DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> Would you have voted to DQ this image?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 38, (reverse)
AuthorThread
05/17/2010 11:41:35 AM · #1
I'm curious - not angry. Just want to know your thoughts.

This image was DQ'd for the following reason: You may include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph in order to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph.

The galaxy portion of the image is existing art (a photo). It was taken of the picture during the challenge window. This was expert editing, so within the editing rules. So the portion that must apply is fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph.

So, my question to you is, did any of you think I was trying to fool you into thinking I had taken the image?

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/1000-1999/1204/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_876150.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/1000-1999/1204/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_876150.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
05/17/2010 11:44:12 AM · #2
Did I think you took the galaxy photo? No.
05/17/2010 11:45:14 AM · #3
Originally posted by rjkstesch:

I'm curious - not angry. Just want to know your thoughts.

This image was DQ'd for the following reason: You may include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph in order to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph.

The galaxy portion of the image is existing art (a photo). It was taken of the picture during the challenge window. This was expert editing, so within the editing rules. So the portion that must apply is fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph.

So, my question to you is, did any of you think I was trying to fool you into thinking I had taken the image?

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/1000-1999/1204/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_876150.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/1000-1999/1204/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_876150.jpg', '/') + 1) . '


In your notes it says the texture is mud taken last spring. So that would also cause DQ correct?
05/17/2010 11:49:55 AM · #4
Originally posted by MattO:



In your notes it says the texture is mud taken last spring. So that would also cause DQ correct?


quoted from Expert rules

You may..."use images that do not meet the source or date requirements as textures in your entry if they function specifically as textures and not to circumvent other rules."

No DQ for the textures.
05/17/2010 11:57:15 AM · #5
My understanding was that the texture was ok, but the galaxy was not your own work, and a major element, so that was what got the DQ. I think there were some other "picture of a picture" usages in entries, however. Not sure, it is indeed confusing.
05/17/2010 01:14:48 PM · #6
This is a pretty gray area in the rules. I personally would not have voted to DQ, since it is immediately apparent that the galaxy is artwork and not a photo at all. I can understand the viewpoint that some voters may not be knowledgeable enough to make the distinction. It's a tough call.

05/17/2010 01:28:38 PM · #7
I would have DQ's the image for the galaxy. If you had left a little bit of a hint that you didn't actually take the picture then I would say your good but because you removed all trace that it wasn't your photo I would DQ it.
05/17/2010 01:44:46 PM · #8
The thing that sucks for me looking at this one is that the galaxy part doesn't add much to the poster for me - it would have been strong enough with the other elements. To answer the question though, I would not DQ given the potential ambiguity in the rules you listed.
05/17/2010 01:46:00 PM · #9
Personally, I despise expert editing to begin with, and 99.9% of the results of THIS nature that happen because of it. It also just keeps the doors for all kinds of ambiguous DQs open all over the place. For something like this, they should just open the doors up completely, if they're going to have it.
05/17/2010 01:48:49 PM · #10
Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Personally, I despise expert editing to begin with, and 99.9% of the results of THIS nature that happen because of it. It also just keeps the doors for all kinds of ambiguous DQs open all over the place. For something like this, they should just open the doors up completely, if they're going to have it.


I love expert editing. But do agree, open the doors no rules should apply.
05/17/2010 02:05:47 PM · #11
There is no way I would have DQed your image. It is obvious that you didn't take the photo of the galaxy - unless there is something we don't know about you.. are you an astronaut or work at observatory as your day job? :)
05/17/2010 02:19:07 PM · #12
No DQ.
05/17/2010 02:19:42 PM · #13
Was the picture of the girl taken within the challenge dates?
If not what was?
05/17/2010 02:20:23 PM · #14
I'd like to hear from the SC, because I would have thought that this was completely legal. It was obvious that it was existing artwork, and it was obviously not comprised solely of existing artwork. This seems like a questionable call, imo, and make me want to completely avoid existing artwork, period. So I wish it would be explained so we could better understand it.
05/17/2010 03:12:17 PM · #15
Originally posted by thatsanicepicture:

Was the picture of the girl taken within the challenge dates?
If not what was?


I think this is a valid question, of the artwork what was taken during the challenge? If the only images in questions are the mud image used for the texture and the solar system image then I do not think I would DQ but if the image of the girl is in s question then the DQ would be valid. Either way to me expert images are confusing as to what can be done legally.
05/17/2010 04:13:08 PM · #16
The times could overlap...Submission Dates:
Fashion.... Apr 21 2010 - Apr 27 2010

Poster.......Apr 26 - May 2
05/17/2010 04:20:56 PM · #17
imo, the galaxy is a minor element, clearly not a photo, so no DQ vote from me. If you simply posed the model in front of and to the side of the galaxy photo, i think there is no question that it would be legal. I don't see why the result should differ because under expert you were allowed to combine the two elements sitting at your desk instead of traveling with the model to the location for the shoot.
05/17/2010 05:02:27 PM · #18
Clearly not a photo so unless you took a picture of it and pasted that in it would fall under the heading of clipart.

eta: The OP did do a picture of a picture. So much for that argument

Message edited by author 2010-05-17 17:03:12.
05/17/2010 05:05:43 PM · #19
Originally posted by Citadel:

Clearly not a photo so unless you took a picture of it and pasted that in it would fall under the heading of clipart.

eta: The OP did do a picture of a picture. So much for that argument


Even so, that's what I was thinking. Huge gray area, since the galaxy didn't originate with OP. Look at it this way: since we can't use clipart, how about if we print out the clipart and photograph it; is it legal now? I think it's just a wildly messy area of the ruleset, I'm not surprised there's confusion.

R.
05/17/2010 05:54:29 PM · #20
yet one of the confusing things is -- it says you can use existing artwork, not existing photo. What constitutes artwork vs clipart? If it was a poster or a painting, is that artwork and thus legal?
05/17/2010 05:56:18 PM · #21
Personally I'm OK with the DQ, There must be any number of ways to get a picture looking like a galaxy, to me the one he has used doesn't immediately look real, so it could have been faked. IMO photos of a photo should be just downright removed from DCP, its just not your work
05/17/2010 05:56:32 PM · #22
Originally posted by vawendy:

yet one of the confusing things is -- it says you can use existing artwork, not existing photo. What constitutes artwork vs clipart? If it was a poster or a painting, is that artwork and thus legal?


Who the heck knows? I just did a simple flip 'n blend of an original image and let it go at that :-)

R.
05/17/2010 05:59:34 PM · #23
Originally posted by Shadowi6:

Personally I'm OK with the DQ, There must be any number of ways to get a picture looking like a galaxy, to me the one he has used doesn't immediately look real, so it could have been faked. IMO photos of a photo should be just downright removed from DCP, its just not your work


In principle that sounds good, doesn't it? But then how do you deal with a photograph of someone downtown with a giant billboard or poster behind them? What about a world-famous, recognizable work of architecture? We're seeing LOTS of tight shots of Frank Gehry's Disney Concert Hall lately, and that building is "art" by almost anyone's definition... So where do we draw the line? If there were an easy way to do it, they would have done it already. This has been THE most-debated section of the rules, probably, except possibly for issues of what can and cannot be cloned out...

R.
05/17/2010 06:16:09 PM · #24
The picture of the galaxy was shot during the challenge period, with a camera of a photo of the galaxy from an astronomy book. My thinking was that there was no way anyone would think I'm trying to fool them into thinking I'd taken it. It is not clip art. It is a photo of a photo.

All photos were submitted for validation. All photos except the mud texture were taken during the challenge window. The mud texture was specifically allowed to be taken outside the challenge window.

The question is regarding the galaxy image. That's where the DQ came in.
05/17/2010 06:31:18 PM · #25
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

In principle that sounds good, doesn't it? But then how do you deal with a photograph of someone downtown with a giant billboard or poster behind them? What about a world-famous, recognizable work of architecture? We're seeing LOTS of tight shots of Frank Gehry's Disney Concert Hall lately, and that building is "art" by almost anyone's definition... So where do we draw the line? If there were an easy way to do it, they would have done it already. This has been THE most-debated section of the rules, probably, except possibly for issues of what can and cannot be cloned out...

R.


Firstly we are Photographers, not builders so the example of Frank Gehry's building doesn't sit well with me. If I was a builder & used it in my brochure suggesting that I build it I feel that would be a fair comparison. Photographer plagiarism is taking someone else work and representing it as your own. What else is a photo of a photo. A billboard in context is just that, in context so it has elements that the photographer chose to include, creating their artwork. I can see Grey areas but there is a big difference between a billboard on a street to a cropped photo from a book.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 06/20/2021 05:12:04 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 06/20/2021 05:12:04 PM EDT.