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 201 - 225 of 732, (reverse)
AuthorThread
12/09/2008 04:01:12 PM · #201
Then, what about all of the Street Photography where the entire background, or a lot of it is made up of photography?!

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/938/120/733421.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/938/120/733421.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/938/120/733524.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/938/120/733524.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
12/09/2008 04:01:24 PM · #202
Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

In the photo being discussed from 'Feast' I voted on the image based on the people seated at the table, the way it was illuminated, etc... So, in essence, I voted on a photo of a photo.

As ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', '/') + 1) . ' Bear_Music has pointed out, this was also taken and processed by the same photographer on the same day, who is thus is completely responsible for any artistic or technical qualities (or lack thereof) in that (indeed, every) portion of the photo.

Oh, so she got to enter two photos at once then?


According to that reasoning, we should ban all background photographs.
Right?
12/09/2008 04:02:15 PM · #203
Originally posted by Prash:

Originally posted by Prash:

' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/user_id/811.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/user_id/811.gif', '/') + 1) . ' karmat, would the nightbulb entry be legal today, with the revised rulesets?


?


' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/316/120/154133.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/316/120/154133.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Can ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/user_id/811.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/user_id/811.gif', '/') + 1) . ' karmat or someone from the SC clarify this so I can understand the ruleset?

This image is from a Basic editing IV challenge. Part of the ruleset says:

"Artwork: Literal photographic representations of existing works of art (including your own) are not considered acceptable submissions, however creative depictions or interpretations are permissible. This includes, but is not limited to paintings, sculptures, photographs, drawings, computer artwork, computer monitors, and televisions. A literal representation is one which is composed in such a way as to compel the voter to rate only the work of art represented and not the artistic decisions made by the photographer (e.g., lighting, composition, background elements, etc)."

Is it legal today to take such pictures and submit to a basic editing ruleset?
12/09/2008 04:06:58 PM · #204
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Doesn't everyone see how lame that is?


I concur with you Robert.

An aside to those with the "give more weight to photos with heavy setup" argument (ala Jorge et al) - I find that argument (not the photos) a bunch of pooh (imho): work smarter, not harder, with tools you have.
12/09/2008 04:07:27 PM · #205
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

...we can assume that everyone who cared to think about it thought this was a legal image.


I think this is the most important part of what you said. As evidenced by this thread (and backed up by my general impression of DPC voters), I would think a very small percentage of the people that viewed or commented on that image after voting was over know about or understand the artwork rule (or they did understand, thought it was illegal, and still didn't ask for validation for some reason). During voting it looks legal. See my earlier post where I describe this problem. I remember looking at that challenge during voting, but I'm sure I didn't see Hotpasta's notes afterwards. If I had, I would have requested validation.

The only reason I won't request validation on it now is I would rather have an illegal image stand than get it DQed a year after voting closed.

Message edited by author 2008-12-09 16:09:58.
12/09/2008 04:07:32 PM · #206
Originally posted by Prash:

A literal representation is one which is composed in such a way as to compel the voter to rate only the work of art represented and not the artistic decisions made by the photographer (e.g., lighting, composition, background elements, etc)."

The key word was "only." At the time, any real object included in the composition was enough to make the artwork NOT literal. IMO it'd be a borderline case under the current rules, but probably OK since the voters should reasonably know the moon isn't real.
12/09/2008 04:08:07 PM · #207
The rules now --

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.

Does this appear to be consisting entirely of a pre-existing photograph? No.

Does this appear to be consisiting entirely of a pre-exisiting photograph to circumvent date or editing rules? Umm, *I* don't think so.

Does this foolt he voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph? Again, *I* think it is obvious.

So, my vote would be no dq.

I am one vote.
12/09/2008 04:09:44 PM · #208
Also, in the two glass/fireworks shots -- enzo said his was a picture in the background, but is ben's? There are no details given, so it *could* have been captured that way.
12/09/2008 04:14:34 PM · #209
And - if, aside from the top 3, it is up to the voters to 'trigger the DQ review process', then either the voters are involved in the DQ decision or SC should be reviewing all the images in a challenge.

Or maybe there needs to be a DQ Council, if the SC are too busy doing other tasks.

The Site Rules may not be perfect, but discussions like this are at least trying to refine them, plug up the holes, gain consistency and mature the site. Just don't stifle creativity - "whatever you perceive that to be".
12/09/2008 04:16:22 PM · #210
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Prash:

A literal representation is one which is composed in such a way as to compel the voter to rate only the work of art represented and not the artistic decisions made by the photographer (e.g., lighting, composition, background elements, etc)."

The key word was "only." At the time, any real object included in the composition was enough to make the artwork NOT literal. IMO it'd be a borderline case under the current rules, but probably OK since the voters should reasonably know the moon isn't real.


' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/316/120/154133.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/316/120/154133.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Ok, thanks for the explanation.

So that means:

- 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?

The tricky part is what part of the image compelled a voter to vote on the author's own artistic impressions rather than the beautiful distorted moon... it is not easy to tell.. would you agree? For example, I wowed looking at this picture NOT because it had a human hand and a bulb tail.. BUT because it has a glorious moon shining right there. The hand and the bulb moot were not the main feature of that image IMO. The moon was. And that was not captured by the author in its originality. Plus I really did think that was real moon behind an empty bulb.

I guess it is tough to say how much anything thats not original in an image would affect a voter's ratings.

Message edited by author 2008-12-09 16:18:39.
12/09/2008 04:16:41 PM · #211
Originally posted by karmat:

Also, in the two glass/fireworks shots -- enzo said his was a picture in the background, but is ben's? There are no details given, so it *could* have been captured that way.


So if we request a review of those images based on what we now know of the ruleset. Will they be DQed? Or will you not review them now that the ruleset application(not the wording) has been changed.

Matt
12/09/2008 04:23:38 PM · #212
Originally posted by MattO:

Originally posted by karmat:

Also, in the two glass/fireworks shots -- enzo said his was a picture in the background, but is ben's? There are no details given, so it *could* have been captured that way.


So if we request a review of those images based on what we now know of the ruleset. Will they be DQed? Or will you not review them now that the ruleset application(not the wording) has been changed.

Matt


I fail to see how the ruleset is being applied differently in these cases. Can you enlighten me? All I see are 3 potentially illegal images.

1. The yellow in feast, validation requested due to being in the top 5
2. The first glass/fireworks shot, validation never requested
3. The second glass/fireworks shot, validation never requested
12/09/2008 04:28:40 PM · #213
Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:


I fail to see how the ruleset is being applied differently in these cases. Can you enlighten me? All I see are 3 potentially illegal images.

1. The yellow in feast, validation requested due to being in the top 5
2. The first glass/fireworks shot, validation never requested
3. The second glass/fireworks shot, validation never requested


Its not being applied different, its being interpreted by the SC and enforced differently. There was no precedence set to make the members wish the validation of the other shots. However now that they are interpreted in a way that we know those shots would be illegal they would have then been requested to be validated. The wording in the ruleset hasnt changed so the application of them shouldnt.

Matt
12/09/2008 04:32:16 PM · #214
The bottom line here (that I can see on all of this) is the idea that there aren't any real and true, hard and strong rules concerning photos in backgrounds or, that the definition of what's allowable and what isn't, is SO complicated that we'd all need to have a handbook of situations to figure it all out!

From everything that I've read SC members say in here, thus far, there are a tremendous number of variables to this rule and under what circumstances. And, it seems that the "variables" to this rule are SO loose and widespread that people will have to submit their ideas to SC WELL in advance of a challenge just to see IF it is "viable" and "legal"!

As I see it right now...either the idea of photos in a challenge entry be fully allowed no matter what the context, or NOT allowed at all! It's just far too ridiculous to figure out what is accepted and what isn't. And, of course, there are those who will get away with it because no one requested a validation or, because they weren't in the Top 5 or whatever the level is that requires a validation process now.

12/09/2008 04:35:28 PM · #215
One problem with pre-validation is that the photo does not go through the same voting process as a challenge entry and may only be viewed by one or two SC. A person has to submit the photo and wait until after voting for an official vote and by then it is too late.
12/09/2008 04:38:27 PM · #216
Originally posted by MattO:


Its not being applied different, its being interpreted by the SC and enforced differently. There was no precedence set to make the members wish the validation of the other shots. However now that they are interpreted in a way that we know those shots would be illegal they would have then been requested to be validated. The wording in the ruleset hasnt changed so the application of them shouldnt.

Matt


Matt, that's exactly what I'm taking out of this too! Even SC disagrees with what is legal and what isn't and, more importantly, this rule is not being applied evenly throughout the entries. So, what one entrant can enter, another gets DQ'd for!
12/09/2008 04:39:19 PM · #217
Originally posted by Prash:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Prash:

A literal representation is one which is composed in such a way as to compel the voter to rate only the work of art represented and not the artistic decisions made by the photographer (e.g., lighting, composition, background elements, etc)."

The key word was "only." At the time, any real object included in the composition was enough to make the artwork NOT literal. IMO it'd be a borderline case under the current rules, but probably OK since the voters should reasonably know the moon isn't real.


' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/316/120/154133.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/316/120/154133.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Ok, thanks for the explanation.

So that means:

- 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?

The tricky part is what part of the image compelled a voter to vote on the author's own artistic impressions rather than the beautiful distorted moon... it is not easy to tell.. would you agree? For example, I wowed looking at this picture NOT because it had a human hand and a bulb tail.. BUT because it has a glorious moon shining right there. The hand and the bulb moot were not the main feature of that image IMO. The moon was. And that was not captured by the author in its originality. Plus I really did think that was real moon behind an empty bulb.

I guess it is tough to say how much anything thats not original in an image would affect a voter's ratings.


Can I request a validation of this image now?

12/09/2008 04:41:29 PM · #218
Originally posted by togtog:

One problem with pre-validation is that the photo does not go through the same voting process as a challenge entry and may only be viewed by one or two SC. A person has to submit the photo and wait until after voting for an official vote and by then it is too late.


I totally agree with this point as well which means that because this rule is so ambiguous and so loosely applied and even disagreed upon between SC members themselves, either the rules on photos in shots should be that none are allowed or all are allowed!

Then, again, I can see a whole ream of other rules where there are variations to them as well. That is a whole other can of worms though and, I won't start that discussion up in here at the moment. :)

Message edited by author 2008-12-09 16:43:00.
12/09/2008 04:41:30 PM · #219
Originally posted by MattO:

Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:


I fail to see how the ruleset is being applied differently in these cases. Can you enlighten me? All I see are 3 potentially illegal images.

1. The yellow in feast, validation requested due to being in the top 5
2. The first glass/fireworks shot, validation never requested
3. The second glass/fireworks shot, validation never requested


Its not being applied different, its being interpreted by the SC and enforced differently. There was no precedence set to make the members wish the validation of the other shots. However now that they are interpreted in a way that we know those shots would be illegal they would have then been requested to be validated. The wording in the ruleset hasnt changed so the application of them shouldnt.

Matt


Just for clarity, we really only know for sure that one of those shots used a fake background, so I'll concentrate on that one.
I disagree with your statements above. I would argue that that shot looks real, meaning the voters were fooled into thinking the fireworks were live and not a print or a screen, and that that is the reason that no validation was requested. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, I think that Lydia's shot would not have been questioned either if it hadn't placed in the top 5. The rule seems clear to me and I don't see it being interpreted or enforced differently. The only difference I see is the mandatory validation on a shot that wouldn't have been questioned otherwise. As I mentioned before as well, I see this as a big problem, but not one that's related to how SC is doing their job.
12/09/2008 04:49:10 PM · #220
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.
12/09/2008 04:52:27 PM · #221
Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:

Originally posted by MattO:

Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:


I fail to see how the ruleset is being applied differently in these cases. Can you enlighten me? All I see are 3 potentially illegal images.

1. The yellow in feast, validation requested due to being in the top 5
2. The first glass/fireworks shot, validation never requested
3. The second glass/fireworks shot, validation never requested


Its not being applied different, its being interpreted by the SC and enforced differently. There was no precedence set to make the members wish the validation of the other shots. However now that they are interpreted in a way that we know those shots would be illegal they would have then been requested to be validated. The wording in the ruleset hasnt changed so the application of them shouldnt.

Matt


Just for clarity, we really only know for sure that one of those shots used a fake background, so I'll concentrate on that one.
I disagree with your statements above. I would argue that that shot looks real, meaning the voters were fooled into thinking the fireworks were live and not a print or a screen, and that that is the reason that no validation was requested. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, I think that Lydia's shot would not have been questioned either if it hadn't placed in the top 5. The rule seems clear to me and I don't see it being interpreted or enforced differently. The only difference I see is the mandatory validation on a shot that wouldn't have been questioned otherwise. As I mentioned before as well, I see this as a big problem, but not one that's related to how SC is doing their job.


Ok, so to you, you see that one shot as being an obvious fake and the others, you can't tell so, therefore, it's not SC's fault as they are doing their jobs. Well, that's one way of looking at it but, consider this point. IF that is how this rule is going ie: unless SC has it brought to their attention because someone isn't fooled by it then, it isn't SC's fault but, it's a big problem. Let me ask here...who set the rules?!

SC HAS to now make a decision to change the rules because it IS creating problems. 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. Even as someone else has said, to make sure, sending in a photo idea prior to a challenge means that one or two people give it the thumbs up and the others don't see that until the voting is over and if SC (as a whole)THEN decides it isn't legal, that person's entry THEN gets the DQ. It's far too tricky in my personal opinion and there's going to be a lot of upheaval unless the rules are changed on this.
12/09/2008 04:55:08 PM · #222
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?
12/09/2008 04:57:54 PM · #223
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.


Well like the other controversial images, 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.

But if another rule suggests it cant be questioned now, thats fine.

Thanks for the clarification.
12/09/2008 04:58:37 PM · #224
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;-)
12/09/2008 05:01:23 PM · #225
Originally posted by Melethia:

Originally posted by sittingonthegrass:

Originally posted by Melethia:

The title should have been a hint.


well I did put ART in the title ;)

That's what I meant. :)


ah right...whatever :) (I do tend to be a little slow sometimes)
Pages:   ... ...
Current Server Time: 12/03/2020 10:34:12 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 10:34:12 PM EST.