| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/11/2008 12:53:44 PM · #576 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by basssman7:
Originally posted by basssman7:
Shannon since you are now reading this again, please answer a question that MattO has asked you many times in this thread to answer in regards to the manatee situation vs the glass.
"Her object is 3 dimensional and so are the manatees, you said take the glass away and its a photo of a photo. I say take the manatees away and its a photo of the background which likely is a painting. You say his subject is the Manatee I say her subject is the glass. How is that any different. Her intent was to fool the voters it was a real setting, and so was his. I see no difference in any of this."
Matt |
Shannon will you please answer this question? I believe this is about the 7th time it has been asked of you. Thank you. :) |
I think it's possible the manatee image is under review by SC and there won't be an answer here until they have reached a decision.
R. |
It did not stop him from stating yesterday to Posthumous that this was an "open and shut" case of being legal. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 12:55:57 PM · #577 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
Shannon since you are now reading this again, please answer a question that MattO has asked you many times in this thread to answer in regards to the manatee situation vs the glass.
"Her object is 3 dimensional and so are the manatees, you said take the glass away and its a photo of a photo. I say take the manatees away and its a photo of the background which likely is a painting. You say his subject is the Manatee I say her subject is the glass. How is that any different. Her intent was to fool the voters it was a real setting, and so was his. I see no difference in any of this." |
OK, fine, but then it's someone else's turn in the dunk tank. See my last post:
Originally posted by scalvert:
It's meant to exclude using existing photorealistic artwork (including your own) as a primary or standalone part of your entry. If your entry is chiefly "about" the artwork and voters are judging the content of that art as if it were actual objects in a scene, then that's a problem. If the artwork is only used as a supporting element, and therefore the voters are judging something else real, then it's fine. Capiche? |
MattO says the photo is "about" the glass. He's certainly entitled to his opinion, and this [i]was a split decision, but I think it's reasonable to expect that in an entry for a Feast challenge, where the frame is completely filled with a scene of a family at a table, that the feast is the subject, and many of the voters were indeed judging the content of THAT scene.
In the manatees image, the photo is indisputably "about" the manatees, and those were real objects... even if they weren't living. The entry is therefore not a photo of a photo, but an image of real objects (albeit stuffed), and the painted background only plays a supporting role. As others have said, deception is nothing new in photography, but we can at least require that photographers capture a scene rather than another photo.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 01:01:54 PM · #578 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
....As others have said, deception is nothing new in photography, but we can at least require that photographers capture a scene rather than another photo. |
I guess the biggest issue I have is how come If I captured the Scene with a photo, can I not use it to create a new image?
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 01:05:10 PM · #579 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I have advocated, several times in the past, that the (relatively simply worded) rules as written should also include explanatory text telling us WHY we have the rule and how it was intended to be used. |
So have I... regularly and often. I believe every that ruleset should have a guiding philosophy stating the general intent right up front, and I suggested years ago that key rules be annotated with hyperlinks to a deeper explanation and examples. Heck, I even made a [now obsolete] gallery of examples to explain the old artwork rule itself. I'm only one indian in the tribe, though, and even the explanations posted in this thread represent my own personal opinion and interpretation. It's not my site, and there are equally valid arguments for simplicity and short rules. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 01:06:13 PM · #580 |
Originally posted by PapaBob:
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by PapaBob:
 |
I know this is a different rule set but are you saying this one would be legal? |
so...just to clarify, is this legal? |
Sorry to bring this one up again but still no reply from SC, would this one be legal? I asked this one yesterday because a comment was made that seemed to say this one would be allowed and I just wanted it clarified. Is it because a TV was used or did I interpret the comment incorrectly? [/quote]
I may have missed it, but didn't see any answer to this question.... |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 01:08:17 PM · #581 |
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:
Originally posted by scalvert:
....As others have said, deception is nothing new in photography, but we can at least require that photographers capture a scene rather than another photo. |
I guess the biggest issue I have is how come If I captured the Scene with a photo, can I not use it to create a new image? |
If you could do that, then everyone should be able to use multiple exposures or Photoshop as many images as they want together to create their entry. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 01:11:07 PM · #582 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:
Originally posted by scalvert:
....As others have said, deception is nothing new in photography, but we can at least require that photographers capture a scene rather than another photo. |
I guess the biggest issue I have is how come If I captured the Scene with a photo, can I not use it to create a new image? |
If you could do that, then everyone should be able to use multiple exposures or Photoshop as many images as they want together to create their entry. |
So that would make images like "Swan Lake" illegal as well.(which I think is stupid to even contemplate this is an Iconic image in my opinion, but under this interpretation is not allowed)
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 13:12:54.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 01:11:41 PM · #583 |
Originally posted by PapaBob:
I know this is a different rule set but are you saying this one would be legal? |
Originally posted by scalvert:
It's meant to exclude using existing photorealistic artwork (including your own) as a primary or standalone part of your entry. If your entry is chiefly "about" the artwork and voters are judging the content of that art as if it were actual objects in a scene, then that's a problem. If the artwork is only used as a supporting element, and therefore the voters are judging something else real, then it's fine. |
I would consider that entry to be "about" Stonehenge, and that part of it consists of real objects, not a photo or monitor. We'd vote on it and probably reach a split decision. Can I get back to work now? |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 01:13:43 PM · #584 |
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:
So that would make images like "Swan Lake" illegal as well.
|
It's irrelevant since the artwork use is obvious to everyone, and even then the image is "about" the swan, which is a real object. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 01:23:27 PM · #585 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:
"fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph" -This qualifier again only applies to photographs and prohibits the capture of work by other people or in other words this prevents Plagerism which is a good thing |
No, it doesn't. IT HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH OWNERSHIP!!! Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Zero. The artwork rule, is not now, and never has been, an issue of ownership. It's a restriction on how the artwork is used, not who made it, and even the old rules referred to "existing works of art (including your own)." Plagiarism and copyright are covered separately as a ToS violation. That line refers to fooling the voters into thinking you actually captured the content of the artwork... HERE, live, as real 3D objects in THIS entry. Could the wording be improved? Absolutely, and it's already been proposed that it be rephrased to something like, "...fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph as a live scene.â I think that would go a long way toward resolving the apparent confusion. |
A billboard or large poster (as often used in street photography) is not "live". How then, does that not get DQ'd? |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 01:27:30 PM · #586 |
I'm still following along here and I would like to point out one small thing...
"Her intent was to fool the voters it was a real setting, and so was his."
Noone knows what my intent was... or his intent...except the two of us.
I understand what you're trying to say, but some folks not reading the entire thread (WHO WOULD?!!) might think that I intended to deceive which is certainly not the case.
Ok... carry on...
Oh wait... One more thing... I now realize that "over a year ago" there was a thread about how 'from that time on' the rule was going to be interpreted that artwork in front of a monitor was not legal, but the rule was not changed. I was not here a year ago, and I've not yet gotten around to reading all of the threads that came in the years before to see if there are any more extra parts to rules that aren't on the rules themselves... so I've mistakenly been taking the rules at face value. I think probably a few more people have been, too. So, I heartily recommend that somehow someone comes up with rules that are clearly stated and the intention of the rule does not have to be gleaned from past threads, but can be understood by reading the rule itself.
Just a suggestion.
I also recommend that the images in question be allowed to remain (even if mine is the only 'sacrificial lamb' to the learning process). Leave everything as it is... and fix the problem (by changing the wording on the rules to state what the rule intends to state) before more 'bleeding' of the forum's lifeblood happens.
I've already learned an important thing from this experience: One should never state how one has accomplished a photo, either on the photo details box or in any threads meant to educate other photographers. If neither of us had stated how we created our images, we'd all be happily arguing about some other issue, I'd be enjoying my ribbon, and the manatees would forever be happily enjoying the light painted around them.
Can we please let this all go? Let the manatees image remain valid, and let SC get about the business of stating their intentions in a rule, instead of arguing here with us?
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 01:32:09 PM · #587 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by PapaBob:
|
I would consider that entry to be "about" Stonehenge, and that part of it consists of real objects, not a photo or monitor. We'd vote on it and probably reach a split decision. Can I get back to work now? |
Shannon, I think we all appreciate the amount of time and energy you have spent on this thread, and certainly you do have a 'day job.' Since the matter is still unresolved, it occurs to me that perhaps one of the other Site Council members could take over as moderator for a while? Perhaps  Alanfreed, the originator of the Thread might want to take a turn.
Just a thought, of course. I'm not really sure how this SC moderating rotation works.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 01:33:18 PM · #588 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
A billboard or large poster (as often used in street photography) is not "live". How then, does that not get DQ'd? |
If it's obviously a billboard (or a sign, painting, illustration, monitor) then it's exempt from the rule since the voters understand what they're judging. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 01:35:46 PM · #589 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
I'm not really sure how this SC moderating rotation works. |
It works on the "popcorn" principle. One or two stick their neck out while the rest enjoy the show. ;-)
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 13:36:32. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 01:37:17 PM · #590 |
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
I'm still following along here and I would like to point out one small thing...
"Her intent was to fool the voters it was a real setting, and so was his."
Noone knows what my intent was... or his intent...except the two of us.
I understand what you're trying to say, but some folks not reading the entire thread (WHO WOULD?!!) might think that I intended to deceive which is certainly not the case.
Ok... carry on...
Oh wait... One more thing... I now realize that "over a year ago" there was a thread about how 'from that time on' the rule was going to be interpreted that artwork in front of a monitor was not legal, but the rule was not changed. I was not here a year ago, and I've not yet gotten around to reading all of the threads that came in the years before to see if there are any more extra parts to rules that aren't on the rules themselves... so I've mistakenly been taking the rules at face value. I think probably a few more people have been, too. So, I heartily recommend that somehow someone comes up with rules that are clearly stated and the intention of the rule does not have to be gleaned from past threads, but can be understood by reading the rule itself.
Just a suggestion.
I also recommend that the images in question be allowed to remain (even if mine is the only 'sacrificial lamb' to the learning process). Leave everything as it is... and fix the problem (by changing the wording on the rules to state what the rule intends to state) before more 'bleeding' of the forum's lifeblood happens.
I've already learned an important thing from this experience: One should never state how one has accomplished a photo, either on the photo details box or in any threads meant to educate other photographers. If neither of us had stated how we created our images, we'd all be happily arguing about some other issue, I'd be enjoying my ribbon, and the manatees would forever be happily enjoying the light painted around them.
Can we please let this all go? Let the manatees image remain valid, and let SC get about the business of stating their intentions in a rule, instead of arguing here with us? |
Amen, now  scalvert get back to work... |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 01:40:48 PM · #591 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:
I would challenge you to defend why an artistically oriented photographic contest site would ever contemplate including such a rule in the first place? |
It is intended to prevent people from entering what is primarily a photo of a photo. It prevents skirting the date rule and matches the similar restrictions on multiple exposures and creating your entry from multiple captures. 3-dimensional props, non-photorealistic textures, obvious artwork and even secondary use as supporting elements are all essentially exempt. It's meant to exclude using existing photorealistic artwork (including your own) as a primary or standalone part of your entry. If your entry is chiefly "about" the artwork and voters are judging the content of that art as if it were actual objects in a scene, then that's a problem. If the artwork is only used as a supporting element, and therefore the voters are judging something else real, then it's fine. Capiche? |
I can see where it is intended to stop taking photos of photos but, when a photo is used as a background and other objects become the main focus of that shot primarily, it is not strictly a photo of a photo any longer. It is a photo of an object with a photo used as a background. As long as the photo submitted contains other objects, photographed during the time frame of the challenge, it is not circumventing the date ruling. To know how all voters are going to see this and interpret this is an impossible task for either the photographer or SC. Some MAY not see it as a photographed background, others may. What difference does it really make? In Lydia's case, there was a real glass, and the background could be considered by some to be "supporting". It all depends on who is looking at it and what perspective someone is seeing it from, which is all individual and subjective and dependent upon how long a voter/viewer actually looks or what depth they look at a shot from and with, doesn't it? Those who linger will see something different than those who give it a passing glance. Point is, how can anyone judge how someone else will see it?
A photo of a photo without anything else added would or could be an attempt at circumventing the dates/rules and would therefore, be considered by most as "illegal". However, photographing an object with a photo as a background and shooting it (as with any other photo in challenges) within the challenge dates is not the same thing nor, does it apply in the same way under this explanation.
ETA: LOL....if I don't quit this thread, I'm also going to be with a job! :)
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 13:46:39. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 01:44:59 PM · #592 |
Another thing I might have missed in following this thread is a formal statement from any SC member that they (a) do agree that the rule needs to be rewritten and (b) they will do so.
Mostly what I have seen is one SC member defending an interpretation of the rule with posts that often seem designed to incite argument.
If we know that the SC WILL update the rule to be more clear, then this thread is lockable in my view. If, however, the position seems to be "our interpretation was obviously correct and you lot just don't understand or don't want to" then literally no progress has been made--probably should lock it for that reason, too, I suppose.
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 13:47:07. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 01:49:04 PM · #593 |
Originally posted by chromeydome:
Another thing I might have missed in following this thread is a formal statement from any SC member that they (a) do agree that the rule needs to be rewritten and (b) they will do so.
Mostly what I have seen is one SC member defending an interpretation of the rule with posts that often seem designed to incite argument.
If we know that the SC WILL update the rule to be more clear, then this thread is lockable in my view. If, however, the position seems to be "our interpretation was obviously correct and you lot just don't understand or don't want to" then literally no progress has been made--probably should lock it for that reason, too, I suppose. |
Excellent points!
It either needs to be said that this rule is being considered for re-working or that there is no such idea in mind and in either case, there is no need or purpose in contuining any further discussion on it. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 01:50:53 PM · #594 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:
Originally posted by scalvert:
....As others have said, deception is nothing new in photography, but we can at least require that photographers capture a scene rather than another photo. |
I guess the biggest issue I have is how come If I captured the Scene with a photo, can I not use it to create a new image? |
If you could do that, then everyone should be able to use multiple exposures or Photoshop as many images as they want together to create their entry. |
This made me think of these (and similar others that I can't find quickly)...
  |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 01:52:31 PM · #595 |
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
I'm still following along here and I would like to point out one small thing...
"Her intent was to fool the voters it was a real setting, and so was his."
Noone knows what my intent was... or his intent...except the two of us.
I understand what you're trying to say, but some folks not reading the entire thread (WHO WOULD?!!) might think that I intended to deceive which is certainly not the case.
Ok... carry on...
Oh wait... One more thing... I now realize that "over a year ago" there was a thread about how 'from that time on' the rule was going to be interpreted that artwork in front of a monitor was not legal, but the rule was not changed. I was not here a year ago, and I've not yet gotten around to reading all of the threads that came in the years before to see if there are any more extra parts to rules that aren't on the rules themselves... so I've mistakenly been taking the rules at face value. I think probably a few more people have been, too. So, I heartily recommend that somehow someone comes up with rules that are clearly stated and the intention of the rule does not have to be gleaned from past threads, but can be understood by reading the rule itself.
Just a suggestion.
I also recommend that the images in question be allowed to remain (even if mine is the only 'sacrificial lamb' to the learning process). Leave everything as it is... and fix the problem (by changing the wording on the rules to state what the rule intends to state) before more 'bleeding' of the forum's lifeblood happens.
I've already learned an important thing from this experience: One should never state how one has accomplished a photo, either on the photo details box or in any threads meant to educate other photographers. If neither of us had stated how we created our images, we'd all be happily arguing about some other issue, I'd be enjoying my ribbon, and the manatees would forever be happily enjoying the light painted around them.
Can we please let this all go? Let the manatees image remain valid, and let SC get about the business of stating their intentions in a rule, instead of arguing here with us? |
Lydia, I appreciate the grace with which you have handled yourself in this situation. It is imperative however that until the rules are re-written that the interpretation of the vaguely stated ones we have now are consistent. For that reason it is still important that the manatee suffer the same fate as your entry.
The manatee in Shannon's opinion is the only thing that the voters were considering when they voted. So without the beautiful painted light and realistic backdrop they would have voted the same even if the fake manatee were in front of a totally black background. I find that impossible to believe.
Obviously everyone is welcome to their own opinions. What bothers me is that Shannon is obviously biased on this photo because he has been trying to justify his early interpretation and is no longer impartial.
Despite that I still hope and believe that he will (as the SC watching this thread) bring all of the arguements both for and against to the discussion the SC will have about this image.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 01:55:39 PM · #596 |
| I do agree with Glad2badad that we all realize that the wording of the rules need to be made clear, to match the interpretation of them. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 01:57:37 PM · #597 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
I do agree with Glad2badad that we all realize that the wording of the rules need to be made clear, to match the interpretation of them. |
Huh?!
FTR - I find the rules pretty darn easy to follow and understand. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 02:04:59 PM · #598 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by basssman7:
I do agree with Glad2badad that we all realize that the wording of the rules need to be made clear, to match the interpretation of them. |
Huh?!
FTR - I find the rules pretty darn easy to follow and understand. |
Sorry my bad. I should have said I agree with Chromeydome, not glad2badad. Sorry for the confusion. :) |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 02:05:54 PM · #599 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by basssman7:
I do agree with Glad2badad that we all realize that the wording of the rules need to be made clear, to match the interpretation of them. |
Huh?!
FTR - I find the rules pretty darn easy to follow and understand. |
Sorry my bad. I should have said I agree with Chromeydome, not glad2badad. Sorry for the confusion. :) |
Feel free to disagree with me anytime. :-P |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 02:08:43 PM · #600 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by basssman7:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by basssman7:
I do agree with Glad2badad that we all realize that the wording of the rules need to be made clear, to match the interpretation of them. |
Huh?!
FTR - I find the rules pretty darn easy to follow and understand. |
Sorry my bad. I should have said I agree with Chromeydome, not glad2badad. Sorry for the confusion. :) |
Feel free to disagree with me anytime. :-P |
I generally do. LMAO |
|
