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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

 

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.