Tougher Rules on Copyrights - DPChallenge Forums

Olympus 12-45mm f/4.0 Pro

07/24/2006 03:13:37 PM · #1

Here's the rule:

Artwork: Literal photographic representations of existing works of art (including your own) are not considered acceptable submissions, however creative depictions or interpretations are permissible.

My question is, where's the line?

If you designed and painted that window - would you feel this is a "creative depiction" of your work simply because it has some desat on the edge - where your work is not showing?

Ok, so now we float some wheat over the top of a very well known photo. What if that was YOUR photo down there?

If the wheat wasn't there, would this be DQ'd? Is wheat floating over the top of this really a "creative depiction"?

Rats, my other example is in the current challenge. Guess I'll save that for later. Let me just say that there are photos of statues and statuettes on black or other backgrounds all the time in these challenges. What if you were the artist that designed it? Would a single light source on your work over black make you feel like you had been ripped off or is it a "creative depiction".

I would be less than happy if I found one of my photos, or works of art depicted in any of the examples above. We are outraged here all the time to find out that our photo is in use on some un-authorized web site -

I vote we toughen the rules and allow "no interpretation" of existing works of art. There are billions of subjects in the world without having to use somebody elses creativity to enhance our images. Let's do the right thing - and give the same respect to these other artists what we would want extended to our work.

Message edited by author 2006-07-24 15:31:40.

OdysseyF22

Panasonic DC-G9

07/24/2006 03:17:30 PM · #2

Eh, this opens a can of worms. There's still a line that has to be drawn - how far do we take it? Some buildings are copyrighted now, and what about large public works of art? Does this mean that the Statute of Liberty, the St. Louis Arch, etc, should be banned from challenges?

How about the people who sometimes print one of their own photos and use it as a background to something else? Does this become a violation?

Granted, the current rule has granted some dubious allowences, but I think that reworking it is more complex than maybe you realize, and probably more complex than it's worth.

David.C

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

07/24/2006 03:21:13 PM · #3

I wouldn't be opposed to tightening the restriction on copywrite to what the photographer has a right to use -- just like anywhere else.

But, since this is primarily a learning site, the educational 'fair-use' allows all of the examples you've cited -- if my understanding of it is correct.

Selling prints of such work however...

David

DjFenzl

07/24/2006 03:24:23 PM · #4

I agree - I think the "literal art" rule should be toughened up. Rather than saying no art I'd rather it be that the other art in the picture can't be the subject of the picture - but instead just as a backdrop or used in some other way just to enhance your subject.

Konador

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

07/24/2006 03:25:28 PM · #5

Originally posted by Megatherian:

In the same way we look at the "Major Element" rule in cloning and removing etc? That's not a bad idea actually.

Canon EOS-20D

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

07/24/2006 03:26:04 PM · #6

Originally posted by digitalknight:

I vote we toughen the rules and allow "no interpretation" of existing works of art. There are billions of subjects in the world without having to use somebody elses creativity to enhance our images. Let's do the right thing - and give the same respect to these other artists what we would want extended to our work.

I would be interested in seeing your write up of your proposed rules modification and also a description of which items do not contain someone else's creativity.

Originally posted by Megatherian:

I agree. I'd just as soon never see a monitor shot again either but that's just my personal preference and not a realistic request.

Message edited by author 2006-07-24 15:27:51.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

07/24/2006 03:30:57 PM · #7

Originally posted by David.C:

... But, since this is primarily a learning site, the educational 'fair-use' allows all of the examples you've cited -- if my understanding of it is correct. ...

Really? I thought this was a for profit business website. I paid $25. Is that my tuition fee?

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

07/24/2006 03:38:09 PM · #8

dang, I thought that wheat picture was a real picture not a picture of a picture. but that doesn't mean it's worth changing the rules for. I would also love to see no more shots with computer monitor backgrounds, but I can spot most of those and vote accordingly. I can also usually tell if something is a picture of a sculpture, and decide for myself if the photographer is adding something to it. It might be a beautiful picture, but only because it's in focus and a picture of a sculpture that is beautiful (You can say, oh, but he's capturing the play of light... don't you think the sculptor was aware of how light would play on his sculpture?). Yes, I do get fooled now and then, but I don't want stricter rules that keep me from making bicycles out of Jell-O. After all, any "set up" can be considered an existing artwork. This rule should be interpreted less strictly, not more.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

07/24/2006 04:06:34 PM · #9

not a big monitor background fan myself - but wanted to keep one topic per thread.

I know there are lots of buildings that are copyrighted - but how could a voter be up-to-date on all that?

I think if we just went with the "major element" idea - the the major element of a photo is a representation of existing artwork, even your own" then you are subject to DQ.

The wheat and the window without the "existing artwork" would not be near the photos - hence they would be subject for DQ if the rule were changed.

This could actually spill into the monitor shots too. If I take a photo, then put it on my monitor and take another photo of it - a major element (the entire background) would be a representation of existing artwork and make it subject to DQ.

So how do I petition the overlords to suggest this - or did I do it by starting a thread? :-)

quiet_observation

Canon EOS-7D

07/24/2006 04:45:38 PM · #10

If anyone has an objection to a challenge photograph because they believe it violates the existing rule they can ask for a DQ. I feel making the rules stricter would just create more DQs and inhibit artistic expresssion.

This could make on-the-street photography very difficult to do. I would prefer to not worry about whether that sign, storefront, statue, building in the background is someone's else idea of a work of art and dq'able.

07/24/2006 06:56:30 PM · #11

remember, I'm talking about a MAJOR ELEMENT of a photo.

If Joe Camel is in the background of your street candid - no problem

If the Cadillac on the front of your car is 75% of the photo - problem.

The existing rules allow photographers on this site to use photos, and other works of art, in ways that nobody here would appreciate - that's all I'm saying - we need to change that practice.

I'm trying to get MORE creativity here. So someone cannot simply put an ansel adams photo under a fishbowl , shoot it and enter - they would have to be creative about a better way to communicate that message without leaning so heavily on the master work underneath.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

07/24/2006 07:04:44 PM · #12

Originally posted by posthumous:

I can also usually tell if something is a picture of a sculpture, and decide for myself if the photographer is adding something to it. It might be a beautiful picture, but only because it's in focus and a picture of a sculpture that is beautiful (You can say, oh, but he's capturing the play of light... don't you think the sculptor was aware of how light would play on his sculpture?).

You can say the same thing about photographing a handsome man or beautiful woman in that case.

David.C

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

07/25/2006 01:15:48 AM · #13

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by David.C:
... But, since this is primarily a learning site, the educational 'fair-use' allows all of the examples you've cited -- if my understanding of it is correct. ...

Really? I thought this was a for profit business website. I paid $25. Is that my tuition fee?

Yes, this site operates on a 'for profit' basis (and I hope it's enough to continue making it worthwhile) -- but a private school operates 'for profit' as well. Last I checked, the intention of this site was for it to be an venue of learning, with the challenges being the primary means of fascilitating that learning.

If you wish to consider your $25 to be a tuition, go right ahead.

Originally posted by digitalknight:

... I think if we just went with the "major element" idea - the the major element of a photo is a representation of existing artwork, even your own" then you are subject to DQ. ...

The problem with this approach is there is not a solid definition (nor understanding) of what a 'major element' is or is not -- and that would just make the rules more confusing. The current artwork rule is inconsistent in application, but at least it is fairly easy to understand.

David

Beetle

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

07/25/2006 02:30:27 AM · #14

Originally posted by digitalknight:

I vote we toughen the rules and allow "no interpretation" of existing works of art.

I think that is overdoing it big time.

Let's say I was hired by a city to create a statue for display in a prominent, public location.
Surely I would fully expect it be looked at AND photographed.

What's wrong with enjoying art that was created to be displayed (and therefore shared)?

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

07/25/2006 02:51:05 AM · #15

Leok

Pentax K10D

Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 EX DG for Pentax

07/25/2006 03:45:27 AM · #16

I understand where you are coming from but I think the practicalities make it unworkable. The removal of a Major Element being DQ'able causes enough debate already, rules like this that are subject to interpretation are best avoided.

Most voters will penalise images like the ones you describe and that is sufficient IMHO.

07/25/2006 04:35:49 AM · #17

I am not sure that this should be at all related to the concept of copyright - many people have a misguided idea of what that consists of, and there are, of course, many international variations on the theme.

The idea of excluding all creative works from being the subject matter of all entries would be beset with difficulty. Trying to determine what constituted another's creativity would be enormously problematic. For example, This could include everything from woodys, through to clothes, creased paper, cars, flowers that had been arranged, etc etc. Incidentally, copyright (or an associated design right) would also arise in many of these things.

Under your proposed rules, the only truly "safe" objects would be naturally found objects that had not been interfered with. That would pretty much limit competitions to rural landscapes and animals.

07/25/2006 04:37:35 AM · #18

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Someone designed that woody, the shape of the popcorn bucket, the pattern on the side of the bucket, the plinth, and the arrangement. It is an inappropriate image for this thread!

07/25/2006 05:32:39 AM · #19

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Under your proposed rules, the only truly "safe" objects would be naturally found objects that had not been interfered with. That would pretty much limit competitions to rural landscapes and animals.

Lawyers are so much fun

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

07/25/2006 08:05:34 AM · #20

Originally posted by digitalknight:

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Under your proposed rules, the only truly "safe" objects would be naturally found objects that had not been interfered with. That would pretty much limit competitions to rural landscapes and animals.

Lawyers are so much fun

Writing rules and pointing out the ways in which rules work or don't work is something that I do for a living.

Now, who to charge for this one...?

Message edited by author 2006-07-25 08:20:32.

Judi

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

07/25/2006 08:08:47 AM · #21

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Someone designed that woody, the shape of the popcorn bucket, the pattern on the side of the bucket, the plinth, and the arrangement. It is an inappropriate image for this thread!

Don't forget it was somebody's idea to implement the rule of thirds for photographic composition...therefore let me conclude that by following this detailed layout of artwork in photography...woodie has been banned!!!

Hehehehehe!!

UNCLEBRO

Canon EOS-30D

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

07/25/2006 08:18:08 AM · #22

And why is Woody double fisting his popcorn?
There is a piece in his left hand yet he's still grabbing another with his right!

Judi

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

07/25/2006 08:20:15 AM · #23

Originally posted by UNCLEBRO:

And why is Woody double fisting his popcorn?
There is a piece in his left hand yet he's still grabbing another with his right!

Oh my...that Woodie is greedy....Would someone please explain to Woody the etiquette of Woodies'.