Disappearing entries - DQ'd?? - DPChallenge Forums

04/25/2005 02:57:33 AM · #1

Last couple of challenges, I have noticed a couple submissions had disappeared that were there in the beginning of the voting period. On of them was the bloody shower scene in "Accidental Letters" that stirred some controversy in the forums but no explanation was given as to why it was yanked.

In the recent People II challenge I started voting early and came across a photo that I was not sure that it doesn't break some child pornography laws. I showed the image to my wife and she had the same reaction I did and she thought it crossed the line. I guess I can mention the pic in detail and see if anyone else came across it and what they thought - please keep in mind that I am not making any judgements here and I always assume the submitters have the best intentions - the shot was a little girl, about 10 or 11 maybe, in her underwear (no top) with angel wings on her back. It did not show any nudity per se, and it was a great photo, but I imagined some might freak out about it. Then again, there is a picture of a naked child that made it through the voting and is still there. That child looks to be a bit younger.

Several questions arise from this:
What is legally considered child pornography (in the U.S.)?
What do people here think about these particular subjects - even though they are innocent shots and I am not casting any aspersions, just wonder what others think?
Shouldn't the SC or Admins make an announcement or let people know when they ask in the forums what happened to these photos so others won't repeat the mistakes?

I couldn't find anything in the DQ rules about either of these 2 particular situations, but I did see this:
Good reasons for raising a DQ request (for normal open rules):
- The photo blatantly encourages drug or alcohol abuse.

And that should have DQ'd this, I would think:

Any thoughts?

Message edited by author 2005-04-25 02:57:58.

04/25/2005 05:37:55 AM · #2

It's an interesting question - I have to say that I'm quite disappointed that the bloody image in accidental letters was disqualified if the disqualification was made on the grounds that it was in poor taste. Photography is, in my book, an artform, and if an artform is to suceed when it comes to making an impact on the viewer then we need to be more liberal and not worry so much about 'good taste.' For mine, art is not about good taste it's about social-commentary, emotions, and mood. Sometimes the best portrayals of emotions and moods, the best pieces of commentary will, necessarily, stretch the boundaries of what the average middle class, westerner, perceives as being 'appropriate.' If we are to shut our minds to such works by preventing their display then we are inhibiting the ability of photographers to reach people.

It is then, interesting to see where the dpc 'powers that be' draw the line. In my relatively short stay here it seems that that line is by no means straight. While the bloody writing was disqualified, there remains an image of a knife weilding, bloody nurse lurking in the bowels of one of the challenges. One of dpc's favourite (and most controversial sons) Dr Jones, created a haunting shot of a woman vomiting blood into a toilet. Grigrigirl submitted an extremely erotic, sensuous and beautiful image of a woman masturbating into the best of 2000 challenge, and, I was happy to see, it wasn't disqualified.

I too saw that shot of the girl with the wings, and to be honest I wasn't sure what to make of it. I guess that means I wasn't strictly comfortable with it. She did seem both a little too old and a little too young to be photographed wearing only her underwear (if that makes sense) and I can therefore understand the disqualification on the basis that if one thing has the potential to bring the site into disrepute it's an allegation of child pornography. Now clearly said image didn't fit into that pidgeonhole, but it likely would have offended some, and offending some on the basis of a potentially sexually provocative portrayal of a child is a risk not worth taking for any business. Furthermore, this is one area where it's hard to justify the pushing the boundaries in the name of art I spoke of before. The possible exploitation of a child in the name of art is clearly abhorrent to almost anyones sensibilities. Now I'm sure this wasn't the intent of the photographer, and I'm not entirely sure whether that image crossed the line or not, what I'm saying is that I understand completely why the site administrators/council chose to take the safe road and disqualify it. In other circumstances where the imagery involves adult participants and is making legitimate commentary I have greater difficulty justifying a disqualification.

As for the beer image, it would certainly seem to promote drug/alcohol use... but to be honest I have no problem with it - I saw it as a bit of lighthearted fun (though a pretty average image to be sure), and given that I've seen a number of challenge entries include shots of bongs and the like (even a ribbon winner - and fantastic shot - making reference to 'traispotting' in a shot with a needle), it seems that the SC aren't particularly concerned with that provision.

Message edited by author 2005-04-25 05:41:48.

Kamlan 28mm F1.4 MF for APS-C

04/25/2005 05:59:16 AM · #3

Originally posted by samtrundle:

I too saw that shot of the girl with the wings, and to be honest I wasn't sure what to make of it. I guess that means I wasn't strictly comfortable with it. She did seem both a little too old and a little too young to be photographed wearing only her underwear (if that makes sense)

It does make sense - that's how I felt about it - not real comfortable with it, although the picture itself didn't disturb me, the potential legal implications did. It would be good for everyone to know WHY it was DQ'd. As for the bloody shower scene (and some of the ones you mentioned), I did want to see that one removed. I understand what you're saying about "art" but there should be a line on taste there as well. It's not so much the blood or graphic nature as much as the context. If you don't draw the line somewhere, people are bound to force you to. I was tempted myself, just to make the point. Where do you draw the line, Sam? And please don't use the term "common sense" - it's meaning has become as highly subjective as art. I'm just curious where you would think someone went too far with a depiction of a gruesome scene. I'm not trying to be confrontational, I really am curious.

I also wonder where this shot falls regarding that issue:

Again, I am not passing judgement or condemning - just trying to understand what other people think is acceptable or legal for that matter.

Originally posted by samtrundle:

As for the beer image, it would certainly seem to promote drug/alcohol use... but to be honest I have no problem with it - I saw it as a bit of lighthearted fun (though a pretty average image to be sure), and given that I've seen a number of challenge entries include shots of bongs and the like (even a ribbon winner - and fantastic shot - making reference to 'traispotting' in a shot with a needle), it seems that the SC aren't particularly concerned with that provision.

I don't have a problem with the image either. That's not the point. If the SC is not concerned about that rule, then they should do away with the rule. Selective enforcement can cause lots of problems.

Thanks for chiming in, Sam. I was beginning to think i opened a can of worms that nobody would touch.

Manic

DJI Mini 3 Pro

04/25/2005 06:04:31 AM · #4

OK, before the speculation becomes too rife, the bloody shower image ("I'm Sorry...") was DQ'd because the photographer in question did not upload their original and editting steps within the required time period. We actually requested proof on it on the grounds of a 'shot within challenge dates?' query, and not the content itself.

As for images featuring drugs & alcohol etc, note that we will only DQ images that encourage their use, not merely depict - we don't want to limit everyone's creative freedoms too agressively in this regard.

04/25/2005 06:34:45 AM · #5

Originally posted by Manic:

Hmm... I'd be interested to know how often a proof request is made on those particular grounds (not counting the top five shots of course). I have no problem with people requesting a DQ and site council going ahead with it... but come on guys, let's call a spade a spade :).

04/25/2005 06:56:26 AM · #6

Ken, first of all don't worry about me too much... you aren't being in the least confrontational :) - I know you ask the questions out of genuine interest rather than a desire to stir the proverbial.

As for where to draw the line, it is of course a difficult question, and I'll acknowledge that when it comes to a site with such a diverse user group (including many underage photographers and viewers) the line probably has to be drawn a little more conservatively than it would at say an art gallery (most of which wouldn't blink at that kind of content). I still think that when it comes to that kind of imagery, the fact that it was making a legitimate effort to represent the horror and pain associated with suicide rather than just being a piece rationale-less violence drags it into acceptable territory for mine. To be honest, I've thought about it, and I can't provide you with a hard and fast test as to where the line should be drawn, in fact I've noticed when it comes to public displays of obscentity, the law has a difficult time drawing the line too. Though I will re-iterate that material without purpose or a legitimate rationale is far easier to exlude as simply obscene and thus worthy of exclusion than something that makes a genuine effort to represent something important, or convey a message.

Okay onto the childs bottom.... I think I can bring that back somewhat to my comment about the girl with the wings being both a little too old and a little too young for that shot. The child in the second shot is of such an age that it's parent's would likely have no problem with her/him running around naked in public, and while sure, there is the off chance that someone really perverted might find it titilating their is no hint of the provocative, it is more an innocent portrayal of toddlerhood than anything else. The other image the girl was of an age to have conceptions of modesty, and most likely sex too, that I guess is why some would have a problem with it... again I would have to look at it more closely to make up my mind, though I do remember it making me a little uncomfortable when I viewed it.

Wow, another long post, but hey, censorship really is a fascinating topic :).

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

04/25/2005 07:03:04 AM · #7

(Warning there is some nudity and stuff that might be offensive to some in this link)

Here is an example of a brilliant photographer (he is responsible for those terrific lavazza coffee images if you've seen them) and some of his work probably borders on the obscene for some. But to me, while some of the shots don't make me feel entirely comfortable, the fact is that where there is a legitimate point being made, generating a little discomfort in the viewer, making them squirm if you will, is often a hallmark of a successful image.

[url=//www.erwinolaf.com/ ]Erwin Olaf[/url]

Now some of that stuff is really not my cup of tea, but in general, I can appreciate the rationale behind it, and thus it's acceptable. (That is not of course to say that everything that can be rationalised is not obscene, but I think you know what I mean).

Message edited by author 2005-04-25 07:05:16.

woohoopepper

Nikon D70

04/25/2005 08:17:08 AM · #8

Originally posted by samtrundle:

Originally posted by Manic:
OK, before the speculation becomes too rife, the bloody shower image ("I'm Sorry...") was DQ'd because the photographer in question did not upload their original and editting steps within the required time period. We actually requested proof on it on the grounds of a 'shot within challenge dates?' query, and not the content itself.

Hopefully she responded at all and is still alive???!!!

Canon EOS-20D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

04/25/2005 08:26:38 AM · #9

Originally posted by woohoopepper:

Hopefully she responded at all and is still alive???!!!

She did not respond but has signed in since so I assume she is fine.

Kamlan 28mm F1.4 MF for APS-C

04/25/2005 08:32:18 AM · #10

Hey mk - seeings as there is an sc member around I just thought I'd reiterate my above question out of curiosity - how often do you make requests for proof on the basis of 'date.' I mean unless it's the middle of december and someone has taken an image of central park that's covered in green trees and grass, I'm guessing never ?!

(of course this doesn't count the top five shots).

Message edited by author 2005-04-25 08:33:08.

Manic

DJI Mini 3 Pro

04/25/2005 09:25:37 AM · #11

AFAICT, we tend to get at least one date-related query every 2-3 challenges, on average. But of course, this will vary with the challenge topics, as do all DQ requests.

Skip

Canon EOS-1D X

Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM

04/25/2005 09:49:56 AM · #12

Originally posted by samtrundle:

how often do you make requests for proof on the basis of 'date.' [snip]
I'm guessing never ?!

i would hazard a guess that this was someone's 'polite' way of getting the sc to look at an image, just like calling the police to say you thought you saw someone in your neighbor's backyard when what you really wanted was somebody to do something about their barking dog...

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

04/25/2005 10:27:42 AM · #13

Thinking back about the 'Accidental Letters' challenge since it's come up...the image in question (bloody tub/shower) - didn't that use text technically? The letters weren't "Accidental", they were written on the side of the tub - a prop for the photo so to speak. Text isn't allowed unless specified in the rules - yes? Maybe a DQ request was made for that? Besides the image being in very bad taste, I thought it was skirting the rules AND outside the challenge details/description. I'm glad it went away. JMO.

Canon EOS-20D

04/25/2005 10:32:01 AM · #14

Originally posted by glad2badad:

You can photograph text - you just may not add it to your photo after you've taken it.

Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 DG DN Contemporary

04/25/2005 10:37:17 AM · #15

Oops - mk you're right, of course. ;^) Then it couldn't have been dq'd for text - but the text certainly wasn't "Accidental Letters". Again, JMO...

MichaelC

Sony Alpha a7R III

04/25/2005 11:17:43 AM · #16

One image I saw in accidental letters which I absolutely loved, was a girl in a red dress standing in a doorway. The backlight of the sun coming in behind her made the letter A.

I looked for this after the challenge, but couldn't find it. Anybody know what happened? Would certainly add it to my favs.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

04/25/2005 11:43:37 AM · #17

I believe that one used a copyright in the bottom right corner - may have been dq'd for that...

Originally posted by guroos:

moodville

Nikon D100

04/25/2005 12:17:30 PM · #18

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Oops - mk you're right, of course. ;^) Then it couldn't have been dq'd for text - but the text certainly wasn't "Accidental Letters". Again, JMO...

Not meeting the challenge is not grounds for a DQ unless it specifically states that in the challenge description, like the ducks.

rblanton

Canon EOS-10D

04/25/2005 12:29:51 PM · #19

A while back the fellow from down under known to many as the Croc Hunter, took a lot of heat for taking his toddler into the ring during a show with a fairly large croc. He put the child on the ground while holding him and then eventually passed the child back out of the ring. The shot had the "appearance" of putting the child at risk whether or not there was any true risk or not is hard to say given the way you can make things look when reducing them to two dimensions. In my mind, he showed poor judgement for allowing himself to have his parenting skills questioned so harshly for a stunt which his child had no true say in.

Posing children nude and posting them on the internet fits into the same category to me. This world is full of sophisticated and deadly earnest predators and it is not worth the chance nor is it fair to the child who really has no say as to whether they want thousands of people viewing them in the buff. It really is common sense. Don't risk your children's safety or dignity.

04/25/2005 12:33:36 PM · #20

Originally posted by samtrundle:

As for where to draw the line, it is of course a difficult question, and I'll acknowledge that when it comes to a site with such a diverse user group (including many underage photographers and viewers) the line probably has to be drawn a little more conservatively than it would at say an art gallery (most of which wouldn't blink at that kind of content). I still think that when it comes to that kind of imagery, the fact that it was making a legitimate effort to represent the horror and pain associated with suicide rather than just being a piece rationale-less violence drags it into acceptable territory for mine. To be honest, I've thought about it, and I can't provide you with a hard and fast test as to where the line should be drawn, in fact I've noticed when it comes to public displays of obscentity, the law has a difficult time drawing the line too. Though I will re-iterate that material without purpose or a legitimate rationale is far easier to exlude as simply obscene and thus worthy of exclusion than something that makes a genuine effort to represent something important, or convey a message.

A reasonable and rational response, Sam. Thanks.

Originally posted by samtrundle:

Okay onto the childs bottom....

Whoa! - careful how you phrase things. ;-)

Originally posted by samtrundle:

I think I can bring that back somewhat to my comment about the girl with the wings being both a little too old and a little too young for that shot. The child in the second shot is of such an age that it's parent's would likely have no problem with her/him running around naked in public, and while sure, there is the off chance that someone really perverted might find it titilating their is no hint of the provocative, it is more an innocent portrayal of toddlerhood than anything else. The other image the girl was of an age to have conceptions of modesty, and most likely sex too, that I guess is why some would have a problem with it... again I would have to look at it more closely to make up my mind, though I do remember it making me a little uncomfortable when I viewed it.

I agree with that assesment. I didn't have a problem with the naked toddler - just concerned about the legalities. Like you said, the law doesn't even know where to draw the line and I've heard stories that would indicate alarmism trumps common sense. But then this is not the only issue where that is occurring.

Regarding the Date/DQ issue - I was surprised to hear people request DQ's for that other than the visual clues you mentioned. We still haven't heard officially why the "Angel" was DQ'd unless I missed it.

04/25/2005 12:40:10 PM · #21

I didn't say it was grounds for a dq. I agreed with mk about not dq'ing it based on text in the photo. I said, in my opinion, that the text created in the photo in question didn't meet the challenge. The "Accidental Letters" were created not found.

Originally posted by moodville:

Originally posted by glad2badad:
Oops - mk you're right, of course. ;^) Then it couldn't have been dq'd for text - but the text certainly wasn't "Accidental Letters". Again, JMO...

Not meeting the challenge is not grounds for a DQ unless it specifically states that in the challenge description, like the ducks.

04/25/2005 12:40:23 PM · #22

Originally posted by Manic:

As for images featuring drugs & alcohol etc, note that we will only DQ images that encourage their use, not merely depict - we don't want to limit everyone's creative freedoms too agressively in this regard.

Understandable, But... Can you then define "encouraging" in this context? For that matter, define "Abuse"

Point is, if you cannot clearly define the rule and draw a line, get rid of the rule lest others point to it's unenforcement as a reason to break other rules. Has there EVER been a DQ for violation of the alcohol / drug rule?

04/25/2005 12:54:34 PM · #23

Some level of trust needs to be given to the SC members. All rules can be interpreted from several perspectives as pointed out numerous times in other threads on DPC. Any ruleset is never going to satisy everyone and there will always be someone to try and challenge them.

If someone is not clear about whether their image will break the rules or not they can always get prior feedback from SC before submitting for a challenge.

No direspect meant to you in this post Ken, just making a statement about MY perspective on how this community (DPChallenge members) addresses rules.

Originally posted by kpriest:

Originally posted by Manic:
As for images featuring drugs & alcohol etc, note that we will only DQ images that encourage their use, not merely depict - we don't want to limit everyone's creative freedoms too agressively in this regard.

Understandable, But... Can you then define "encouraging" in this context? For that matter, define "Abuse"

Point is, if you cannot clearly define the rule and draw a line, get rid of the rule lest others point to it's unenforcement as a reason to break other rules. Has there EVER been a DQ for violation of the alcohol / drug rule?

04/25/2005 12:58:09 PM · #24

Originally posted by glad2badad:

No direspect meant to you in this post Ken, just making a statement about MY perspective on how this community (DPChallenge members) addresses rules.

Thanks Barry, understood. Just very curious how / when they (or anyone else) would ever DQ an image under the drug/alcohol rule. If they haven't done it yet, it seems to render the rule pointless. Again, I don't care one way or the other about that rule - just the precedent setting effect.