Peter Stranks' faulty media index

I noticed that the photos were made by Peter Stranks, but I feel that's not relevant. As you say, there's (currently) no way for people to see a list of photos made by a certain person and the media index of people should not be used as such. It should be used for photos that features them. This is also explicitly stated in the guide (https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/images-videos/image-guidelines/G27LPBQZA7EAZGJW?ref_=helpms_helpart_inline#) in the "Tagging names" part where it says that "If a person's face is clearly seen in an image, you can tag that image with the person's IMDb 'name page'." In cases where the face isn't clearly visible, there are three situations listed in which the name can still be tagged, none of which are for the person who made the photo. (Apart from the above, probably between 99,9 and 100% of the media indexes is used for photos featuring the person, so using a media index to show/promote photos someone made, can lead to confusion.)

Once more, he is a professional photographer in film industry. The first thing other people want to see is his work -- the real pictures you can associate with this person's work, not a dry mention of his full name in the end credits. For such cases I see no trouble at all, even more -- it would be great to keep such images on public, if permitted, after his subscription expired. The only thing that really troubles you is that you see the IMDb hyperlink (blue colored) in the mediaindex. But again, that is his personal claimed page, and you see that images only because you by your free will visited the page. Maybe IMDb should hide such hyperlinks so that contributors don't have to worry... PS: Such content equals to Demoreels [https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/images-videos/how-can-i-add-video-content-to-imdb/GTAM5N8FE79XSY3E?#demo]

We are not in disagreement that he is a professional photographer and that people (might) want to see his work. We seem to be in disagreement about whether or not his work should be shown in his media index. Since the media indexes on IMDb are not meant for this (as also stated in the guide), I see no reason to allow this in his media index, whether or not his name is clickable with a hyperlink on these photos. I fail to see why it is relevant that he has chosen to claim his page because I feel the guidelines should be the same for everybody, whether or not they, by their own free will, give money to IMDb. If he wouldn't have claimed his page (and/or if I wouldn't have seen his media index), my opinion would still be the same. By the way, this situation (something that would serve a purpose for the customers but that's not currently supported because of the way IMDb currently works) made me think about IMDb's lack of a proper place for people who dub a title in another language. For over 20 years (!), I've pointed out to IMDb that dubbers don't have a place on a title's page and don't have a proper place on a name page. I don't add these names to a title's page, even though I feel they should be listed there somewhere and even though I've seen this happen on a great lot of occasions because people want these credits to be listed and they slip through IMDb's net. If we follow your line of reasoning and allow professional photographers to misuse the media index, I see no reason why dubbers shouldn't also be allowed to misuse a section of the database, in this case the cast listing of titles. There have been several threads on this forum about people who added tv series titles for Looney Tunes because they wanted one place in IMDb for all these theatrically released titles, thereby misusing the title types of IMDb. They could argue that they too would have the right to misuse a section of the database because it suits their purposes.