The Art Rule and my image in Body Forms

11/03/2010 11:02:29 PM · #1

My recent photo

was DQ'd for the art rule.

The rule (under advanced editing - one which I was not familiar with until now) states:
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.

The disqualification details delivered by site council under my image say:
You may include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph in order to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph.

So tell me - did I copy someone else's art? Did I use somebody else's photograph to my advantage? AND, more importantly to me,...is this video ARTWORK? I know for sure that I wasn't trying to fool anybody into believing something they couldn't see for themselves.
This was a motion video on an American Eagle billboard in Times Square. The actors were jumping all over the screen and I happened to catch this woman in this position on the frame of the front billboard. The challenge was body and forms. What I saw were triangles (her arm and the part of the screen behind her) and wavy lines on a poster of sorts. I am sensitive, generally, to taking photos of existing monuments and statues, etc and using them in my own way but it honestly didn't even occur to me here.

Please understand I accept that, simply stated, I broke the rule that says you can't post a picture of a picture. And I also accept that if I break a rule I should get DQ'd.
But I question the rule itself as it pertains to this image and whether or not what I took a picture of should be considered "art".

Beetle

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

11/03/2010 11:22:45 PM · #2

I didn't vote on that challenge, I didn't even look at the submissions.

When I see a forum question like yours, I pretty much always look at the photo first before I read about it, because I want get a first impression that relies totally on what I see in the photo, not what I read underneath it.

So that is what I did..... I first looked at your photo. Here is what was going on in my head:

"Hmmm... this looks odd. What challenge was this in?
Ok, so I get the "body form" part, but what are all those lines? Were they added deliberately? Is that why it was DQed? Why would anyone add those? Nah... looks like a photo of.... hmmm.... a TV, maybe? But then what is the other box behind it?"

So see.... you didn't totally fool me, but I sure as heck didn't know what was going on.

All up, I'm afraid I agree with the DQ .... it is mostly a pic of a pic - plus some unexplained other stuff. Maybe I am slow, but I did NOT really understand for sure what was going on without the help of your comments.

11/03/2010 11:26:53 PM · #3

Hmmm... tough call. The pertinent question is, can we expect the average viewer to realize it's a shot of a billboard? I bet some will, and some will not. So it's a borderline call, and the SC probably erred on the conservative side. I probably would have also voted to DQ.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

11/03/2010 11:39:41 PM · #4

I assumed that they would but why does it matter whether the viewer recognizes this as a billboard or not?
What does that have to do with the call to DQ this as photographing artwork?

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

11/03/2010 11:56:52 PM · #5

Had she called it "Dueling Electronic Billboards" would that have made a difference? I'm assuming that the deal is we have to shoot other artwork "in context" - ie don't simply capture the artwork directly. We've had people enter shots of real people walking in front of billboard people before. This is a billboard in front of another billboard, so it sort of fits that model.

Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS

11/04/2010 12:01:27 AM · #6

What it all comes down to is this... if it's recognizable as artwork, then it's fine. If it is not recognizable as artwork, then the shot is essentially a photo of a photo, which is something that we of course do not want (or anyone could easily circumvent date rules or violate copyrights).

bspurgeon

Fujifilm x100

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

11/04/2010 12:04:24 AM · #7

I think it falls under the fool clause. Nobody is fooled by a person walking in front of a billboard.

I wonder if Deb is correct...would a title have saved the fools?

vawendy

Sony Alpha 1

11/04/2010 12:16:40 AM · #8

I did not recognize it as a billboard -- I just figured someone was putting something funky over the lens. So I was judging it as if you took the photo -- basically I was judging a photo of a photo.

I'd say the dq was valid.

However, I didn't do a lot of in depth analysis on it, because it didn't really call to me. Since it is two billboards and since it was DQd, would you be DQd if you took a picture of two photographs stacked on top of each other?

Message edited by author 2010-11-04 00:18:26.

11/04/2010 12:27:38 AM · #9

Originally posted by vawendy:

...Since it is two billboards and since it was DQd, would you be DQd if you took a picture of two photographs stacked on top of each other?

Yes, you could... if it seems like it will fool viewers.

11/04/2010 07:32:52 AM · #10

I was expecting this thread to be about artwork.
I didn't think there could be any question about whether I was trying to fool anybody. I knew it was not a great picture. It did not get a great score. Why would anybody think I was trying to cheat?
So I guess a title like Two billboards and a Lady would have been more appropriate for this crowd. But that it would have made a difference in whether or not it got DQd? That's just too silly for words.

11/04/2010 07:41:30 AM · #11

Originally posted by PennyStreet:

I don't think anyone believes you were trying to cheat... however if the typical viewer can't easily tell that its not a shot of artwork, then if falls afoul of the rule, no matter the intent.

ETA: I know it's not easy to get DQ'd... don't over-analyze it or feel that there's any implication that you cheated. Shrug it off, move forward. It's not worth any more emotion than that. Also FWIW, no, a different title would have made no difference.

Message edited by author 2010-11-04 07:47:02.

Mike

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

11/04/2010 07:47:50 AM · #12

Originally posted by PennyStreet:

Why would anybody think I was trying to cheat?

I dont think anyone thinks you tried to cheat, but if you take a picture of artwork or some other creative media that is yours, it need to be clearly defined and presented, otherwise other will think that it is your own.

If your picture clearly showed that this was a billboard, i think you;d be ok, but becuase all you see is someone else's work filling the entire frame, its hard to discern if its yours or not.

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

11/04/2010 08:53:17 AM · #13

fine. But I still am surprised that this thread didn't take a turn for that which I originally intended it. A discussion about whether or not a billboard is art. So be it.
I accept the DQ. I never said I didn't.

GinaRothfels

Olympus 8mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko Digital ED Fisheye PRO Lens

11/04/2010 08:55:31 AM · #14

Your photo reminds me of this one I took a long time ago.

Not a great photo, and taken with the worst camera I have ever owned, so the image quality isn't good. The idea is similar, though mine wouldn't have fitted this challenge. However, I'm assuming that mine wouldn't have got a DQ?

Mike

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

11/04/2010 08:58:00 AM · #15

Originally posted by PennyStreet:

why wouldn't a billborad be art? just becuase it doesn't hang in a museum, doesn't mean it isn't art. While this isn't the formal definition, some "artist" got paid to create it and someone owns the right to its use.

11/04/2010 09:10:36 AM · #16

Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by PennyStreet:
fine. But I still am surprised that this thread didn't take a turn for that which I originally intended it. A discussion about whether or not a billboard is art. So be it.
I accept the DQ. I never said I didn't.

why wouldn't a billborad be art? just becuase it doesn't hang in a museum, doesn't mean it isn't art. While this isn't the formal definition, some "artist" got paid to create it and someone owns the right to its use.

It's not a question of whether it's "art" or not; it definitely is. It's a question of the billboard being *IN* the environment, a context, or not. If people say "Look, there's a photo of a billboard!" then there's no issue whatsoever.

R.

Message edited by author 2010-11-04 09:11:21.

11/04/2010 09:16:36 AM · #17

Originally posted by GinaRothfels:

Your photo reminds me of this one I took a long time ago.

I'm assuming that mine wouldn't have got a DQ?

Correct; no more DQable than a photograph of a sculpture. The billboard is in its environment, this is not 100% an image of someone else's artwork sans context.

R.

Message edited by author 2010-11-04 09:16:46.

Mike

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

11/04/2010 09:22:37 AM · #18

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I agree with you 100%, the OP wants to discuss if a billboard is "art" which it is.

Message edited by author 2010-11-04 09:23:53.

MelonMusketeer

Nikon D7000

Nikon MF 50mm f/1.4

11/04/2010 09:37:15 AM · #19

Almost all of us here have had a DQ at sometime for something, and usually it is either not knowing or not understanding or accidentally not following the rules of the challenge (ex, the time stamp thing.) You entered a photo that you thought would be ok by the rules as you understood them at the time, and it ran afoul of the art rule. It's not a big deal to get a DQ one time, so just learn from it, ask questions if you have concerns in the future about what's allowed, and don't allow this incident to become more than it actually is.
Regarding the DQ, it's like boating. The only way to never run aground is to never leave the dock. Not doing anything is safe, but there is no adventure in sitting and watching life drift by. If it's like my one DQ, it will probably get a lot more views than most other images in your portfolio. Maybe someone will see your DQ and it will prevent them from making the same "oops."

Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX Aspherical DG HSM for Nikon

11/04/2010 09:40:43 AM · #20

Originally posted by mike_311:

I agree with you 100%, the OP wants to discuss if a billboard is "art" which it is.

Mmmm hmmm...... (nods head vigorously)..... and there's no need to discuss that, there's no question but that a billboard IS "art" for the purposes of the artwork rule on DPC. So is graffiti, so is a show on television, so is the front page of a newspaper, so is xerox of my birth certificate, so is a whole bunch of stuff.

R.

bohemka

Nikon D700

11/04/2010 09:41:58 AM · #21

I don't understand how the conversation is supposed to be about art. You asked about your DQ. Art has nothing to do with it.