| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/12/2009 10:25:39 PM · #26 |
There is lots of wiggle room with that wording I would consider both of these images legal.
 
Neither consist entirely of pre-existing artwork.
Perhaps a better question rather than the wording of the rule. But, of the shots presented thus far, which do people think should have been legal.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2009 10:31:59 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by SJCarter:
I guess my main argument is that when a printed photograph (taken by the photographer) is used as a backdrop for a new scene. It's used as a prop - and has no ownership issues. Photographers have been using this little trick for decades in the dark room. Why shouldn't we be able to do the same in the digital world?
I know I'm beating the dead horse and I apologize, but I couldn't stop myself from saying it. |
So, in the scenario I presented above, would you say the incredible, wonderful, awesomely perfect picture is the backdrop of the shot of the tip of the toothpick that isn't obviously visible? |
Even if it's larger than a toothpick, it could cause some issues. If I buy a national geographic poster of a wonderful swamp with lily pads, and put my own frog on it, I'm still being judged on the wonderful background, because I've purposely tried to fool the people into thinking I photographed the complete scene. |
I'd say that I have to agree with Wendy here... For the ones who think that the artwork should be allowed, how are the voters supposed to know which part of the picture consists of the artwork and which part is the added element to make it their own.. I know some think it "should be obvious", but clearly, it's not.. We've got very creative clever people here on DPC and I prefer to leave the guessing out of it.. I don't want to guess each time I'm voting on an image as to whether or not it's a picture of a picture and then if it is, where does that said picture begin & end..
|
|
|
|
07/12/2009 10:37:46 PM · #28 |
This seems pretty simple to me.
"You may use existing artwork as long as it is obvious that it is existing artwork."
Considering this wording=
 Obvious. valid
 Obvious. valid
 Obvious. valid
 Obvious. valid
 Obvious. valid
Not obvious (just look at the comments). DQ
 Not obvious. DQ
 Not obvious. DQ
 Obvious. valid
Not obvious. DQ
|
|
|
|
07/12/2009 10:40:47 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by kandykarml:
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by SJCarter:
I guess my main argument is that when a printed photograph (taken by the photographer) is used as a backdrop for a new scene. It's used as a prop - and has no ownership issues. Photographers have been using this little trick for decades in the dark room. Why shouldn't we be able to do the same in the digital world?
I know I'm beating the dead horse and I apologize, but I couldn't stop myself from saying it. |
So, in the scenario I presented above, would you say the incredible, wonderful, awesomely perfect picture is the backdrop of the shot of the tip of the toothpick that isn't obviously visible? |
Even if it's larger than a toothpick, it could cause some issues. If I buy a national geographic poster of a wonderful swamp with lily pads, and put my own frog on it, I'm still being judged on the wonderful background, because I've purposely tried to fool the people into thinking I photographed the complete scene. |
I'd say that I have to agree with Wendy here... For the ones who think that the artwork should be allowed, how are the voters supposed to know which part of the picture consists of the artwork and which part is the added element to make it their own.. I know some think it "should be obvious", but clearly, it's not.. We've got very creative clever people here on DPC and I prefer to leave the guessing out of it.. I don't want to guess each time I'm voting on an image as to whether or not it's a picture of a picture and then if it is, where does that said picture begin & end.. |
I just went back and reread scalvert's suggested wording: "You may include images that are clearly recognizable as existing artwork when photographing your entry. Images that could be mistaken for real objects in the scene may also be included, but must not be so prominent that voters are basically judging a photo of a photo."
Do you honestly think that it's unclear? Look at the photos listed at the beginning of this thread. You may disagree with Scalvert's idea, but do you honestly think that this definition is confusing? Yes, someone may use the National Geographic poster as a backdrop for their frog, but not if they were honestly trying to follow the rules with the newly suggested definition.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2009 10:42:57 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by karmat:
So, I'm cruisin' the net and find an incredible picture. This is the most stunning, perfect picture ever created. It also happens to fit the challenge PERFECTLY and, even better, there is a notice on the page by the original photog that says, "Please, use this picture, print it out, download it, sell it, do whatever you want to do with it. I want to share"
So, I print it out, or better yet, download it, get something about the size of my pinkie fingernail (a tack, piece of a toothpick, blade of grass) and put it in the lower left hand corner. Then, I snap and enter.
With the General's definition, this is allowed. :(
Honestly, I WISH GE's definition would work, but if that is what we went with, there WOULD be a 7+ score on a picture of a picture. |
I say go with the General's definition. Sure we'll probably see A 7+ score of a picture of a picture with a pinkie fingernail in the corner so what? Maybe if we get enough of those entries people might wise up and stop handing out high scores to same old images. On second thought probably not.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2009 11:03:04 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
submitting a photo of a photo with something minor added is not what this site is about IMO. |
Amen to that.
"Fooling" voters with a clever set up is one thing, and it's something I appreciate and admire when I see it.
Slapping an insignificant addition to another photo and calling it an entry is not at all what DPC is about. And I feel strongly enough about it that if we decided to allow that sort of entry, I will bid the site farewell and not look back. And that's after 7 years and 200,000+ votes cast here. |
|
|
|
07/12/2009 11:06:20 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Sure we'll probably see A 7+ score of a picture of a picture with a pinkie fingernail in the corner so what? Maybe if we get enough of those entries people might wise up and stop handing out high scores to same old images. |
More likely they'd be more aggressive with low votes whenever they suspect an existing photo. The voters are reminded to rate every entry as if it's legit, but that only works if there's some assurance that "bogus" entries won't benefit. If there's no way to know whether that great model or spectacular sunset was actually a real scene, then the ones that really are will suffer from voter doubt. Of course, that also depends on whether or not you believe riding the coattails of an old photo is fair. |
|
|
|
07/12/2009 11:12:26 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
But then people could enter photos that were 98% a previous photo. |
Unfortunately, we already have those. They are called ribbon grab tribute entries. Much like the picture of a picture entry, the tribute entries make you think you're voting on the entrant's idea, lighting setup, composition, etc, when of course you're not. What you're really voting on is their ability to color by numbers. I'd rather see more of those 98% artwork entries. They are far more unique.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2009 11:17:37 PM · #34 |
| i don't see the difference in the presentation of scalvert's 'fantasy' photo and general e's 'spam' photo. i wasn't fooled into thinking that general e got those nice ladies to attach giant pieces of spam to their fans anymore than i believed that little girl was flying around on a piece of carpet. neither photo would have done very well if not for the 'artwork' that was added. |
|
|
|
07/12/2009 11:19:29 PM · #35 |
does anyone remember those splashing fishbowls with the cutout fish leaping out. (No I'm not going to fish around and try to find one to show) Now, that is just a dab of 'fake' photo, but changes the meaning of the whole image. surely that could be interpreted as 'fooling the voters' even though only a small portion of the image is fake?
I'm curious - how would such an entry be judged under the SC proposed rule?
|
|
|
|
07/12/2009 11:19:31 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by vawendy:
But then people could enter photos that were 98% a previous photo. |
Unfortunately, we already have those. They are called ribbon grab tribute entries. Much like the picture of a picture entry, the tribute entries make you think you're voting on the entrant's idea, lighting setup, composition, etc, when of course you're not. What you're really voting on is their ability to color by numbers. I'd rather see more of those 98% artwork entries. They are far more unique. |
The tribute entries bug me as well. But at least the photographer has to setup the lighting and subjects in order to copy it. With the 98% artwork, they just have to print it out and put a bug in the corner. I'm happier making them work a little harder for there 7+ score, as long as I'm spending a heck of a lot of time on my 5.5 score. |
|
|
|
07/12/2009 11:22:34 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by desertoddity:
i don't see the difference in the presentation of scalvert's 'fantasy' photo and general e's 'spam' photo. i wasn't fooled into thinking that general e got those nice ladies to attach giant pieces of spam to their fans anymore than i believed that little girl was flying around on a piece of carpet. neither photo would have done very well if not for the 'artwork' that was added. |
I didn't have a problem thinking that someone set up the photo with SPAM on fans -- people around here do a lot of strange things to set up a shot, and I certainly know people who've hired models for shots--why not models for SPAM fans? But then again, printing a photo and putting SPAM on it wouldn't have occurred to me, because it really isn't taking a photograph in my mind, it's just editing one that already exists. Seems to be the definition of trying to circumvent the editing rules--you can't add SPAM in through photoshop, so I'll print it out and add it in that way.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2009 11:24:13 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
does anyone remember those splashing fishbowls with the cutout fish leaping out... |
  |
|
|
|
07/12/2009 11:25:13 PM · #39 |
What about GeneralE's suggested description plus the following...
"Note that objects placed in the scene for the sole purpose of evading the aforementioned rule are not allowed."
That would make it too subjective again, wouldn't it?
-tog
PS- Thanks to the SC for bringing this forward!
|
|
|
|
07/12/2009 11:28:10 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
Sure we'll probably see A 7+ score of a picture of a picture with a pinkie fingernail in the corner so what? Maybe if we get enough of those entries people might wise up and stop handing out high scores to same old images. |
More likely they'd be more aggressive with low votes whenever they suspect an existing photo. The voters are reminded to rate every entry as if it's legit, but that only works if there's some assurance that "bogus" entries won't benefit. If there's no way to know whether that great model or spectacular sunset was actually a real scene, then the ones that really are will suffer from voter doubt. Of course, that also depends on whether or not you believe riding the coattails of an old photo is fair. |
Sunsets suffer from voter doubt? Ok you've officially sold me on this idea. :P
Message edited by author 2009-07-12 23:29:56.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2009 11:35:02 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by sfalice:
does anyone remember those splashing fishbowls with the cutout fish leaping out... |
|
LOL, that was quick. Thank you  Scalvert. And your opinion under the new rule?
|
|
|
|
07/12/2009 11:36:16 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by togtog:
What about GeneralE's suggested description plus the following...
"Note that objects placed in the scene for the sole purpose of evading the aforementioned rule are not allowed."
That would make it too subjective again, wouldn't it?
-tog
PS- Thanks to the SC for bringing this forward! |
This seems like a good addition to the rule !!!! Again, I guess you can't stop people from photographing a photograph for the sole purpose of getting the voters to think the entire scene was "real", but at least this is added to the rule and if done, then it may be DQ'd.. |
|
|
|
07/12/2009 11:36:18 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
And your opinion under the new rule? |
Only one of those was artwork, and it's not obvious. Take away the art, and... |
|
|
|
07/12/2009 11:41:38 PM · #44 |
| I don't really think there is any way it can be worded that would not require some subjectivity to evaluate if it violates the spirit of the rules. The only way to avoid subjectivity is by having such a loose interpretation that all the examples previously brought up would be allowed. |
|
|
|
07/12/2009 11:52:01 PM · #45 |
|
|
|
07/12/2009 11:59:06 PM · #46 |
ok so im a bit confused reading bits here and there
what about say photos like,
 ,
Message edited by author 2009-07-12 23:59:35. |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 12:04:01 AM · #47 |
| I dont agree with photographing someone elses photo and trying to take it off as its yours.. a photo of statues and illustration, when you can clearly tell its a photo and you havent stated its your artwork and your not selling it I dont really see the problem. Its the same as you shooting someone wearing a fashion outfit or holding a designer handbag. I think if you take all the photos and you merge them to make one photo and it looks awesome that should be allowed.. I love seeing creativeness and seeing people pushing there limits. It should be celebrated more on here. People that usaully have a problem with it are usaully the people who are talented enough to do it themselves.. In advertising we are fooled all the time. |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 12:05:12 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by Joker1114:
ok so im a bit confused reading bits here and there
what about say photos like,
, |
to get more unconfused, i would recommend ready all of it, not bits here and there -- that would confuse anyone.
for the shot you referenced, it wouldn't come close to being dq'ed under either "version" of the rules. the graffiti (artwork) is part of the shot, yea, but is just one element. the angle, subject, lighting, etc. are all choices the photog made. to use scalvert's line, if you took away the artwork, there is still a shot of a train car to contend with. |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 12:06:01 AM · #49 |
I think the real problem is that everyone actually understands the rule and what it is intended for, and we all know what should and shouldn't be allowed. The trouble is finding some sort of wording where someone won't be able to find a loophole where they can essentially 'cheat' the rules to get a great score while technically staying within the wording.
How about something like this, though lengthy I think it covers most scenarios:
"Any pre-existing artwork contained within the shot must be easily discernible as being pre-existing artwork, whether through the fact it can be clearly seen to be pre-existing art (e.g. a photo hanging on a wall in the background), or by the fact that a viewer could make an obvious deduction that it is pre-existing art (e.g. a flying carpet placed on a print of an aerial view of the earth)"
Sorry for using an example of an actual shot, couldn't come up with anything else! |
|
|
|
07/13/2009 12:08:53 AM · #50 |
How about "Don't be a putz."
That could be, like, the only rule. |
|
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: 05/20/2025 03:05:08 AM EDT.
