DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Clarifying the wording of the Artwork Rule
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 146, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 07/24/2014 10:38:06 PM · #26
It's getting to the point that some major university should offer a graduate degree in the DPC ruleset soon.....
 07/24/2014 10:41:30 PM · #27
Originally posted by Cory:
It's getting to the point that some major university should offer a graduate degree in the DPC ruleset soon.....

Very good Cory. There's probably a doctorate in there some place.
Do you have a suggestion on how to make the Artwork Rule more understandable to the participant?

Message edited by author 2014-07-24 22:47:11.
 07/24/2014 10:54:22 PM · #28
Originally posted by sfalice:
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.

Unfortunately, that's not actually the case. To wit: in the most recent brouhaha there was vehement disagreement among thread participants as to what we should actually be allowing/prohibiting. I was hoping this thread would FIRST generate consensus on what the rule OUGHT to do. I am, however, listening carefully to these excellent suggestions and trying to see how we might incorporate them into a clarified rule.

Let's let people sound off for a while, and then maybe we can make some progress on that front?
 07/24/2014 11:12:26 PM · #29
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by sfalice:
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.

Unfortunately, that's not actually the case. To wit: in the most recent brouhaha there was vehement disagreement among thread participants as to what we should actually be allowing/prohibiting. I was hoping this thread would FIRST generate consensus on what the rule OUGHT to do. I am, however, listening carefully to these excellent suggestions and trying to see how we might incorporate them into a clarified rule.

Let's let people sound off for a while, and then maybe we can make some progress on that front?

The reason, IMO, that there was so much vehement disagreement, in that and many previous threads, was because the current rule, as written, is so badly worded that it is presently impossible to decipher with any accuracy.
It would seem logical to define the current rule in terms that make it understandable, before attempting to change it.
That is why I am suggesting alternately, that the rewording of the current rule be narrow and encompass only that which is presently in the rule book.
Once we clearly understand what is in the Artwork rule, then it would seem logical to think about changing it.
 07/24/2014 11:14:48 PM · #30
Originally posted by sfalice:
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.

Uh, wouldn't that be what the current rules are, our best attempt?

Part of the problem is that there is not universal agreement aong SC members on every interpretation on this (current) rule, as my own DQ record will attest, any ore than there is on every other ("subjective") DQ which gets hauled before the membership for disection. Additionally, for any rule, there will always be a way to challenge its boundaries, and usually someone willing to try ...

ETA: That's not my own suggestion for a rule, but only a slight wording change to Don's second version, made for clarity only, not necessarily endorsement.

Message edited by author 2014-07-24 23:16:19.
 07/24/2014 11:19:22 PM · #31
My opinion is that the only thing we should disallow is a blatant picture of a picture - i.e. a direct photo of any two dimensional artwork. That Tilt-Shift bridge poster is the only one that comes to mind. On anything else - combining a printed photo/drawing within a photo should be fine - so what if you fool the viewers, that has been a part of photographic history going WAY back to those fairies or earlier.

Seems like that would be the simplest/least debatable way to validate also. Apply it to any of the previous entries that have been DQ'd for the artwork rule and see if you are ok with those being accepted. ...it would be helpful to have a sample or all of the previously DQ'd images here for reference. And the ones that were not, but maybe should've been, but for the subjectivity.

That said, I'm anxious to see where this goes.
 07/24/2014 11:23:52 PM · #32
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
My opinion is that the only thing we should disallow is a blatant picture of a picture - i.e. a direct photo of any two dimensional artwork. That Tilt-Shift bridge poster is the only one that comes to mind. On anything else - combining a printed photo/drawing within a photo should be fine - so what if you fool the viewers, that has been a part of photographic history going WAY back to those fairies or earlier.

Just to be clear on this, you're OK with me pasting any landscape I like on my window, shooting the window+landscape, and calling it "View from My Window"? Even if I took the image off somebody's portfolio at 1x, or even if I took the image myself several years ago?
 07/24/2014 11:27:58 PM · #33
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Just to be clear on this, you're OK with me pasting any landscape I like on my window, shooting the window+landscape, and calling it "View from My Window"? Even if I took the image off somebody's portfolio at 1x, or even if I took the image myself several years ago?

I am.

:P

Others may not be. I can accept that.
 07/24/2014 11:33:42 PM · #34
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Just to be clear on this, you're OK with me pasting any landscape I like on my window, shooting the window+landscape, and calling it "View from My Window"? Even if I took the image off somebody's portfolio at 1x, or even if I took the image myself several years ago?

I am. Others may not be. I can accept that.

That's going too far, IMO. It's just RIPE for exploitation and it seems deceptive. Anyway, the very beginning of all the rules says that our work must be our own. It's all a matter of how you define "the work", I suppose, but it seems to me this is just a giant loophole to drive otherwise-illegal entries through.

Thanks for your forthrightness.
 07/24/2014 11:34:16 PM · #35
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
...it would be helpful to have a sample or all of the previously DQ'd images here for reference.

Here are a couple you can play with ...
07/24/2014 11:35:56 PM · #36
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
That's going too far, IMO. It's just RIPE for exploitation and it seems deceptive. Anyway, the very beginning of all the rules says that our work must be our own. It's all a matter of how you define "the work", I suppose, but it seems to me this is just a giant loophole to drive otherwise-illegal entries through.

Thanks for your forthrightness.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I am more in favor of public shaming over authoritarian regulation. ;-)
 07/24/2014 11:36:20 PM · #37
DQ... two billboard screens

Message edited by author 2014-07-24 23:38:28.
 07/24/2014 11:41:26 PM · #38
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
the only thing we should disallow is a blatant picture of a picture - i.e. a direct photo of any two dimensional artwork.

You just DQ'd money macros, tattoo details and a good chunk of the Grafitti challenge.
 07/24/2014 11:41:38 PM · #39
Good examples of past DQs posted there. These would pass my version of the rule, but probably would get beat up by voters anyway. The only one that comes to mind that did well (ribboned?) was the one of the wine glass held up in front of the dinner party - can't remember whose it was - it was sepia I think. I'd have been fine with that one winning even though it fooled the voters.
 07/24/2014 11:43:02 PM · #40
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
the only thing we should disallow is a blatant picture of a picture - i.e. a direct photo of any two dimensional artwork.

You just DQ'd money macros, tattoo details and a good chunk of the Grafitti challenge.

Touché. Although my money had extra elements to it and graffiti should have a special rule associated with it anyway.
 07/24/2014 11:48:14 PM · #41
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
The only one that comes to mind that did well (ribboned?) was the one of the wine glass held up in front of the dinner party - can't remember whose it was - it was sepia I think. I'd have been fine with that one winning even though it fooled the voters.

 07/25/2014 06:17:36 AM · #42


the dq description on that image:

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.

i think that's your description right there.
 07/25/2014 08:53:28 AM · #43
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
My opinion is that the only thing we should disallow is a blatant picture of a picture - i.e. a direct photo of any two dimensional artwork. That Tilt-Shift bridge poster is the only one that comes to mind. On anything else - combining a printed photo/drawing within a photo should be fine - so what if you fool the viewers, that has been a part of photographic history going WAY back to those fairies or earlier.

Seems like that would be the simplest/least debatable way to validate also. Apply it to any of the previous entries that have been DQ'd for the artwork rule and see if you are ok with those being accepted. ...it would be helpful to have a sample or all of the previously DQ'd images here for reference. And the ones that were not, but maybe should've been, but for the subjectivity.

That said, I'm anxious to see where this goes.


+1

Printing something out and using it as a prop/part of your image should be perfectly fine. I saw nothing wrong with Shannon's magic carpet ride image and I saw nothing wrong with Ken's gears in his head. That's not expert editing as it's all one shot. Both are wonderfully imaginative and beautifully done. I'm sure no one is "fooled" into believing either is real.
 07/25/2014 09:02:23 AM · #44
There has been excellent dialog on this subject overnight.

One suggestion has been added to those already tabulated below. Here is the new list.

Is there any language here that Site Council & Membership can work with to reword the present rule so that it is understandable to the newest beginner as well as the most advanced professional?

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

GeneralE: Rewording of Posthumous suggestion to add clarity.
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.

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.

jules1x: 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
[user]
jomari, revised: 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.

Mike, quoting SC language: 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.

to recap, this is the Current Rule that we are trying to make more understandable for the participant:

"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."

Message edited by author 2014-07-25 09:04:09.
 07/25/2014 09:06:23 AM · #45
Originally posted by Mike:


i think that's your description right there.


YESSS!
+1

I'm in favor of short, simple, direct rules, so I simplified that one as much as possible...

You may include images or artwork as part of your entry as long as the composition does not consist entirely of a photograph of another photograph.

That would allow the fish, money macros, the poster outside the window, the wineglass in front of (you name it), Art's brain...

Message edited by author 2014-07-25 09:19:58.
 07/25/2014 09:07:43 AM · #46
Originally posted by Mike:
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.

i think that's your description right there.

That WAS the description at the time, and people argued about that one, too.
 07/25/2014 09:20:26 AM · #47
Originally posted by pixelpig:
[quote=Mike]

You may include images or artwork as part of your entry as long as the composition does not consist entirely of a photograph of another photograph.

That would allow the fish, the poster outside the window, the wineglass in front of (you name it), Art's brain...


+1. I'm all for this.
 07/25/2014 09:43:10 AM · #48
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Mike:
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.

i think that's your description right there.

That WAS the description at the time, and people argued about that one, too.


what was the problem with the description? it gets right the point of why the rule is in place to begin with...
 07/25/2014 09:48:15 AM · #49
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Mike:
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.

i think that's your description right there.

That WAS the description at the time, and people argued about that one, too.

what was the problem with the description? it gets right the point of why the rule is in place to begin with...

In a nutshell, it meant I could enter an illegally edited photograph, or one to which I did not possess the original, by photographing a printout that had some tiny, irrelevant prop incorporated so it wasn't "entirely" pre-existing art. There were plenty of complaints about this. I remember them well.
 07/25/2014 10:13:42 AM · #50
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Mike:
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.

i think that's your description right there.

That WAS the description at the time, and people argued about that one, too.

what was the problem with the description? it gets right the point of why the rule is in place to begin with...

In a nutshell, it meant I could enter an illegally edited photograph, or one to which I did not possess the original, by photographing a printout that had some tiny, irrelevant prop incorporated so it wasn't "entirely" pre-existing art. There were plenty of complaints about this. I remember them well.


Wow.

Message edited by author 2014-07-25 10:22:14.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/28/2025 01:31:00 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 07/28/2025 01:31:00 PM EDT.