Jump to content
  • 0

Keywords for unidentifiable (or hardly) people in images


Go to solution Solved by Betty LaRue,

Question

I see many images being used where people are not readily identifiable either with significant body including head not present, most features heavily covered or blurred through movement.  With concerns on privacy being greater around the world i assume this is a conscious decision from editors when having a specific person has little value to the story.  These images are listed as having people in them, so now it's all about Keywording to have them found.  I went through AoA, and found only 20 odd search in last year for %faceless%, and 8 for %unidentifiable% .  What other KW do you use?

 

Here is an example, which i am re-KW now to make it easily found:

 

2A4BF09.jpg

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
  • Solution

Unless you have a release, you can only license as editorial. So don’t even consider legality.  Even if there is only a finger in the picture. The idea is to use the best caption and tags to express there are only parts of a person. Since those defining tags aren’t really showing up in AoA, I think you don’t have to worry overmuch what tags to use. Buyers are obviously filtering through the images without using them.
 

In any image where there is only a part of a person, it seems obvious the activity (rest of the image) is the main thrust of what they are looking for. The search for the main object or activity will be what’s searched for. If the buyer only wants a part of a person showing in an image, they will search the main subject or activity, then choose an image that only shows part of a person. 
That’s why you’re not seeing “arms”  “hand” etc. in AoA.

Betty

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, meanderingemu said:

I see many images being used where people are not readily identifiable either with significant body including head not present, most features heavily covered or blurred through movement.  With concerns on privacy being greater around the world i assume this is a conscious decision from editors when having a specific person has little value to the story.  These images are listed as having people in them, so now it's all about Keywording to have them found.  I went through AoA, and found only 20 odd search in last year for %faceless%, and 8 for %unidentifiable% .  What other KW do you use?

 

Here is an example, which i am re-KW now to make it easily found:

 

2A4BF09.jpg

 

 

 

worker, male or female, man or woman, employee, fishmonger?, one person only,

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
21 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

worker, male or female, man or woman, employee, fishmonger?, one person only,

 

thanks forgot "worker".... 

 

but that doesn't really identify that the image is identity-less for the editors.    

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I usually will say in the caption, “Male arms only shown arranging fish on ice for market.” Tags would be arm, arms, hand, hands, worker’s arms, unidentified arms

The caption is a lifesaver in these situations.

Sorry, I’m surely no expert in this area. I have images I struggle with too, for various reasons. I tag and caption, but leave with a feeling I’ve missed something important.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

- not sure about this, but are we the ones to determine whether a person can identify himself/herself? Could such a guarantee backfire on the photographer in legal matters?

What about "arms only", "hands only", etc.

Edited by Niels Quist
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I don't see any searches for 'arms only' or 'hands only' in AoA, not that I'm an expert in using that tool. There are some searches for 'anonymous', e.g. 'anonymous man', 'anonymous woman' etc. Not that many though.

 

'Unidentifiable' just has one for 'unidentifiable school classroom'.

Edited by Harry Harrison
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, Niels Quist said:

- not sure about this, but are we the ones to determine whether a person can identify himself/herself? Could such a guarantee backfire on the photographer in legal matters?

What about "arms only", "hands only", etc.

 

 

but this just a keyword for clients to find what they need.  the data clearly identifies there is a person and no waiver is available.   

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

I don't see any searches for 'arms only' or 'hands only' in AoA, not that I'm an expert in using that tool. There are some searches for 'anonymous', e.g. 'anonymous man', 'anonymous woman' etc. Not that many though.

 

'Unidentifiable' just has one for 'unidentifiable school classroom'.

 

I guess the best solution would be for Alamy to add an "unidentifiable people" filter to search results. Much easier said than done of course, but it might put Alamy ahead of the anonymity curve. Not sure if other agencies currently have anything like this.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

 

1 minute ago, John Mitchell said:

I guess the best solution would be for Alamy to add an "unidentifiable people" filter to search results

 

Yes, that would seem to be about the only solution.  It's no fault of this forum but it would be good to have input from picture researchers, or even professional keyworders when considering this kind of thing. I can see that editors may indeed be put off images with people where there is no model release, they may decide to go for one with no people where the people don't play a significant role, as Jean-Francois says. It's a shame I think, maybe pictures of France (or Quebec) with people but no model releases are less likely to sell.

 

The trouble with a new feature like 'Unidentified people' would be updating the previous 185 million images, a bit like Categories when they were brought in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
8 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

 

 

Yes, that would seem to be about the only solution.  It's no fault of this forum but it would be good to have input from picture researchers, or even professional keyworders when considering this kind of thing. I can see that editors may indeed be put off images with people where there is no model release, they may decide to go for one with no people where the people don't play a significant role, as Jean-Francois says. It's a shame I think, maybe pictures of France (or Quebec) with people but no model releases are less likely to sell.

 

The trouble with a new feature like 'Unidentified people' would be updating the previous 185 million images, a bit like Categories when they were brought in.

 

Maybe at some point down the technology highway, AI will be able to accurately identify images with "unidentifiable people" in them. Faces -- or the lack of them -- would probably be easy for AI to spot. However, miscellaneous body parts could be problematic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Just now, John Mitchell said:

 

Maybe at some point down the technology highway, AI will be able to accurately identify images with "unidentifiable people" in them

 

Yes, quite possibly, I think we have to be careful what we wish for though! 

 

I was interested to see in that Seattle Times article that " xxxxx even has an initiative to algorithmically adjust clients’ image searches so that historically underrepresented stock subjects — such as “female physicians” — turn up more often."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, Harry Harrison said:

 

Yes, quite possibly, I think we have to be careful what we wish for though! 

 

I was interested to see in that Seattle Times article that " xxxxx even has an initiative to algorithmically adjust clients’ image searches so that historically underrepresented stock subjects — such as “female physicians” — turn up more often."

 

Yes, we have to be careful what we wish for. A lot of George Orwell's and others' dire predictions -- technological, political (won't go there), social, etc -- are materializing. Artificial Intelligence will no doubt prove to be a boon in some fields, and a disaster in others. Who knows, it might even be our ultimate undoing. Sorta glad I won't be around to find out.

Edited by John Mitchell
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 09/01/2020 at 20:24, Betty LaRue said:

Buyers are obviously filtering through the images without using them.
 

In any image where there is only a part of a person, it seems obvious the activity (rest of the image) is the main thrust of what they are looking for. The search for the main object or activity will be what’s searched for.

That would be the logical answer. When a customer searches for a subject they are presented with pages of results and then select the image which best suits their need, whether with or without people or any other aspect within the image. Rather than over complicate a situation by second-guessing such details just let the searcher filter them with their eyes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 minutes ago, Avpics said:

That would be the logical answer. When a customer searches for a subject they are presented with pages of results and then select the image which best suits their need, whether with or without people or any other aspect within the image. Rather than over complicate a situation by second-guessing such details just let the searcher filter them with their eyes.

Right on. Then if they are looking for an arm, hand or whatever within the image, they do a further search with their eyes.  Leastways, that’s how I would do it.

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
×
×
  • 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.