Jump to content

Recommended Posts

In my opinion, the worst plagiarism is copying someone else's photos, especially where they contain a unique viewpoint of an iconic location or a common subject not thought of by others. By comparison, copying keywords seems, to me, trivial.

 

dd

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if they now start using a flash based page, that may stop some people from right clicking, coping and pasting. That still won't stop it, there are so many ways to copy and paste..... using any type of protected page.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, the worst plagiarism is copying someone else's photos, especially where they contain a unique viewpoint of an iconic location or a common subject not thought of by others. By comparison, copying keywords seems, to me, trivial.

 

dd

 

True, but keywording is the tool which enables your unique photo to be found...if someone combines the two and has a better CTR, where does that leave you?

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In my opinion, the worst plagiarism is copying someone else's photos, especially where they contain a unique viewpoint of an iconic location or a common subject not thought of by others. By comparison, copying keywords seems, to me, trivial.

 

dd

 

True, but keywording is the tool which enables your unique photo to be found...if someone combines the two and has a better CTR, where does that leave you?

 

 

. . . a very carefully crafted example :-) . . . leave out "and has a better CTR" and you have stalemate . . . both with the same image, same keywords . . . within just those two parameteres, which is after all where my posts firmly planted itself, there is no advantage to either.

 

My portfolios at Getty and Corbis show extensive keywords under each image. When I was with Photoshop PhotoLibrary and Picade, same. I don't see it as an issue there, or then, and neither do I now.

 

Opinions will of course vary . . .

 

dd

Edited by dustydingo
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if Alamy said what was the reason to show public all keywords now? I hope it's issue that will be fixed fast :|

 

"but keywording is the tool which enables your unique photo to be found..."

This is our (hard) work to do...

Edited by Arletta
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

In my opinion, the worst plagiarism is copying someone else's photos, especially where they contain a unique viewpoint of an iconic location or a common subject not thought of by others. By comparison, copying keywords seems, to me, trivial.

 

dd

True, but keywording is the tool which enables your unique photo to be found...if someone combines the two and has a better CTR, where does that leave you?

 

. . . a very carefully crafted example :-) . . . leave out "and has a better CTR" and you have stalemate . . . both with the same image, same keywords . . . within just those two parameteres, which is after all where my posts firmly planted itself, there is no advantage to either.

 

My portfolios at Getty and Corbis show extensive keywords under each image. When I was with Photoshop and Picade, same. I don't see it as an issue there, or then, and neither do I now.

 

Opinions will of course vary . . .

 

dd

 

You may be right (...you may be wrong!).  Maybe I'm just naturally paranoid, sceptical and cynical (maybe?! :lol:).  I, too, have keywords enabled at Photoshelter and (to a limited degree) on my own personal Website.  Just not sure about the click-through idea to others photos here.

 

Anyhoo, I guess I'll just plod along with my own advice for now (last para: "Nothing to be done but forget it and move on?...." etc.)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
...

 

My portfolios at Getty and Corbis show extensive keywords under each image. When I was with Photoshop and Picade, same. I don't see it as an issue there, or then, and neither do I now.

 

Opinions will of course vary . . .

 

dd

 

 

 

But don't Getty and Corbis edit the keywords rather than (just) the photographer? So they are going to do that properly one assumes. As would most of us here but there are always some lazy @@@@s who want to take the easy route for a quick buck who will, as they did, cut and paste. It was a major issue on the Alamy forums 8-10 years ago; many long threads...

 

As has been said here frequently keywording is time consuming and slow, boring work for most of us. So why should my competitors rip my work off? They may not make much money but they will certainly screw the searches up for the honest contributor and, worse, for the customer.

 

Can someone, anyone, explain why someone searching for an image even needs to see the keywords? Surely all they need is the caption?

Edited by Martin P Wilson
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's strange how the keywords are ordered - comprehensive then essential then main.  I don't see the point of it personally but may be missing something.  Whatever the reasoning it would have been nice to have heard from Alamy as to why.

 

Pearl

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the lack of communication prior to putting this live today.

 

We've made this change in response to customer feedback, they want as much info as possible about an image and sometimes its hidden in keywords.

 

Also it helps the search engine optimization of the pages and gives customers pointers to other images on Alamy if the one they are on isn't quite right.

 

Thanks

 

Alamy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Corbis certainly display their own hierarchical keywords. Here's a recent one that resides on both Corbis and Alamy:

DP964F.jpg

Here are Corbis' keywords they display:
corbis_keywords.jpg

Here is the same picture now with all of Alamy's:
alamy_keywords.jpg
And here is the almost identical layout on Photoshelter:
photoshelter_keywords.jpg

While Corbis also have their own links that take you away from your image, it's far harder to copy and paste.

Richard.

Edited by Richard Baker
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmm. Still feel it was not the most pressing need for change...

 

For me keyword phrases are essential e.g. "united kingdom" would prevent spurious search results coming up for "united" (or even "manchester united") or "kingdom"

Edited by Martin P Wilson
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

'if the one they're on isn't quite right'- thanks Alamy for directing the customer away from my image!

First time I've not agreed with a policy, I think.

Edited by spacecadet
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

But doesn't Corbis and some other agencies do the keywording themselves? In which case if they decide to make the keywords visible thats up to them - my grouse is that I do my own keywords (like everyone on Alamy), and I feel a bit hacked off that now anybody can have a look and copy/add if they wish to. Keywording is hugely important and time-consuming.

 

Which brings me back to the point that this may benefit Alamy overall but not an individual contributor - at least not most of the ones on this forum

 

Kumar

  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

We've made this change in response to customer feedback, they want as much info as possible about an image and sometimes its hidden in keywords.

 

Alamy

I can see the utility of that approach.  I get e-mails from MS asking about photo details.  For example: "was this taken at a zoo, animal sanctuary, or in the wild?".  A quick look at all the keywords should have given the buyer the necessary info. 

 

I've never cut and pasted another image's keywords.  It doesn't save me any more time than doing a Google search and cutting and pasting my own keywords into new images.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We've made this change in response to customer feedback, they want as much info as possible about an image and sometimes its hidden in keywords.

 

Alamy

I can see the utility of that approach.  I get e-mails from MS asking about photo details.  For example: "was this taken at a zoo, animal sanctuary, or in the wild?".  A quick look at all the keywords should have given the buyer the necessary info. 

 

I've never cut and pasted another image's keywords.  It doesn't save me any more time than doing a Google search and cutting and pasting my own keywords into new images.

 

That info could have been put in the description surely.

 

Pearl

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

'if the one they're on isn't quite right'- thanks Alamy for directing the customer away from my image!

First time I've not agreed with a policy, I think.

 

It works both ways of course - yes it may direct a client away from your image (if they don't think it's right for them) but it can just as easily direct a customer to your images from another...

 

If this makes the customer experience better than that's got to be good for everyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So is it not possible to allow only registered clients/buyers to see this additional info in the same way that only certain clients/buyers zooms will register?

  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Alamy, the very reason keywords were hidden in the first place (I think it was back in 2007 or 2008 sometime) was because people were copying each other's keywords.  Why the change in heart?  This is a bit disturbing.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

But doesn't Corbis and some other agencies do the keywording themselves?

 

I do all the same keywording for Alamy and Corbis. Corbis somehow select their own key-categories to display but it's me who's done the initial graft. 

 

Richard. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

Which brings me back to the point that this may benefit Alamy overall but not an individual contributor - at least not most of the ones on this forum

 

Kumar

 

We have to remember every library's first duty is to its owners, not its contributors; in strict terms they are not really our agents. They  do not represent the contributor in the way a theatrical agent or author's agent looks after their client's interests. Perhaps what we need is to find our (or a smallish like-minded group's) own agent, I guess that is effectively what Magnum for instance does. Alamy and other libraries are just a store like Tesco's and we are the equivalent of farmer's producing their milk - except we do not get paid unless our pinta is sold (mind you we do sometimes get chance to sell it more than once). As supermarkets do with their suppliers the libraries tell us what price they are going to give us, whatever it cost us to produce - like it or lump it.

 

I used to freelance in the IT/ interim management industry. It is the same there, so called "agents" represent, first and foremost, the interests of their customers, the corporations and government departments not the freelancer (they are just "resource", like our images). At least I knew in advance what I was going to get paid; I usually had chance to negotiate and could refuse the work if I was not satisfied.

 

It is something we all really need to understand; it changes the expectations, and relationship.

Edited by Martin P Wilson
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I can see the utility of that approach.  I get e-mails from MS asking about photo details.  For example: "was this taken at a zoo, animal sanctuary, or in the wild?".  A quick look at all the keywords should have given the buyer the necessary info. 

 

That info could have been put in the description surely.

Pearl

 

For better or worse, in my case the description and main keyword fields are essentially identical (given the 300 character limit).

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.