| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/07/2004 05:35:47 PM · #201 |
Originally posted by bobgaither:
The rule of size and resolution is enough handicap then you wouldn't have to worry if someone cheated or not |
Sorry, but I'm not following the logic here at all. The "challenge" part of DPC is the fact that your shot has to be taken during the challenge week, and not a shot culled from the hundreds of thousands of shots that may already be on somebody's hard drive.
Originally posted by bobgaither:
its just human nature to cheat especially in today's society. |
So are you saying that you think cheating is OK? |
|
|
|
01/07/2004 05:49:22 PM · #202 |
Originally posted by bobgaither:
I think you ought to go back to the day of conception of the website for there has to be people that have placed that shouldn't be there for its just human nature to cheat especially in today's society. |
Because:
- many people who won before do not participate anymore
- the rules were not the same back to day one
- that would be 870 photos for the site council to validate and that just ain't happening. |
|
|
|
01/07/2004 07:42:08 PM · #203 |
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
When you do a search of photographers, the site council members are all at the top of the initial list. |
I forgot about that fact and I knew that before, got to admit though a simple list of who is going to have access to the file makes a difference for some. |
Get to know your site council: There is also a list of site council members if you click Help | About in the menu at the top of the page. (Also includes a picture of each council member, including a very sexy picture of John, I might add...) |
|
|
|
01/07/2004 08:01:45 PM · #204 |
Originally posted by bobgaither:
I have the perfect solution just give us a theme each week and let us do the rest. The rule of size and resolution is enough handicap then you wouldn't have to worry if someone cheated or not. So how long has this rule of the top five been in place? I think you ought to go back to the day of conception of the website for there has to be people that have placed that shouldn't be there for its just human nature to cheat especially in today's society. |
I have a better idea. Let's abide by the rules, regardless if it goes against society and human nature. I have faith that most of us are still capable of doing that.
T
Message edited by author 2004-01-07 20:07:30.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2004 08:09:31 PM · #205 |
I think everyone should be forced to sit in small room with 5000 watt lights shinning on them and be forced to admit that they perambulate while walking and gesticulate while talking and most likely used a Wal-Mart filter for the shot and it was just a lucky frame!!
Yea, that’s the ticket, that should get some results. :P
Beware the robot!! hahahaha
|
|
|
|
01/07/2004 08:10:57 PM · #206 |
| I have submitted over 100 pictures in DP Challenges and after reading all this about requesting EXIF original pictures I checked out my camera today and to my surprise the dates are wrong on my originals. I was never aware of this before. I have not submitted any pictures that I have taken that were not within the time period allowed. I have had a few pictures in the top 10 recently and it looks as if there may be more on the present challenges. With the wrong dates imprinted on these original pictures will I be DQ'ed? That would not seem fair to me as this was an honest mistake. I would hate for this to happen after all the work I have put into my pictures. It would be extremely disappointing if the administration would be so harsh as to not recognize that mistakes happen and they should maybe give a warning first before they DQ someone. |
|
|
|
01/07/2004 08:19:16 PM · #207 |
| waaaaaa!!! How freakin hard is it to keep your orginal file??? I think it is a very good rule. Top ten should keep the orignal file!! Thats why there is a -save as-!! Those who do not like this rule-----> waaaa!!! |
|
|
|
01/07/2004 08:32:15 PM · #208 |
| Well the ones that have cheated know who they are? I wouldn't want something if I didn't earn it. It would mean less to me if I had to cheat to get it. I'm a rare breed, its something my mother taught me and my brothers. I would trust my brothers with anything and I have. I just think a witch hunt will only stop a few from doing it for if you want to do something bad enough there is ways to get around it. I have DSL so uploading a 4mb to 5mb raw file is not that bad to prove I didn't cheat. Now if I had to submit a 14 mb tiff file that would take more time if I had dial up it would be a pain and plus the fact you get the feeling of not be trusted for a few, lets say, for them that bend the rules. Open it up with the rules and then no one will have to cheat. Everything will be cut and dry. You'll get better images and you will learn a lot more. |
|
|
|
01/07/2004 08:32:54 PM · #209 |
Originally posted by fredroj:
waaaaaa!!! How freakin hard is it to keep your orginal file??? |
Yea, unfortunately, I keep even the rejects, in .raw format no less. So I have 420 gig and burn DVD data disc’s so I don’t have to delete anything. :/
|
|
|
|
01/07/2004 08:41:16 PM · #210 |
Originally posted by deafwolf:
Originally posted by fredroj:
waaaaaa!!! How freakin hard is it to keep your orginal file??? |
Yea, unfortunately, I keep even the rejects, in .raw format no less. So I have 420 gig and burn DVD data disc’s so I don’t have to delete anything. :/ |
i keep everything, too. as soon as i get home from a photo shoot, i immediately burn a disc of everything that is on my media cards. |
|
|
|
01/07/2004 09:46:35 PM · #211 |
Originally posted by deafwolf:
I think everyone should be forced to sit in small room with 5000 watt lights shinning on them and be forced to admit that they perambulate while walking and gesticulate while talking and most likely used a Wal-Mart filter for the shot and it was just a lucky frame!!
Yea, that’s the ticket, that should get some results. :P
Beware the robot!! hahahaha |
The robot has other things in mind for you. Oh yes.
|
|
|
|
01/08/2004 05:22:36 PM · #212 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by deafwolf:
I think everyone should be forced to sit in small room with 5000 watt lights shinning on them and be forced to admit that they perambulate while walking and gesticulate while talking and most likely used a Wal-Mart filter for the shot and it was just a lucky frame!!
Yea, that’s the ticket, that should get some results. :P
Beware the robot!! hahahaha |
The robot has other things in mind for you. Oh yes. |
Oh good!! I hope it's that flogging thing they were talked about on the other thread. I tried to volunteer. |
|
|
|
01/13/2004 04:47:00 PM · #213 |
You know, I missed this (and other) threads due to having no interest recently in going photo-hunting, but now that I've read through it (yes, really, the whole thing) I really have to re-iterate and re-emphasize some points about copyright, especially since there are some "facts" posted that just aren't.
1) You own the copyright the moment you take the picture, as it's stored in tangible, fixed form. No one seems to be unclear on this, but hell, let's start with the basics.
2) Sending a copy of your picture to someone does not invalidate a copyright. Rights must be specifically sold or assigned for any transfer of rights to be legal. There is no such thing as an assumed transfer of rights. Possession has nothing to do with who owns the rights. Why anyone thinks so is beyond me, but I saw this repeated several times.
3) DPC's agreement contains a specific and very limited non-exclusive assignment of rights that does not let them do whatever they want with the photos you send in, but only allows them to do precisely what they say they're going to do. (Although it probably wouldn't hurt to amend the verification process rules to say that it doesn't constitute a transfer of any rights, so people can be assured that they're aren't giving DPC the right to post their unedited original.) Note that this agreement is in writing and that your electronic signature is required to signify agreement with this limited assignment of rights. There is a reason for this. See point #2.
I don't get the whole "RAW file is like a negative" thing, but someone else has argued that, so I'll leave it be.
In closing, none of you people who are worried about it should ever be writers. In the writing world, they require you to submit entire manuscripts, and apparently that would give several people here heart attacks. I'm also unclear on how you can gleefully submit the pictures you do to the site where everyone can see it but somehow the original being shown to a small group is vastly different.
Signed,
A writer first, a photographer only for fun |
|
|
|
01/15/2004 11:16:40 AM · #214 |
It doesn't invalidate the copyright, but you're entering into a murky pool. Especially if you give out your original. Think of it in court's terms -- how do they know you are the original photographer? If you possess the original then you have a better case.... if two people possess the same original, then it'd be much more difficult to prove.
So that's something to consider if you do plan to market the photo.
Originally posted by qachyk:
You know, I missed this (and other) threads due to having no interest recently in going photo-hunting, but now that I've read through it (yes, really, the whole thing) I really have to re-iterate and re-emphasize some points about copyright, especially since there are some "facts" posted that just aren't.
1) You own the copyright the moment you take the picture, as it's stored in tangible, fixed form. No one seems to be unclear on this, but hell, let's start with the basics.
2) Sending a copy of your picture to someone does not invalidate a copyright. Rights must be specifically sold or assigned for any transfer of rights to be legal. There is no such thing as an assumed transfer of rights. Possession has nothing to do with who owns the rights. Why anyone thinks so is beyond me, but I saw this repeated several times.
3) DPC's agreement contains a specific and very limited non-exclusive assignment of rights that does not let them do whatever they want with the photos you send in, but only allows them to do precisely what they say they're going to do. (Although it probably wouldn't hurt to amend the verification process rules to say that it doesn't constitute a transfer of any rights, so people can be assured that they're aren't giving DPC the right to post their unedited original.) Note that this agreement is in writing and that your electronic signature is required to signify agreement with this limited assignment of rights. There is a reason for this. See point #2.
I don't get the whole "RAW file is like a negative" thing, but someone else has argued that, so I'll leave it be.
In closing, none of you people who are worried about it should ever be writers. In the writing world, they require you to submit entire manuscripts, and apparently that would give several people here heart attacks. I'm also unclear on how you can gleefully submit the pictures you do to the site where everyone can see it but somehow the original being shown to a small group is vastly different.
Signed,
A writer first, a photographer only for fun |
|
|
|
|
01/15/2004 11:51:59 AM · #215 |
Playing Devil's Advocate here:
What are the chances someone from site council was at the same place while you were? I would think chances are pretty good you'll have an easier time proving you were in that specific place to take the photograph than someone who is trying to 'steal' your work.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2004 12:02:38 PM · #216 |
Originally posted by paganini:
It doesn't invalidate the copyright, but you're entering into a murky pool. Especially if you give out your original. Think of it in court's terms -- how do they know you are the original photographer? If you possess the original then you have a better case.... if two people possess the same original, then it'd be much more difficult to prove.
So that's something to consider if you do plan to market the photo.
|
On the other hand, when you submit your original it is visible to all 16 members of the Site Council. If any one of us were to actually attempt to steal your photograph, you would have 15 witnesses who could attest to the fact that person had taken your photograph.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
01/15/2004 12:03:47 PM · #217 |
| What if we're all rotten and in it together? |
|
|
|
01/15/2004 12:11:00 PM · #218 |
Originally posted by mk:
What if we're all rotten and in it together? |
Shhhhh!!!!
-Terry
|
|
|
|
01/15/2004 12:14:55 PM · #219 |
| (pssst, CJ...we're claiming dibs on certain photographers in chat right now...hurry while the gettin's still good!) |
|
|
|
01/15/2004 12:16:58 PM · #220 |
Aww, I wanted kiwi's, but he's in the site council! Doh!
|
|
|
|
01/15/2004 12:29:26 PM · #221 |
| Every winner should get a free tinfoil pointy hat when they submit their original file. After all, the site council might steal ideas for new pictures right out of their brains if they don't shield them properly... |
|
|
|
01/15/2004 02:40:06 PM · #222 |
Stranger stuff has happened, CJ, this is the net after all.
I am not against submitting originals, but anyone who does should know the risk involved. Then again, you shouldnt' submit anything to an online site otehr than your own if it's marketable anyway.
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by paganini:
It doesn't invalidate the copyright, but you're entering into a murky pool. Especially if you give out your original. Think of it in court's terms -- how do they know you are the original photographer? If you possess the original then you have a better case.... if two people possess the same original, then it'd be much more difficult to prove.
So that's something to consider if you do plan to market the photo.
|
On the other hand, when you submit your original it is visible to all 16 members of the Site Council. If any one of us were to actually attempt to steal your photograph, you would have 15 witnesses who could attest to the fact that person had taken your photograph.
-Terry |
|
|
|
|
01/15/2004 02:41:36 PM · #223 |
It is true that even august journals such as the National Geographic have been known to steal photographers work and (re)use it without permission or additional payment, so it isn't a huge stretch to find prior examples.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2004 04:11:24 PM · #224 |
Originally posted by mk:
(pssst, CJ...we're claiming dibs on certain photographers in chat right now...hurry while the gettin's still good!) |
Awww...shucks... I can't hit the chat from work... Can you save some for me?!?!
-Terry
|
|
|
|
01/15/2004 04:34:42 PM · #225 |
Originally posted by paganini:
Stranger stuff has happened, CJ, this is the net after all.
I am not against submitting originals, but anyone who does should know the risk involved. Then again, you shouldnt' submit anything to an online site otehr than your own if it's marketable anyway.
|
I won't dispute that. It's possible, as far as you know, that all of us on the Site Council are part of a conspiracy to make steal other people's work. It's also possible that the Site Council does not, in fact, exist at all, but is in fact one or two people trying to lull you into a false sense of security. I could be that person, and my business associate might be down at the Congress Avenue bridge selling prints of your photography to tourists right now. Of course, if you believe any of this might actually be happening, I would question why you are making ANY of your photography, original or otherwise, available to us at all.
Now, if you'll excuse me, my business associate just got back, and I have to get this deposit to the bank before they close. ;-)
-Terry
Message edited by author 2004-01-15 16:35:12.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/03/2025 03:19:21 PM EDT.
