I'd post it here as an example of what Alamy now consider Verboten or Tricky Subject Matter as this thread is entitled. Perhaps it always would have been, perhaps it is an indication of them getting a little jittery, I don't know, I haven't been here long enough. I'm not feeling hard done by or running a campaign to get in reinstated.

[wiskerke]

4 hours ago, spacecadet said:

 

Say no more, as the saying goes.

 

The problem is all those searches using that keyword. A bit more than that other word that's not being searched -yet. But not a whole lot more.

 

Maybe if those terrorists artists terror-artists complain, just send a note back: we've just reported you to the police plus the building owner who will A put you in jail and B demand a huge sum for cleaning it up.

 

wim

[Marianne]

A few years ago I had a statue in LA removed - and it was in context but possibly on private property. Meanwhile, also some years back, I had a $$$ sale of graffiti (also in a wide context and also in LA) so go figure. I thought that public art taken in context was okay, but people can sue for anything and here in the US you don't get your legal fees covered even if you win, so you can win and still lose

[IanDavidson]

On 09/03/2019 at 08:46, Harry Harrison said:

 

Is there a difference between going into a Royal Park to photograph, say, a celebrity, a new car, a fashion/Wedding shoot etc. as against simply taking pictures of the park for stock?

 

It seems rational and acceptable that the former would definitely need a permit but Alamy seems awash with general pictures of the parks, or people enjoying the parks and the ones I've looked at in detail (not many admittedly) don't seem to be marked as editorial only. 

 

Harry

If you go in to a Royal Park with a pro camera and start taking pictures there is a high chance you will get checked out.  Not only by the Parks police but I have noticed (and I have a permit) that the ground staff are quick to report pro photographers.  I hold a national press pass and it is not in my interest to get in trouble with the police.  I am aware that there are photographers who take photos without a permit - but they do that at their own risk.  We do not want to get in to a position where the Royal Parks start policing Alamy like the despicable National Trust.  

[Harry Harrison]

30 minutes ago, IanDavidson said:

If you go in to a Royal Park with a pro camera and start taking pictures there is a high chance you will get checked out

 

Ian, thank you for your reply, and incidentally I certainly wasn't suggesting that you were incorrect or exaggerating, just wondering if there was any leeway for the casual discreet photographer. It sounds from your description as if photographing there is indeed a problem (or is it a challenge!) so if I'm tempted I'll need to take care - and my Fuji X100. I quite understand that as a holder of a Press Pass you need to respect the authorities, and I must say I was quite taken aback about your story of your credentials being withdrawn after you got on a mailing list that was disapproved of by the 'authorities'.

 

Hopefully the Royal Family will steer clear of risking any comparison with the despicable National Trust. Don't get me started on them.