Clarifying the wording of the Artwork Rule

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/24/2014 05:21:39 PM · #1

"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."

Bear Music offered this suggestion when locking a recent thread:

"If you want to debate the 'artwork' 'rule' and how to improve it, please start a thread for that purpose."

It's no secret that the 'Artwork' 'rule' has proven to be difficult to understand.

This was one of several threads on the subject over the years. Sadly, these threads tend to confuse our members and in some cases participants even get so angry they leave the site. Not a happy outcome. In other cases folks are afraid to try something innovative because they don't want to face a possible DQ.

Obviously, a fair number of participants feel the 'rule' is ambiguous. With that in mind, and understanding that there have been many tries to reword the 'rule' to make it more transparent to the user, let's try again.

Let's try to resolve the ambiguity.

Bear Music has suggested we try our hands at fixing the language of this 'rule'. And perhaps others on Site Council will chime in with their thoughts and language.

Let's keep it constructive. If responders agree with proposed wording good, but if we disagree say why and perhaps tell how to effect more easy-to-understand wording.

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

07/24/2014 05:35:31 PM · #2

What's funny about this 'rule' is that it's based on the honor system.

For example, Art could have lied and said that he opened his skullcap or used a mirror.

So, that means that a rewrite can also be based on the honor system, and be just as valid. Here is my suggestion:

You may: include images that you drew or photographed during the time frame of the challenge.

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

07/24/2014 05:38:48 PM · #3

I've decided to temper my 'rule' a bit:

You may: include images that you drew or photographed during the time frame of the challenge, but your photo must be something more than a photo of a photo or a photo of a drawing.

cutout

Canon EOS-20D

07/24/2014 05:40:53 PM · #4

concur

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

07/24/2014 06:18:36 PM · #5

For this wording I would suggest one minor clarification:

You may: include images that you drew or photographed during the time frame of the challenge, but your ~~photo~~ entry must be something more than a photo of a photo or a photo of a drawing.

Originally posted by posthumous:

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

07/24/2014 06:29:29 PM · #6

Bear in mind that if this wording is adopted then we'd have to require more than one original on such entries.

And I'm at a loss as to how we'd verify that something was DRAWN within the challenge frame. That's actually a bit harsher than it is now, because there are very few restrictions on using non-photographic 'artwork'. So basically, this should only apply to photographs?

Also, if you're suggesting that the entire "'artwork' 'rule'" be replaced by that sentence, isn't there a hole? Here's the current 'rule':

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.

Here's the proposed 'rule':

You may: include images that you drew or photographed during the time frame of the challenge, but your photo entry must be something more than a photo of a photo or a photo of a drawing.

I admire the simplicity of it very much, but does it by implication say you may NOT use any 'artwork' not made by you in the challenge period? Or, since it makes no mention of existing 'artwork' other than work of your own, does this mean we'd be free to use other peoples' work with impunity?

So some tuning up might be necessary...

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

07/24/2014 07:22:16 PM · #7

Yes, Bear is right. Some more fiddling is required. While everyone works on that let's all go out and buy one of those newfangled pencils that imbues the 'artwork' with exif data.

Lydia

Canon EOS-6D

07/24/2014 07:27:17 PM · #8

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Bear in mind ...

Ha! You said "Bear"...

Originally posted by posthumous:

You may: include images that you drew or photographed during the time frame of the challenge, but your photo entry must be something more than a photo of a photo or a photo of a drawing.

Does this handicap people who cannot draw, but can photograph well (or encourage more lying)? This IS a photography contest, right?

If we then allow us to photograph a drawing by someone else... we're back to "square one".

What does it matter WHO drew the art? I think we should leave that part out... But, then again, there are copywrites or ... whatever they're called for us... and is it legal to photograph someone else's art? How will we prove that we have the right to photograph someone's art?

It's madness! Madness, I say!!

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

07/24/2014 07:43:44 PM · #9

Originally posted by Lydia:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Bear in mind ...

Ha! You said "Bear"...

Originally posted by posthumous:
You may: include images that you drew or photographed during the time frame of the challenge, but your photo entry must be something more than a photo of a photo or a photo of a drawing.

Does this handicap people who cannot draw, but can photograph well (or encourage more lying)? This IS a photography contest, right?

If we then allow us to photograph a drawing by someone else... we're back to "square one".

What does it matter WHO drew the art? I think we should leave that part out... But, then again, there are copywrites or ... whatever they're called for us... and is it legal to photograph someone else's art? How will we prove that we have the right to photograph someone's art?

It's madness! Madness, I say!!

Lydia, you have identified what you feel is a weak spot in the proposed 'artwork' definition. Could you please also suggest language that might clarify this point?

snaffles

Nikon D7100

07/24/2014 08:07:32 PM · #10

I dunno, for once I'm on the fence on this one. I always opt for integrity and hope that fellow DPCers are not using shortcuts by using a photo of a photo or a photo of a drawing. Sad to see DQs of some recent images due to photos by another photog being used.

However, if we DO allow other's images (photos and/or drawings) to be used, well then won't we just turn into a PhotoChop site a la Worth1K, where using images off the internet (albeit you are supposed to credit the originator of the 'artwork') is encouraged?

Personally I am all in favour of a 'rule' which allows us to use images (drawn or shot by us) at an earlier date, to be used in entries. Make that Expert challenge entries, which limits it somewhat. But at least then we're sourcing from our own images (let's call it 'self stock'), not from whatever pops up when you use GoogleImages to find, say, shots of a campfire scene. If I shot some really nice campfire images just last week, and a new Expert challenge pops up, do I really want to have to go shoot another campfire scene?

As always, just my .002 CDN$ worth. Maybe a bit limiting, but hey...in terms of challenge rules, I still have yet to make sense of the 'up to 10 captures of an image' 'rule' for Advanced.

Message edited by author 2014-07-24 20:10:03.

Lydia

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

07/24/2014 08:32:31 PM · #11

Originally posted by sfalice:

Lydia, you have identified what you feel is a weak spot in the proposed 'artwork' definition. Could you please also suggest language that might clarify this point?

I cannot, Alice.

07/24/2014 08:44:48 PM · #12

snaffles- all good points, but what we are working on specifically in this thread is very narrow.

It is how to reword the existing 'rule' in Advanced Editing so that it is clearer to the participant. This one 'rule' has caused considerable confusion among our participants because it is difficult to understand.

"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." [/b]

Right now the rewording stands at:

[b]You may: include images that you drew or photographed during the time frame of the challenge, but your photo entry must be something more than a photo of a photo or a photo of a drawing.

but there are problems as Bear Music points out:

"I admire the simplicity of it very much, but does it by implication say you may NOT use any 'artwork' not made by you in the challenge period? Or, since it makes no mention of existing 'artwork' other than work of your own, does this mean we'd be free to use other peoples' work with impunity?

So some tuning up might be necessary..."

So, for this 'rule', let's think of ways to make it work as intended.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/24/2014 08:52:56 PM · #13

What about something like;

You may include existing 'artwork' in a manner that does not violate copyright, but your entry must be something more than a photo of pre-existing 'artwork'.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

07/24/2014 09:04:27 PM · #14

Originally posted by sfalice:

Note that currently this 'rule' is the same and applies to ALL of the 'rule' sets.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

07/24/2014 09:09:57 PM · #15

Originally posted by jomari:

You may include existing 'artwork' in a manner that does not violate copyright, but your entry must be something more than a photo of pre-existing 'artwork'.

That's basically the old 'rule'â�� except that the use of ANY 'artwork' that isn't your own or specifically released into the public domain likely violates a copyright. The three main issues with the old 'rule' were:

1. It allowed otherwise-illegal Photoshop edits to be re-photographed for an entry
2. People would enter a photo outside the challenge dates (or someone else's) and just add something insignificant to make it legal
3. We had to DQ "acceptable" things like a macro detail of currency or a shot of grafitti because they were only pre-existing 'artwork'

Message edited by author 2014-07-24 21:11:17.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

07/24/2014 09:20:21 PM · #16

GeneralE - okay so noted. The 'artwork' 'rule' applies to all 'rule' sets.

jomari - you have suggested this rewording:
You may include existing 'artwork' in a manner that does not violate copyright, but your entry must be something more than a photo of pre-existing 'artwork'.

scalvert- please note that at this point we are not trying to change the ~~old~~ present 'rule', only to make the ~~old~~ present 'rule' more understandable to the participant. Does

jomari's proposed wording do that? If not, how could it be reworded to conform?

Message edited by author 2014-07-24 21:48:42.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

07/24/2014 09:42:41 PM · #17

Originally posted by sfalice:

please note that at this point we are not trying to change the old 'rule', only to make the old 'rule' more understandable to the participant. Does jomari's proposed wording do that? If not, how could it be reworded to conform?

The old 'rule' is not the current 'rule', and while that's certainly more understandable, it actually goes beyond the old 'rule' to reopen even bigger problems than we were trying to address with the current version.

Jules1x

Fujifilm X-T1

Fujifilm XF 23mm f/1.4 R

07/24/2014 09:44:09 PM · #18

Maybe I am missing something, but if clarification, not a real change is desired, what about something like:

You may include items that are clearly recognizable as existing 'artwork' when photographing your entry. Drawings or prints that could be mistaken for real objects may be included as part of the scene but cannot be a prominent part of the subject or image, they can be present for compositional support only.

It seems as if we get rid of that first sentence that photos in museums or graffiti or whatever can be DQ'd?

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

07/24/2014 09:47:46 PM · #19

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by sfalice:
please note that at this point we are not trying to change the ~~old~~present 'rule', only to make the ~~old~~ present 'rule' more understandable to the participant. Does jomari's proposed wording do that? If not, how could it be reworded to conform?

The old 'rule' is not the current 'rule', and while that's certainly more understandable, it actually goes beyond the old 'rule' to reopen even bigger problems than we were trying to address with the current version.

Okay, Shannon, I will edit my post to read "the current 'rule'" instead of the "old 'rule'" by which I meant the 'rule' presently in place that we are trying to make more understandable to the participants by rewriting it.
Does that help you understand? I know it's tough. Forgive me.
So, to continue on, does the rewording of the 'present 'rule'' by jomari make the 'rule' more understandable to the participant? If not, how could it be reworded to conform?

Message edited by author 2014-07-24 21:50:15.

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

07/24/2014 10:01:53 PM · #20

You can't reword a 'rule' without changing it. If everyone understood the spirit of the 'rule', there would be no need to reword it.

There is no ghost in the machine.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

07/24/2014 10:11:57 PM · #21

Originally posted by posthumous:

You can't reword a 'rule' without changing it. If everyone understood the spirit of the 'rule', there would be no need to reword it.

There is no ghost in the machine.

Correct. IMO the goal here would be to first DEFINE specifically what we want to prohibit and what we want to allow, then word the 'rule' in such a way that people understand the SPIRIT of it, which currently is not the case.

07/24/2014 10:14:19 PM · #22

Originally posted by Jules1x:

We probably want a little more action out of the inclusion than compositional support.

What about;

You may include items that are clearly recognizable as existing 'artwork' when photographing your entry. Images that could be mistaken for real objects may be included as part of the scene but cannot be the predominant factor unless photographic technique presents it in a new light.

This would allow for super macro shots of money etc.

Message edited by author 2014-07-24 22:15:22.

07/24/2014 10:24:04 PM · #23

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by posthumous:
You can't reword a 'rule' without changing it. If everyone understood the spirit of the 'rule', there would be no need to reword it.

There is no ghost in the machine.

Correct. IMO the goal here would be to first DEFINE specifically what we want to prohibit and what we want to allow, then word the 'rule' in such a way that people understand the SPIRIT of it, which currently is not the case.

Bear_Music, going out on a limb here, I would think that any Site Council member could define specifically what is prohibited and what is allowable in the 'Artwork' 'Rule', since Site Council is in the unenviable position of enforcing the 'Artwork' 'rule'.

So the challenge is to give us easy to understand words.

Message edited by author 2014-07-24 22:24:52.

07/24/2014 10:26:49 PM · #24

What about;

You may include items that are clearly recognizable as existing 'artwork' when photographing your entry. Images that could be mistaken for real objects may be included as part of the scene but cannot be the predominant factor unless photographic technique presents it in a new light.

Actually I can already foresee the arguments about which factor is predominant. So how about ... cannot be the predominant factor and must interact with other essential elements...