| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/19/2008 03:14:01 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by goldenhawkofky:
Well, I personally think it is the creator because it is their idea. |
So if I create a photo, isn't it my idea ? |
Most definatly |
|
|
|
03/19/2008 03:15:33 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by goldenhawkofky:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by goldenhawkofky:
Well, I personally think it is the creator because it is their idea. |
So if I create a photo, isn't it my idea ? |
Most definatly |
I don't quite understand the point of the thread then. |
|
|
|
03/19/2008 03:23:17 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by karmat:
Photographer takes picture. Painter copies it. There is nothing of the painter's decisions in the copy except whether to make it an exact copy, or just use it for inspiration. (In the thread you linked to, it was an exact copy).
Sculptor makes *something.* Photographer comes along and decides to take a picture of said something. He has to decide the angle, the lighting, the dof, the exposure, etc. There are 101 different ways to "portray" that sculptor, all reflecting the photographer's distinct taste and personality (and perhaps talent ).
|
Photographers have lots of creative considerations in making their images.
Painters have none ?
you really mean that ? You think photography is a far more creative act than painting can ever be ?
I think you could easily just rewrite your second paragraph replacing 'sculptor' with 'photographer' and 'photographer' with 'painter' and you'd be a lot closer to the truth. |
Ummm, no. I was referring to the thread that was quoted where the painter copied Alex's picture, exactly. He didn't have to choose colors, hues, textures, or anything like that, he used Alex's choices. :)
Painting, in general, to me, is as much a creative act, and possibly more, than photography. I was NOT speaking of painting in general, just the one specific "artist" that hawk chose to reference. In that instance, no I do not think the painter made a lot of creative choices. |
|
|
|
03/19/2008 03:24:01 PM · #29 |
| This is a pretty funny video a guy made about copyright law using disney characters, just to make a point. |
|
|
|
03/19/2008 03:39:39 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Ummm, no. I was referring to the thread that was quoted where the painter copied Alex's picture, exactly. He didn't have to choose colors, hues, textures, or anything like that, he used Alex's choices. :)
Painting, in general, to me, is as much a creative act, and possibly more, than photography. I was NOT speaking of painting in general, just the one specific "artist" that hawk chose to reference. In that instance, no I do not think the painter made a lot of creative choices. |
I believe they ultimately worked out a deal where the photographer was paid for the right to create the derivative work.
There was another member here who also painted from photos -- as I recall, when she solicited suggestions, lots of people here jumped at the chance to have their photo re-interpreted in another medium. |
|
|
|
03/19/2008 04:09:14 PM · #31 |
  
  
Originally posted by karmat:
Sculptor makes *something.* Photographer comes along and decides to take a picture of said something. He has to decide the angle, the lighting, the dof, the exposure, etc. There are 101 different ways to "portray" that sculptor, all reflecting the photographer's distinct taste and personality (and perhaps talent ). |
The OP's problem seems to be that he thinks that those of us who like to photograph sculptures are given some kind of unfair advantage, that we are glomming on to somebody else's creativity instead of using our own. I guess I don't get the point -- as long as the photograph is not completely derivative of the work -- since very few (if any) of us are creating the scenes we capture.
If you are going to start banning "sculpture" are you also going to ban photographs of famous buildings/architecture (like the Chicago Amphitheater above, or the London Eye which comes up again and again)? How is my attempts at taking new and interesting photographs of the Chicago Bean any different than the rural photographer figuring out the best angles and lighting needed to utilize the man-made curves of a gravel road, or a studio photographer arranging and figuring out an interesting angle to shoot a set of purchased blue pencils?
I shoot a lot of urban landscape stuff and do often incorporate public art into my photographs. I enjoy working with the interactions of the art/sculpture with its surroundings, and I always strive to not be derivative (with varying degrees of success). The sculpture and art I photograph is part of my city, party of the world that I want to capture and convey to the viewer.
But it's true, if you just plunk the camera down in front of a piece and take a snap, it's not going to be very interesting -- also, I would suggest, it's going to be pretty boring and not going to score very high in the challenges, so what do you care? What is fun is trying to photograph pieces like the ones above in new and different ways.
If the concern is scoring, then there might even be an argument that you are handicapping yourself by taking a picture of a famous work of art or sculpture, especially if it is one that shows up here on DPC with any regularity. Someone wanting to garner a ribbon with a photo of The Thinker or London Eye is going to have to come up with some pretty darn original and unique way to present the object.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2008 04:32:41 PM · #32 |
okay heres my thought.... Sculptures are fine. That past post is a great example of why they should be allowed. when you have a 3-d object you can show it in an infinite amount of ways therefor putting YOU in the creative process. It would be different if it were say a photograph that you just zoomed in on to make it look like you took the picture which is against the rules. Do you see?
|
|
|
|
03/19/2008 05:13:46 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
<lots of great stuff> |
Yeah, what he said! :-)
 |
|
|
|
03/19/2008 09:29:07 PM · #34 |
|
|
|
03/19/2008 09:58:05 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by goldenhawkofky:
Should we allow an image of a sculpture or any other work of art, created by someone else, to be submitted to challenges? |
[Bold added]
We have had entire challenges dedicated to taking photos of other people's creative work which is at least in part art:
Architecture
Architecture I
Architecture II
Architecture III
[Some people would argue that not all architecture is art. But certainly the best architecture is art, and photos of the best architecture is usually what has won in the above challenges.]
So it is quite clear that finding someone else's creative work and photographing it is an activity that is supported here. |
|
|
|
03/19/2008 10:02:54 PM · #36 |
Ya gotta love this:
Originally posted by linked article:
âI thought they were kidding me,â Wimmer said. âYou canât copyright the park. But they werenât kidding, so I handled it the Chicago wayâI gave them $20 to go away for a while.â |
|
|
|
|
03/19/2008 10:14:47 PM · #37 |
| I know that the town/cities of Laconia New Hampshire, Sturgis South Dakota and Daytona FL have copyrights on their town names when it comes to the motorcycle rallies. Sturgis has also copyrighted "Black Hills Rally". Anyone that uses these phrases on everything from T-shirts to bandana to key chains has to have a license and pay a percentage to the towns/city. The town officials go through the vendors demanding to see the receipts and collect. Not paying or not having a register receipt can result in confiscation of goods and/or arrest. |
|
|
|
03/19/2008 10:17:03 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by neophyte:
The town officials go through the vendors demanding to see the receipts and collect. Not paying or not having a register receipt can result in confiscation of goods and/or arrest. |
So, ya can't just pay them $20 to go away like in Chicago? Would they take $50 and a carton of smokes? |
|
|
|
03/19/2008 11:10:38 PM · #39 |
| "interesting article" indeed. Not clear to me what is purely "derivative" in a photograph as opposed to a painting. On the other hand we have sketch artists when we can't have photographers in a courtroom. Possibly photography is just one big can of worms. |
|
|
|
03/20/2008 12:24:39 AM · #40 |
 shutterpuppy pretty much said what I think on this one ... let the voters decide. A sculpture in itself will not garner decent votes in most cases. There needs to be that "something special" to push it.
The literal interpretation of a sculpture without interesting non-sculpture elements will not do well - however, you pose an interesting question regarding the work of Hanson, whose work could be mistaken for reality - I would think that without an extra element (e.g. a real person there), you may have an overly literal representation.
Here's one that I didn't even think of as a sculpture shot when I submitted but now that I look at it, it is mostly that:  . |
|
|
|
03/20/2008 12:29:01 AM · #41 |
| isn't there enough rules already...holy moly!! |
|
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: 08/19/2025 12:18:16 PM EDT.
