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

DPChallenge Forums >> Administrator Announcements >> Notes on the Artwork Rule
Pages:   ... ...
Showing posts 226 - 250 of 732, (reverse)
AuthorThread
12/09/2008 05:06:21 PM · #226
Originally posted by Prash:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Prash:

- I can include someone else's work in the background as long as it is not in focus and is not going to compel a voter into thinking that is the real work of art, not the foreground? ...that was not captured by the author in its originality.

It's already been covered several times in this thread alone, but I'll say it again. For the purpose of this rule, IT DOES NOT MATTER ONE IOTA WHO CREATED THE ARTWORK, only how it's used. Using someone else's image/painting/sign might be a copyright issue (a ToS violation), but ownership has nothing whatsoever to do with a violation of the artwork rule.

Originally posted by Prash:

Can I request a validation of this image now?

"You may.. submit any disqualification requests as soon as you suspect a rule violation, but no later than seven days after the challenge results are posted." It was already validated anyway.


Sorry, but there's a contradiction here because it's been said that the posters/billboards used in street photography entries are considered "ok" because it's obvious that they are billboards. Yet, you mention a copyright issue. These are also copyrighted! Where are the lines?


The lines are where the council draws them;-)


LOL...Yeah and they are not solid or even agreed upon where they are amongst even SC! ;-)

I just received my DQ for my entry into the Sunset/Sunrise Challenge because I used the same methods as LydiaToo and Hotpast and Konador and a great many others have used, as discussed in here. All of a sudden, LydiaToo and myself have both been hit by DQ's. I guess we were just unlucky and missed that line that others have hopped over! DRATS....gotta learn to skip faster now! ;-)

Message edited by author 2008-12-09 17:06:57.
12/09/2008 05:06:58 PM · #227
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Ok, so to you, you see that one shot as being an obvious fake...there's going to be a lot of upheaval unless the rules are changed on this.

Two things:

1. I don't see any of them as an obvious fake. That's exactly my point. They all look legal and only one was DQed because only one had a validation request (because it was in the top 5).

2. To address the second part of your quote above: I disagree. I think there would be much more upheaval if the rules are changed. As it is now, there is the occasional DQ because of the artwork clause. If we allow all artwork regardless, all editing rules become moot ('cause you could just edit something however you want, take a pic of it and enter it).
If we disallow all artwork, now images like those below become illegal. I'd rather have a few subjective DQs than lose those images.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/938/120/733388.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/938/120/733388.jpg', '/') + 1) . '' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/938/120/733351.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/938/120/733351.jpg', '/') + 1) . '' . substr('https://images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/hidden.png', strrpos('https://images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/hidden.png', '/') + 1) . '
12/09/2008 05:16:06 PM · #228
It's simple folks. If you use a photograph in your image make sure your final image doesn't convey the message that the entirety of the image was taken at the same time. If you don't, it'll look like you tried to fool some into thinking that you were the photographer of the whole scene/setup.

Now stop all your incessant bitching and go shoot! jeez :)
12/09/2008 05:19:51 PM · #229
Originally posted by Prash:

I doubt it met the rulesets strictly (teh central theme of the image NOT being author's work, but a background image), yet was validated.. perhaps on the edge.. I dont know.

The rule (at the time) was that some significant part of the image had to be real. The hand and bulb base were real, so it was validated unanimously. The background image was used with the author's permission, and credit given in the photographer's comments section. The entry was not primarily "about" the moon background itself, but the bulb as a whole being placed into the sky- the whole composition.

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

it's been said that the posters/billboards used in street photography entries are considered "ok" because it's obvious that they are billboards. Yet, you mention a copyright issue. These are also copyrighted! Where are the lines?

The billboards entries are derivative compositions– scenes shot in public with that particular sign in the background. I doubt you'd have much of a case for copyright infringement. However, if you brought up someone else's image on a commercial stock photo site and used that as a background, then you could run into problems with ownership, regardless of whether or not the use met the artwork rule. Likewise, it could be a ToS violation to sell a photo of the Eiffel Tower or a Ferrari as a print, regardless of any other DPC rules. If you entered someone else's photo you happened to find on Flikr, you'd probably be banned for life even if it met all other rules. Ownership is a completely separate issue.

Message edited by author 2008-12-09 17:21:01.
12/09/2008 05:20:20 PM · #230
Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Ok, so to you, you see that one shot as being an obvious fake...there's going to be a lot of upheaval unless the rules are changed on this.

Two things:

1. I don't see any of them as an obvious fake. That's exactly my point. They all look legal and only one was DQed because only one had a validation request (because it was in the top 5).

2. To address the second part of your quote above: I disagree. I think there would be much more upheaval if the rules are changed. As it is now, there is the occasional DQ because of the artwork clause. If we allow all artwork regardless, all editing rules become moot ('cause you could just edit something however you want, take a pic of it and enter it).
If we disallow all artwork, now images like those below become illegal. I'd rather have a few subjective DQs than lose those images.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/938/120/733388.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/938/120/733388.jpg', '/') + 1) . '' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/938/120/733351.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/938/120/733351.jpg', '/') + 1) . '' . substr('https://images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/hidden.png', strrpos('https://images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/hidden.png', '/') + 1) . '


Points taken...I was referring to using artwork or photos as a main part of the photo, not as an incidental part of the photo (of course we are going to get artwork of some kind in photos as "incidentals"..ie: livingroom shots, store signs etc.) Someone holding a magazine across their chests is "incidental". Someone holding up a magazine with a face on it as part of their model's faces (as shown in an example in this thread) is a different story. That is NOT "incidental". That is a direct and main part of the shot. The same holds true of someone posing in front of a mural on a wall or, a billboard as in the street photography challenges. It's all the same idea no matter whether someone can tell or can't tell that it's a billboard. Either it's permitted to use artwork as a major part of your shot, or it's not. Incidental pieces of art don't count.

Unfortunately, it will be debated that the rules already state that but, the fact is, it's not enforced evenly because some are being allowed to do it (ie: can tell it's a billboard or couldn't tell that it was a photo or piece of artwork) while others are being DQ'd for it.
12/09/2008 05:22:32 PM · #231
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

it's not enforced evenly because some are being allowed to do it (ie: can tell it's a billboard or couldn't tell that it was a photo or piece of artwork) while others are being DQ'd for it.

You'll need to back that up with examples validated under the same rules.
12/09/2008 05:23:39 PM · #232
Originally posted by Jac:

It's simple folks. If you use a photograph in your image make sure your final image doesn't convey the message that the entirety of the image was taken at the same time. If you don't, it'll look like you tried to fool some into thinking that you were the photographer of the whole scene/setup.

Now stop all your incessant bitching and go shoot! jeez :)


I'd love to go shoot but, because of my DQ because of this issue and another rule that was able to be loosely interpretted (I didn't have a hand guide and table to follow on allowables ;-)), I have an entire week to sit and bitch about it! ;)
12/09/2008 05:26:07 PM · #233
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

it's not enforced evenly because some are being allowed to do it (ie: can tell it's a billboard or couldn't tell that it was a photo or piece of artwork) while others are being DQ'd for it.

You'll need to back that up with examples validated under the same rules.


You have them right on this thread. The one with the woman posing in front of the billboard (Street photography) and the one that's in question of LydiaToo's and Konador's shot that can't be deciphered between real fireworks or a print out/screen.

ETA: Now, if you're going to say that those were under a different set of rules at the time, well, it's a little hard to figure that all of us are going to take the time to go through each photo to see what "rule set" someone was under at the time they shot that photo. When challenges are brought up in a current challenge thread for instance from previous similar challenges, people get ideas for their own photos. They see one thing done and it sparks an idea in them as well. Thus, my own situation with LydiaToo's shot. I figured it won a ribbon, therefore, it was validated and it's therefore, "ok" and "legal" to do! Is that not reasonable to have thought since that shot was under the same guidelines and time frame? Now, not only has LydiaToo suddenly been DQ'd but, mine has as well!

Anyone else in here get ideas from previous photos and apply something from them to their own, thinking that it's all valid?! Do any of you check to see if the dates they were taken fall under a different set of rules?

To say that everyone should be doing that, means that the rules are SO "sticky" and "tricky" that it's a full time job just to keep up with some of them.

Message edited by author 2008-12-09 17:32:59.
12/09/2008 05:28:54 PM · #234
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Points taken...I was referring to using artwork or photos as a main part of the photo, not as an incidental part of the photo...Either it's permitted to use artwork as a major part of your shot, or it's not. Incidental pieces of art don't count.


I see. I guess I didn't get that out of what you said earlier: "So, either the photo in a photo rules includes all, or it includes none. It's far too ambiguous for any of us to figure out."

So, in your new plan of attack, who gets to decide whether something is incidental or not and thus determines whether or not the image gets DQed? The SC? How is that different and/or better or less subjective than what we have now?
12/09/2008 05:32:18 PM · #235
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

it's not enforced evenly because some are being allowed to do it (ie: can tell it's a billboard or couldn't tell that it was a photo or piece of artwork) while others are being DQ'd for it.

You'll need to back that up with examples validated under the same rules.


You have them right on this thread. The one with the woman posing in front of the billboard (Street photography) and the one that's in question of LydiaToo's and Konador's shot that can't be deciphered between real fireworks or a print out/screen.

Bzzzt! The woman in front of the billboard is legal since it's very obviously artwork, and the fireworks shot was never questioned for validation.
12/09/2008 05:34:23 PM · #236
Originally posted by Jac:

It's simple folks. If you use a photograph in your image make sure your final image doesn't convey the message that the entirety of the image was taken at the same time. If you don't, it'll look like you tried to fool some into thinking that you were the photographer of the whole scene/setup.

Now stop all your incessant bitching and go shoot! jeez :)


This sounds like it clarifies it pretty well.
12/09/2008 05:36:02 PM · #237
Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Points taken...I was referring to using artwork or photos as a main part of the photo, not as an incidental part of the photo...Either it's permitted to use artwork as a major part of your shot, or it's not. Incidental pieces of art don't count.


I see. I guess I didn't get that out of what you said earlier: "So, either the photo in a photo rules includes all, or it includes none. It's far too ambiguous for any of us to figure out."

So, in your new plan of attack, who gets to decide whether something is incidental or not and thus determines whether or not the image gets DQed? The SC? How is that different and/or better or less subjective than what we have now?


LOL......yeah, I see your point there too! Getting the "thumbs up" from SC on that as well would also present a problem since as it stands now, it's a bit of a mess.

What is your suggestion? Leave things the way that they are and allow some to slip by and others be DQ'd? It's obvious that we all can't write SC to see if our ideas are ok or not, right? :)
12/09/2008 05:38:00 PM · #238
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

It's obvious that we all can't write SC to see if our ideas are ok or not, right? :)

Why not?
12/09/2008 05:40:34 PM · #239
Originally posted by BeeCee:

Originally posted by Jac:

It's simple folks. If you use a photograph in your image make sure your final image doesn't convey the message that the entirety of the image was taken at the same time. If you don't, it'll look like you tried to fool some into thinking that you were the photographer of the whole scene/setup.

Now stop all your incessant bitching and go shoot! jeez :)


This sounds like it clarifies it pretty well.


It *sounds* good, but it still has this glaring hole: it means if you do it really, really well you get DQ'd, whereas if you do a half-assed job you're gonna skate...

R.
12/09/2008 05:41:13 PM · #240
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

It's obvious that we all can't write SC to see if our ideas are ok or not, right? :)

Why not?


Like someone else has said further back in this thread, if people were to write to SC with their ideas, one or two SC members might ok it, based on their idea/interpretation. The entry gets put in. Someone questions it (voter or another SC member)and when SC looks at it as a "whole", the rest of the members see a problem with it and it gets DQ'd at that point. "Too late" as that person has said.
12/09/2008 05:41:31 PM · #241
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Anyone else in here get ideas from previous photos and apply something from them to their own, thinking that it's all valid?! Do any of you check to see if the dates they were taken fall under a different set of rules?


Yes and Yes. When I enter a challenge I put a check in a box that states "Yes, I have followed the applicable editing rules taking into account any extra rules listed above." I feel that it is my responsibility to do everything in my power to make sure that my entry is legal. On a more personal note, Jamie, I feel like I have a pretty solid grasp of the rules and I would have no problem checking out any potential entries of yours in the future if you wanted a second opinion (or third if you submit it to the SC for unofficial pre-validation as well).
12/09/2008 05:42:23 PM · #242
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by BeeCee:

Originally posted by Jac:

It's simple folks. If you use a photograph in your image make sure your final image doesn't convey the message that the entirety of the image was taken at the same time. If you don't, it'll look like you tried to fool some into thinking that you were the photographer of the whole scene/setup.

Now stop all your incessant bitching and go shoot! jeez :)


This sounds like it clarifies it pretty well.


It *sounds* good, but it still has this glaring hole: it means if you do it really, really well you get DQ'd, whereas if you do a half-assed job you're gonna skate...

R.


Yup, that's how I see it as well.
12/09/2008 05:45:23 PM · #243
lol, after 241 posts here I'm thinking this thread is not actually solving anything!
12/09/2008 05:47:30 PM · #244
Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Anyone else in here get ideas from previous photos and apply something from them to their own, thinking that it's all valid?! Do any of you check to see if the dates they were taken fall under a different set of rules?


Yes and Yes. When I enter a challenge I put a check in a box that states "Yes, I have followed the applicable editing rules taking into account any extra rules listed above." I feel that it is my responsibility to do everything in my power to make sure that my entry is legal. On a more personal note, Jamie, I feel like I have a pretty solid grasp of the rules and I would have no problem checking out any potential entries of yours in the future if you wanted a second opinion (or third if you submit it to the SC for unofficial pre-validation as well).


I thank you for the offer as that would be helpful. However, I often don't have time during a week to shoot so, it's very often thought of and done really much closer to entry time. That means that I wouldn't have time to run this by people and get answers prior to an entry.

I DO read the rules and I THINK that I have a grasp on them! My case in point was the fact that LydiaToo's shot was not only seemingly validated but, also a RIBBON WINNER. I therefore, THOUGHT that mine would be ok as well since I was using the same criteria, set-up and basic idea. Turns out that even SC during the validation process, missed that it was to be considered "illegal". Now, her entry has been DQ'd and so has mine because it was missed first time around! So, if you have a great idea of the rules, it seems that SC didn't in this case! ;-)
12/09/2008 05:49:13 PM · #245
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:

lol, after 241 posts here I'm thinking this thread is not actually solving anything!


LOL...so, what is the answer? Drop the issue completely and hope that no one else stumbles into this position? ;-)
12/09/2008 05:49:56 PM · #246
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

What is your suggestion? Leave things the way that they are and allow some to slip by and others be DQ'd?


Alas, I don't have a solution at the moment. Maybe we will all come up with something useful in this thread! Hey, I can be optimistic, right?
12/09/2008 05:52:10 PM · #247
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

It *sounds* good, but it still has this glaring hole: it means if you do it really, really well you get DQ'd, whereas if you do a half-assed job you're gonna skate...

No, it does not. You can do a fabulous job as long as your entry isn't essentially all about the prior artwork. You can include artwork as a supporting element to some real subject, but not as the subject itself with some little thing added to make it legal.
12/09/2008 05:52:30 PM · #248
Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

What is your suggestion? Leave things the way that they are and allow some to slip by and others be DQ'd?


Alas, I don't have a solution at the moment. Maybe we will all come up with something useful in this thread! Hey, I can be optimistic, right?


LOL....yeah, we can all be optimistic, I hope! In the meantime, I have dinner to cook and more work to do tonight before I can call it a day, so I think I'll go ponder it while I'm doing dishes and finishing up some LATE work since I've whittled the afternoon away on DPC! ;-))
12/09/2008 05:54:58 PM · #249
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

It *sounds* good, but it still has this glaring hole: it means if you do it really, really well you get DQ'd, whereas if you do a half-assed job you're gonna skate...

No, it does not. You can do a fabulous job as long as your entry isn't essentially all about the prior artwork. You can include artwork as a supporting element to some real subject, but not as the subject itself with some little thing added to make it legal.


Ok, so then let's go back to the idea of the billboards! If the entire shot is of a billboard as the examples shown on this thread, and a person is added in front of the billboard, doesn't that fit with what you've just said is considered "legal" then?????
12/09/2008 05:56:15 PM · #250
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

My case in point was the fact that LydiaToo's shot was not only seemingly validated but, also a RIBBON WINNER. I therefore, THOUGHT that mine would be ok as well since I was using the same criteria, set-up and basic idea. Turns out that even SC during the validation process, missed that it was to be considered "illegal". Now, her entry has been DQ'd and so has mine because it was missed first time around! So, if you have a great idea of the rules, it seems that SC didn't in this case! ;-)


Just in case you run into this same situation in the future, you could always PM the ribbon winner and make sure that it has actually been validated. It's actually kinda scary waiting for that email even when you just know that it's legal. Also, remember that this rule is subjective and Lydia's DQ was based on the "fool the voter" part. Perhaps some on SC were fooled and some were not? Perhaps some couldn't make up their minds? We really don't know what went down, and I think it's inaccurate to say that SC didn't have a great idea of the rules in this case.
Pages:   ... ...
Current Server Time: 12/03/2020 10:00:29 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 © 2001-2020 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: 12/03/2020 10:00:29 PM EST.