| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/02/2006 02:01:40 PM · #51 |
A photo of a tattoo would have to show some 3D component, or creative lighting or framing to avoid running afoul of the artwork rule.
Like every other case of using art, it depends on the specific photo -- probably any piece of art can be photographed either "legally" or not by DPC rules. |
|
|
|
03/02/2006 02:17:19 PM · #52 |
Rose, you did a great job at making a familiar scene immediately recognizable, whilst still making it YOURS.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
... but the idea for the shot and the image itself are just a rip-off of the movie image, regardless of claims to the contrary. |
In that case, just about any shot of any recognizable artwork - like a famous statue or a shot of the inside of the Sistine Chapel etc - are also not acceptable.
Do we really want to go THAT far?
The "artwork" rules may have grey areas, but our SC can deal with those just fine. |
|
|
|
03/02/2006 02:32:55 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
And spaz, you can look at that way, but gosh, in the fantasy challenge alone there are rip offs of other images (can we say Cyborg or Star Wars?). Your argument is really nill. Good try though, but spaz, let me tell you something. On several threads now you have tried to incite me once again like you did in January. It worked then. It won't work again. I just find you a bit funny now and I don't take a lot of things in the forums or what others say with as much seriousness as I once did. :) I also have more respect for council now after watching a few things happen in my month's absence.
Rose
Rose |
I never said your entry was unique in that regard. Just because there is more than one rip-off image doesn't make yours any less unoriginal.
As for me trying to incite you, that's serious overestimation of your importance. I've never taken anything you say seriously and I don't intend to start now. I just disagree with you on nearly everything. I seem to recall agreeing with you once on something, but that may have been an aberration.
Message edited by author 2006-03-02 14:46:02.
|
|
|
|
03/02/2006 02:55:36 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Rose, you did a great job at making a familiar scene immediately recognizable, whilst still making it YOURS.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
... but the idea for the shot and the image itself are just a rip-off of the movie image, regardless of claims to the contrary. |
In that case, just about any shot of any recognizable artwork - like a famous statue or a shot of the inside of the Sistine Chapel etc - are also not acceptable.
Do we really want to go THAT far?
The "artwork" rules may have grey areas, but our SC can deal with those just fine. |
Thank you so much Beetle! I really appreciate it.
I also wanted to "touch" on the blue ribbon winner to the Singled Out challenge. I personally think the words "stand out" in the description applied more to that image than the part about dof. When one looks at the image, that mans face immediately stands out. Didn't even NEED dof for him to stand out, which was great! However, SO many threads were on how to perform DOF, and GOD, on my entry alone there were so many negatives about using false dof, when in reality? It didn't even matter. All you had to do was isolate your subject. The winner seemed to do that with little difficulty, and hats off to them for it.
And spaz, I do think I was creative and I do think my image is original compared to the actual imagry used in the poster. You have your opinion and I have mine. It is really that simple.
And I am sorry for saying only I am the one you are trying to incite. On the thread about the paranormal, you also tried to incite several posters that wouldn't play the game and said so to you. So I guess I should give them just as much importance. Again your agrument is a moot point and even contridicing. If you find what I say of little importance, then why are you on nearly every thread I am arguing my words?
I won't continue on discussing the matter with you further. I don't expect you to either since you find what I say of little importance. If you do, it will only prove my point. However, no matter what else you say here, I won't continue to argue with you. It is I who now finds what you say of little importance.
Beetle, to touch on your second paragraph, I totally agree. When one tries to depict a theme of let's say "angels" and takes a photo of an angel statue in a cemetery, are we to say that is breaking literal arts rules? I mean, the line is fine, but it is pretty self explanatory in the tutorials here on literal arts rules with great examples (I don't have the link and maybe someone can find it).
Bottom line is, to those wondering about this rule and if you have questions on your technique or the legalities, just ask someone on council you trust. This is what I do, but it is rare for me to do that. Just depends on what I am trying to portray for any given challenge. For the most part, I think I "got it" now when it comes to the rules, but some wil and still do question the fine points. It is good to do so.
Rose
Message edited by author 2006-03-02 14:56:11. |
|
|
|
03/02/2006 04:35:01 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Rose, you did a great job at making a familiar scene immediately recognizable, whilst still making it YOURS.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
... but the idea for the shot and the image itself are just a rip-off of the movie image, regardless of claims to the contrary. |
In that case, just about any shot of any recognizable artwork - like a famous statue or a shot of the inside of the Sistine Chapel etc - are also not acceptable.
Do we really want to go THAT far?
The "artwork" rules may have grey areas, but our SC can deal with those just fine. |
I never said it was "unacceptable" per DPC rules. I just said that the concept and end image were an unoriginal ripping off of the original. This shot is by no means unique in that regard.
The shot is technically well thought out and executed.
Message edited by author 2006-03-02 16:59:14.
|
|
|
|
03/02/2006 05:53:58 PM · #56 |
This isn't so much about KISS, but about Spaz's argument on the unoriginality and concept in "my" photo, YET mentions NOT the unoriginality in other photos entered in 80's or in any other challenge.
Tell me, what is the difference between what I did and what the blue ribbon winner did?
Here is the winning photo and here is one I found using an innocent search online for Gene Simmon's KISS photos. It's small, but it was also an album cover at one time.
I mean, c'mon. The argument is moot on the issue of "my" photo being unoriginal. When there is a "theme", people try to meet theme as MUCH as possible and still make it their own. That is what I did, and that is what the winner did. It is what MANY have done on this site in themed challenges. What about my fairy godmother photo? I had quite a few telling me how MUCH it resembled the fairy godmother in Shrek. Ironically enough, that is JUST the look I was going for and it worked and met challenge rules and regulations for entry. There are SO many other examples one could give it would be a thread in and of itself.
Personally? I think it is just a little more personal when it comes to this discussion by Spaz then to have any other real meaning for mention on this thread. Just my two-dah-lahs worth, but the depictions and their likenesses of themes by many on this site have been wonderful and yet legal and their own.
And spaz, if you are going to consistantly go back and edit what you originally said and then add and take away, it is going to be a bit difficult to repond to your posts and have them make any serious type of sense. Is that your intention? I noticed you have edited to change your wording and/or add to what you have said in the past two posts you made. I may edit mine as well, but it is usually to go back and change something in spelling and grammar, but not in what I originally said. This one was edited to add this paragraph.
Rose
Message edited by author 2006-03-02 17:58:22. |
|
|
|
03/02/2006 05:55:53 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I never said it was "unacceptable" per DPC rules. |
I didn't say you'd said that (and I'm not having a go at you, btw).
I simply want all of us to think about how far we want to take this rule.
Where do we draw the line? If we set that line too close to what you were talking about (i.e. something being too similar to its original), then we end up not allowing all sorts of photos, just because they aren't different enough from the original.
Imagine taking a photo of the Pieta statue in St Peter's. It is a stunning statue which moved me like no other artwork ever before when I saw it many years ago. I wouldn't dream of doing anything much to any photo of that artwork just to make it look "different", yet according to the way you were looking at it, simply taking a photo of it would be "an unoriginal ripping off of the original".
I would hate to have this rule going so far that we can no longer take photos of anything considered "artwork" unless we made it unrecognizable. |
|
|
|
03/02/2006 06:04:23 PM · #58 |
Not to chime in on who you are referring your post to, Beetle, but I was writing as were you.
Look at the depictions of the winning entry for this challenge and a photo I found of Gene Simmons in his paint? The argument about being a rip off and unoriiginal didn't seem to be discussed by Spaz in that regard, but only on my image? Unless Spaz agrees it is also unoriginal as are many on the site in many challenges, then spaz's argument is not meant for discussion, but only what I deem to be some kind of personal vendetta on only my photo. I personally find the importance being placed towards me a bit flattering and humorous at the same time, but most likely annoying to most posters on different threads for different reasons I would assume when this type of vendetta is because "he rarely agrees with anything I say". In this case, it isn't what I said, but what I did? LOL...Where does it end? Or does it.
So arguing the originality clause is really a moot point in my opinion. It really isn't about that. Site Council will certainly be able to determine when issues of rules are broken, and have.
Rose |
|
|
|
03/02/2006 06:26:12 PM · #59 |
Personal attacks and baiting are not permitted on this site, nor is it permitted to call another user out for either of these.
If you believe a user is baiting or attacking you, DO NOT reply to the post. Report it instead. Calling users out publically for policy violations is itself considered a personal attack, and we will deal with it as one.
This is a final reminder to keep this thread on topic. If any additional personal attacks are posted, this thread will be locked and we will take whatever additional action is warranted.
~Terry
Message edited by author 2006-03-02 18:26:34.
|
|
|
|
03/02/2006 06:37:35 PM · #60 |
I'm SO cool with that ClubJuggle! I know you will anyway, if needed, but feel free to edit any of my posts you feel offensive.
By the way, for months I have been calling you ClubJungle instead of Juggle..LOL. Have you noticed that? No one ever said it was wrong either..LOL. I have only noticed it was Juggle and not Jungle just now. Then again, I just went to the eye doctor today so maybe the fact I just found out I need some glasses attributed to that error. Sorry bout dat!
Rose |
|
|
|
03/02/2006 07:19:38 PM · #61 |
Rose, I truly hope that you don't think I'm in this thread to argue the creativity of your image. I think it was well done and the process you went through to get the final product was very creative. My discussion here is of a totally different nature.
|
|
|
|
03/02/2006 07:35:01 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
Rose, I truly hope that you don't think I'm in this thread to argue the creativity of your image. I think it was well done and the process you went through to get the final product was very creative. My discussion here is of a totally different nature. |
Not at all! And I thank you for the compliments. It was quite a bit of work, only in that I had to think as I went. If I knew what or how I was going to accomplish this from the start, it would have taken me far less time. But not knowing and trying different things and angles, it was quite the adventure. LOL...So thanks for recognizing the work!
Rose |
|
|
|
03/03/2006 08:36:53 PM · #63 |
Rose,
Just FYI, my only reason for starting this thread was to understand the rules better and I think I accomplished that because prior to this I was unaware of the 3D qualifier before. I hope you didn't mind me singling out your entry.
As for your photo, I didn't have any problems with it in terms of it being legal or not. I thought in terms of meeting the challenge it was one of the best entries out there and I agree some of the other photos you're referring to really didn't meet the challenge. My only issue with yours was the level of noise and the soft focus. I just didn't think the moon looked that great but that's just me so I can't speak for anybody else and what they based their vote on. I think had you managed to incorporate the actual moon in the shot you would have gotten a 9 or a 10 from me. As it was I gave it a 4 and in hindsight I think that was a mistake. I probably should have given it a 6 because the idea behind it was really good.
Message edited by author 2006-03-03 20:37:53. |
|
|
|
03/03/2006 10:53:29 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
If she were to of put that cutout in front of a "real " moon as the backdrop then it would of been a photograph, as it stands now, it's a copy table project. She never even shot a photograph of the moon. |
OH MY GOD..how I TRIED to get a shot of the moon, and OH did at least one council member know I tried too
...
Problem was? No moon "was arisen" in my neck of the woods. But I SO wanted to do what you said.
|
So just because you tried to achieve something and failed somehow justifies using a cheap loophole to get around your failure in a way other contestants' conscience would not have allowed? If i tried to get a job, and failed, does that justify me in stealing my wage's equivalent?
Originally posted by Rose8699:
I don't particularly care for comments, and I do care for scores more as I have stated many times. However, to have a photo I took at a site like DPC cause this much controversy is what I find the highest form of flattery over a ribbon. With that, I am pleased. |
The controversy is not because of some riske artistic decision however. It is because an appreciable portion of the community feels cheated and insulted by this sort of abuse of an obvious loophole. The high scores your image received from many voters are flattery, but the expressions of the offence you've caused for many photographers are not.
I don't think it's an issue about the boundaries of the rules. There are a lot of acts in real life that affect others, which aren't illegal, but which people nevertheless abstain from because they are not appropriate. It seems many photographers (myself included) feel that a montage of a printout and a twig are not appropriate for a relatively purist photography site with enforced editing rules. Just because there's no direct obligation to comply with the spirit of the site doesn't mean you can expect others to agree that you have done something to be pleased about.
|
|
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: 07/18/2025 03:46:47 AM EDT.
