Author Topic: DT keyword issue (Read 6727 times)

litifeta · « **on:** June 07, 2008, 23:27 »

I suggested to DT that copying the keywords of a file not your own might be a good idea.

I got an answer back to check another forum post where a photographer and DT staff said it was considered stealing.

Personally, I have a real issue with this. You can easily log into CanStockPhoto and use their keyword tool if you are really stuck for ideas.

Some dude puts in his login into to his keywords to check if someone is stealing them. I just think this is weird to the extreme.

Fact is people search by keywords, not the talent.

What do the rest of you think? You have heard my opinion, i reckon the English language is free of copyright.

rjmiz · « **Reply #1 on:** June 08, 2008, 03:03 »

Here's the deal:

A young photographer spends some time setting up and takes a picture.
Brings it into his computer.
Spends some time editing it to make it most appealing for the stock industry.
Takes his time, thinks of all the keywords that may apply. Selecting only those that apply.
After completing all his tasks he uploads it and waits.

The point is he "Hand Crafted" that image from the very start. Moving from it's inception to completion.
The keywords (just words grouped together) might have taken 15 minutes of his time and effort.
They are unique only when they applied to that image. But they are unique, he took the time to gather them
so that when grouped together as a whole they tell a story of that image.

For this he must be commended.
To have a stranger just come along and surgically remove the images and quickly apply them to another image
is distasteful, immoral, BUT STILL LEGAL.

It's not illegal but it seems to me a sin.

Cranky MIZ

jsnover · « **Reply #2 on:** June 08, 2008, 10:50 »

Quote from: litifeta on June 07, 2008, 23:27

Some dude puts in his login into to his keywords to check if someone is stealing them. I just think this is weird to the extreme.

I think that when you copy keywords without even looking at what you're doing (which is obviously what happened when people copied a contributor's login name), at the very least you're creating spam, which doesn't help the site.

I imagine that all of us have looked at images similar to ours to see how they're keyworded, but most of us use that as a tool to learn how to keyword better (perhaps adding a few keywords we hadn't thought of to our own images) rather than an opportunity to cut and paste a set of words that may or may not apply to our image.

The problem is spam - and secondarily images with rotten keywords (too few with important ones left off). Solve that and the keyword copying problem would be pretty insignificant.

mantonino · « **Reply #3 on:** June 08, 2008, 11:05 »

Quote from: litifeta on June 07, 2008, 23:27

Some dude puts in his login into to his keywords to check if someone is stealing them. I just think this is weird to the extreme.

I would like to know how a username relates "to the content of the image" as far as not being spam.

rjmiz · « **Reply #4 on:** June 08, 2008, 11:11 »

I recycle my own keywords. REASON....I do strictly concept images.
Multiple images that share a common theme.

Where I screw up is when the last image in a series of concepts does not resemble
the first image very much anymore, and I have used the same keywords throughout the series.

So I need to pay closer attention to the recycling of my own keywords.

Cranky MIZ

Pixart · « **Reply #5 on:** June 08, 2008, 11:28 »

I'm past the point of being upset by people who borrow my keywords - but for God sake review them first before you paste them. I've put my user name into a few of my images so I can tell who has simply cut'n'pasted. My fave is the guy from Netherlands with a photo of a single elk crossing the road who used my keywords: he has used two, duo, pixart, saskatchewan (a province in Canada), prairie.. and others that do not relate at all. Maybe he doesn't even speak english. No big deal. Some of them are quite obvious, but one with my name is a chalet and I can't imagine which photo he copied them from because I have nothing like it.

I wonder if sleezy spammers put Iofoto in keywords just to get extra hits?

melastmohican · « **Reply #6 on:** June 08, 2008, 12:26 »

Wow, some people want even copyright their keyword sets to eliminate competition?

Recently I have routine that I check pictures from the same location on SS. First, let's say I am uploading pictures from "Crater Lake". English is my second language so I am not always that creating in terms of vocabulary. I compare my keyword set with what somebody else got. Obviously I am always finding out that there is other place on Earth called "Crater Lake" so I am not getting tags like Africa or South America :-) Second source of my inspiration is Wikipedia. I scan first paragraph for words I missed.

Tazzy · « **Reply #7 on:** June 08, 2008, 13:39 »

Personally, I don't think it's that big of a deal to borrow keywords here and there. When I'm keywording a photo, sometimes I have a hard time coming up with what I think is a sufficient amount of words. I will search for similar photos and see what keywords they used. And, sometimes I will borrow a word here and there that I never thought of. And, I certainly wouldn't mind if someone did the same thing to me. Because ultimately in the end, it's the photo that sells, not the keywords.

madelaide · « **Reply #8 on:** June 08, 2008, 15:38 »

Quote from: jsnover on June 08, 2008, 10:50

I imagine that all of us have looked at images similar to ours to see how they're keyworded, but most of us use that as a tool to learn how to keyword better (perhaps adding a few keywords we hadn't thought of to our own images) rather than an opportunity to cut and paste a set of words that may or may not apply to our image.

And as a non-native English speaker, I often find keywords I don't know when I search for images similar to those I want to submit. Sometimes I also see conceptual words I would never think of.

When we start we are very narrow in keyword ideas, I think we stick with the obvious, not thinking much about synonims and variations (plurals, composed keywords). As we see what others do, we learn.

Another aspect: almost any chocolate image is keyworded with "valentine" or "love". I think it doesn't make much sense (and mind you, here in Brazil giving chocolate for Valentine's Day is considered a lack of attention

), but then if I don't keyword my images the same, I am left behind, right?

Keyword spamming is also what irritates me, as well as a careless copy&paste from one image to another (like one image had a pen, the other of the same series doesn't, but "pen" appears in both).

Regards,
Adelaide

rjmiz · « **Reply #9 on:** June 08, 2008, 16:32 »

Tazzy
your statement "I don't think it's that big of a deal to borrow keywords here and there..."
Implies to me that it's ok if you use other people's words due to you inability to come up with words on your own.

And you think it is morally ok? You use the word "borrow" I believe so as to avoid the word "Take".
Borrow sounds less imposing and minimizes your actions. I appreciate you honest confession, but I wont accept your justification for doing it.

Now I realize it is perfectly legal, and that no laws are actually broken. However I think it wise to remain silent and keep it to yourself.
There are other means of obtaining help in gathering Keywords other than surgerically removing them from fellow photographers.

Cranky MIZ

vphoto · « **Reply #10 on:** June 08, 2008, 16:43 »

There are other means of obtaining help in gathering Keywords other than surgerically removing them from fellow photographers.

Cranky MIZ
[/quote]

again, MIZ made me laugh. thank you,, MIZ. I imagined heartless people removing others hearts, brains, livers just to improve there own sales of beaches, sausages, book covers.

Tazzy · « **Reply #11 on:** June 08, 2008, 18:54 »

Quote from: rjmiz on June 08, 2008, 16:32

Tazzy
your statement "I don't think it's that big of a deal to borrow keywords here and there..."
Implies to me that it's ok if you use other people's words due to you inability to come up with words on your own.

And you think it is morally ok? You use the word "borrow" I believe so as to avoid the word "Take".
Borrow sounds less imposing and minimizes your actions. I appreciate you honest confession, but I wont accept your justification for doing it.

Now I realize it is perfectly legal, and that no laws are actually broken. However I think it wise to remain silent and keep it to yourself.
There are other means of obtaining help in gathering Keywords other than surgerically removing them from fellow photographers.

Cranky MIZ

The last time I was aware, nobody has a copyright on words. I don't go around copying and pasting the entire list of keywords from someone elses photo. Sometimes I see a word here and there that I didn't think to use, and I use it. Take or borrow, I think some people are getting a little too upset that they feel someone else is using their keywords. Also, you can't take something away from someone if they don't own it.

jorgeinthewater · « **Reply #12 on:** June 08, 2008, 22:00 »

If you have a very unique image probably it will be difficult to find much in the way of keywords to copy. But if you have an image of lets say a girl holding a cell phone while seated in front of a computer

what could you possibly not copy even if you didn't look a the other photographers image?

I use this site all of the timehttp://arcurs.com/keywording/

Saves time, less spelling to check. But it becomes hard to use when your image is very unique. Like this one:http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-3033640-elote-cooked-on-a-street-corner-in-chiapas-mexico.html

No moral issue with this service since the list given is not from one picture but a group of images from different photographers. Most of the time I probably could have come up with the words myself, very few unique or original words. This is still stock photography not original from the depth of your soul

art. Yes there is original thought involved but taking a picture of a plate of mashed potatoes with gravy on top is not deep thought is it? Is not advancing the intellectual level of human kind to the next level is it? So why get all uptight about keywords? Webster still has a book full of words that can be used, right? In a way if a whole series of images of the same concept come up on a search because they have identical keywords might be a good thing since the playing field is leveled and the best image for that concept will pop out. It wouldn't be because of original keywords but because its a great image.

Just might thoughts.