After somewhat of a hiatus due to lack of suggestions we're back in force with this dedicated project. Dedicated to what? now what, who: the Artistic Nude community!
Here's a note about a site feature that I know is affecting many photographers including myself, but one that I'm sure many people were not aware of.
The "description" in a deviation IS INCLUDED IN THE SITE SEARCH FEATURE. Not just the "keywords," which are supposed to be where you determine what search terms allow your deviation to be found in site searches. Every word you use in your artist description will cause your deviation to appear in a site search that includes that word.
This means that anyone who states, "This is not a stock image" automatically guarantees that the deviation will show up in every site search for "stock."
So by letting people know that our artworks are not available as a stock resource, we are actually telling people that our artworks are available as stock. Because I'm sure everyone knows as well as I do that not everyone is going to read the description and find the "NOT" before the word "stock" - just as the site search feature doesn't recognize the negative case either.
This was brought to my attention by a stock artist kind enough to let me know it was happening. I contacted the Help Desk, who told me that it had been "handed up the chain" to be taken care of. Weeks later, after a deluge of "Can I use your image in my photomanipulation?" notes, I wrote the Help Desk again. I'm now informed that deviation descriptions are meant to be searchable, so there is no intention of doing anything about this issue. The only solution offered is to alter the word "stock" in the description of EVERY deviation, so it has spaces (s t o c k) or some other such, and cannot be found by the site search. Despite the fact editing every deviation in one's gallery is a very time-consuming process, this is the only option given.
With all the issues of art theft around dA, it seems like a terrible idea to avoid addressing this problem. However if nothing else I hope to bring it to the attention of every artist on the site - BY TELLING PEOPLE THAT YOUR ART IS NOT STOCK, YOU ARE IN FACT PUTTING IT IN FRONT OF EVERY PERSON LOOKING FOR STOCK IMAGES TO USE.
Not to mention, this makes the site search feature much less effective all-around, again, because the site search does not recognize conditions or negatives. So if I were to say in my description, "Here is a departure from my usual subject matter of artistic nude images," THIS PHOTOGRAPH WOULD APPEAR IN A SEARCH FOR "NUDE" images. No wonder the site searches return so much material that is anything but what we were looking for.
So again - dA seems to have no interest in changing this functionality, but be aware - no matter what the context of any statement in your artist description, every word in it is searchable with the site search function.
It's happened to me, which is why my "not stock" disclaimer is on my front page, and not in the descriptions. Problem is, not everyone looks at your front page. *sigh* That is a tough problem.
-- See my first film The LBM Nude Shoot here on dA: [link]
Good article, but the title was a bit yellow-journalistic. It doesn't make it stock--it makes it show up when people look for stock. That's like saying "having a nude picture as your MM icon makes you an active nude model"--no, it just makes you look that way, and makes it frustrating when you then write "no nudes" in your bio.
And the point is that in many people's eyes - if shows up in a search for "stock," it IS stock to them. They don't look any further. That isn't right, but it is why, with all the art theft issues, this IS a problem to have the search feature working this way.
Exactly. Some people don't read anything anyway, but at least if it is in each deviation, it is there regardless of where they found that deviation.
I can only imagine now - for all the notes I'm getting saying, "I found your image in a search for stock, so can I manipulate it?" How many pieces are now being created using my images, that I don't even know about, with no permission, because people are searching "stock," finding my images, and just using them without saying a word.
Of course if I see such, I will ask for it to be removed, and turn it in as a copyright violation if it isn't. But problem is, having these images come up in a search is implying an invitation to use them for something that they are expressly not meant for - very confusing, and not a good use of the site's feaures at all.
I think it sends a stronger message to say "No unauthorized reproduction" or "protected by copyright" than "this is not stock"--saying "this is not stock" seems to me like "this may look like stock, and smell like stock, but it's not stock. Sorry for the confusion" rather than "this is an original piece of art not intended for your use. Appreciate it in its complete form, as seen here, or buzz off"
I know what you're saying. Problem is... copyright is owned without even having to say a thing, but people don't listen to that either. Some people aren't going to read or listen to anything, but some people need that explicit, specific statement, to "get" it. Some people don't make the distinction of what "looks" like stock or not - they're not analyzing quality, they're just figuring if it exists, it must be available for use. So the higher the quality, the more desirable. Especially with probably a general ignorance of what true stock photography really is.
"you steal this and I'll sue you" does not involve the word "stock"--my "best of" album has copyright information. Not because it makes it more legally protected, but because when you use professional legal language at people they take you more seriously. The fact is, most people on dA do NOT have a lawyer on retainer for suing copyright violators. Most people WON'T persue their copyrights. But if you're willing to, the best way to let people know that is by telling them in legal terms.
Yeah, I'm not sure. Considering I just sued someone a few weeks ago and won, I guess I'm good with the idea of suing if anyone messes with me and doesn't back down. I do think that the site should allow us to decide what wording to use in our comments, without it meaning that our images come up in searches they shouldn't. Keep keywords searchable, keep comments NOT searchable. It's like the example I stated: "Here is a photograph a little different from the nudes I usually shoot." Suddenly this image comes up in a search for "nudes." Which is not appropriate for my non-nude image, or to deviants searching for images that actually are nudes.
yeah... my stuff comes up when you search uniquenudes because often my comments include stories of shooting together or traveling together... which can confuse people.
Devious Comments
--
hope this makes the honchos think of a happy medium, as ignoring the issue only makes art thieves bolder.
--
it's more important to click with people than the camera. - Alfred Eisenstaedt
And the point is that in many people's eyes - if shows up in a search for "stock," it IS stock to them. They don't look any further. That isn't right, but it is why, with all the art theft issues, this IS a problem to have the search feature working this way.
I can only imagine now - for all the notes I'm getting saying, "I found your image in a search for stock, so can I manipulate it?" How many pieces are now being created using my images, that I don't even know about, with no permission, because people are searching "stock," finding my images, and just using them without saying a word.
Of course if I see such, I will ask for it to be removed, and turn it in as a copyright violation if it isn't. But problem is, having these images come up in a search is implying an invitation to use them for something that they are expressly not meant for - very confusing, and not a good use of the site's feaures at all.
Previous Page12345... Next Page