| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/26/2014 11:02:49 PM · #101 |
Despite not abiding by Roberts Rules of Order we seem to by coming closer to a consensus through this discussion.
I see three main thoughts here - Other folks in this discussion appear to be suggesting similar proposals. Still others may see more viable proposals, and if so, please re-post them:
 Nobody: proposes that, other than used as a physical object (photo in a frame on a table, on the wall - part of the environment), that artwork not be allowed in anything but expert challenges.
Posthumous: (with a slight modification suggested by  Bear_Music): You may not: fool voters into put voters into the position of voting on the quality of the artwork you've photographed, instead of the quality of your photograph.
with a possible modification, presented by Stagolee: We need to know what is accepted in simple terms like you may or may not use drawings, screen shots, print-outs, text etc. also it needs̢۪ to spelled out the time frame that the original artwork is created.
 PennyStreet; I feel the artwork rule should be revoked. I don't think there should be ambiguous rules here, the term artwork is subject to widely varying opinion and how important the artwork is to the photograph should be up to the photographer.
As we continue to fine tune this we can come closer to giving Site Council something to work with.
Again, many, many thanks for keeping this at the top of the forums and on target.
Message edited by author 2014-07-26 23:03:53. |
|
|
|
07/26/2014 11:07:52 PM · #102 |
| I like bears rewording of my rule, but ambiguity will never be removed Better to maintain a gallery of examples. This pic would be dqed. This pic would not. |
|
|
|
07/27/2014 12:29:33 AM · #103 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I like bears rewording of my rule, but ambiguity will never be removed Better to maintain a gallery of examples. This pic would be dqed. This pic would not. |
I preferred your wording. To use the recent DQ, again, as an example, your wording would have left his entry alone to finish as it did. He clearly wasn't trying to fool anyone. It's legal. The way Bear has reworded it puts it back to the SC to determine whether people are awarding points because the image within the image is good enough to cause that reaction. The recent DQ shows pretty clearly where they'll stand on this. It would be DQ'd. |
|
|
|
07/27/2014 12:49:11 AM · #104 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
Originally posted by posthumous:
I like bears rewording of my rule, but ambiguity will never be removed Better to maintain a gallery of examples. This pic would be dqed. This pic would not. |
I preferred your wording. To use the recent DQ, again, as an example, your wording would have left his entry alone to finish as it did. He clearly wasn't trying to fool anyone. It's legal. The way Bear has reworded it puts it back to the SC to determine whether people are awarding points because the image within the image is good enough to cause that reaction. The recent DQ shows pretty clearly where they'll stand on this. It would be DQ'd. |
There are only two differences between my version and Don's: I added back the statement that you may use existing artwork, and I changed "fool the voters into" out for "put the voters into the position of". We've had NO luck using "fool the voters" before because members debated endlessly whether or not they were "fooled". We NEED to include the first statement, that existing artwork is allowed.
You may: include existing artwork when photographing your entry, but you must not put voters into the position of voting on the quality of the artwork you've photographed, instead of the quality of your photograph.
I'm already on record as saying That as far as the artwork rule goes, I'd have passed Art's image under this wording. Art wasn't putting me into the position of judging the quality of the artwork. The key difference is that in the CURRENT rule, ALL "existing artwork" must be "clearly recognizable as" existing artwork. When you take away the edge of an image and morph it to fit into a scene, it's no longer "clearly recognizable", at least not in my opinion.
The wording that Don and I are working with completely eliminates that highly ambiguous criterion, and THAT is where most of the trouble lies in the current artwork rule. For the rest of it, we have to have SOME means for allowing us to eliminate images like my hypothetical "landscape printed out and pasted into a window and shot as a real scene", and for that reason we need leeway to interpret: it's a gray area.
That's why we HAVE SC, or judges, or rules committees in yachting events etc etc. There's no avoiding it.
Message edited by author 2014-07-27 00:50:44. |
|
|
|
07/27/2014 02:20:43 AM · #105 |
| Thanks for your reply, Bear. |
|
|
|
07/27/2014 03:15:05 AM · #106 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by bohemka:
Originally posted by posthumous:
I like bears rewording of my rule, but ambiguity will never be removed Better to maintain a gallery of examples. This pic would be dqed. This pic would not. |
I preferred your wording. To use the recent DQ, again, as an example, your wording would have left his entry alone to finish as it did. He clearly wasn't trying to fool anyone. It's legal. The way Bear has reworded it puts it back to the SC to determine whether people are awarding points because the image within the image is good enough to cause that reaction. The recent DQ shows pretty clearly where they'll stand on this. It would be DQ'd. |
There are only two differences between my version and Don's: I added back the statement that you may use existing artwork, and I changed "fool the voters into" out for "put the voters into the position of". We've had NO luck using "fool the voters" before because members debated endlessly whether or not they were "fooled". We NEED to include the first statement, that existing artwork is allowed.
You may: include existing artwork when photographing your entry, but you must not put voters into the position of voting on the quality of the artwork you've photographed, instead of the quality of your photograph.
I'm already on record as saying That as far as the artwork rule goes, I'd have passed Art's image under this wording. Art wasn't putting me into the position of judging the quality of the artwork. The key difference is that in the CURRENT rule, ALL "existing artwork" must be "clearly recognizable as" existing artwork. When you take away the edge of an image and morph it to fit into a scene, it's no longer "clearly recognizable", at least not in my opinion.
The wording that Don and I are working with completely eliminates that highly ambiguous criterion, and THAT is where most of the trouble lies in the current artwork rule. For the rest of it, we have to have SOME means for allowing us to eliminate images like my hypothetical "landscape printed out and pasted into a window and shot as a real scene", and for that reason we need leeway to interpret: it's a gray area.
That's why we HAVE SC, or judges, or rules committees in yachting events etc etc. There's no avoiding it. |
That sounds fine to me. Make it so. ...oh, and make it retroactive. :P |
|
|
|
07/27/2014 05:49:11 AM · #107 |
|
|
|
07/27/2014 09:53:17 AM · #108 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I like bears rewording of my rule, but ambiguity will never be removed Better to maintain a gallery of examples. This pic would be dqed. This pic would not. |
 How would this one fall under the proposed new wording?
|
|
|
|
07/27/2014 10:56:02 AM · #109 |
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
Originally posted by posthumous:
I like bears rewording of my rule, but ambiguity will never be removed Better to maintain a gallery of examples. This pic would be dqed. This pic would not. |
How would this one fall under the proposed new wording? |
unfortunately, even the most liberally applied rule would still to the conclusion that as a voter, this entry puts you in the position of judging the underlying photo of the people, with the slight addition of the glass. It fails that way. Just as if you take a photo of the Eiffel tower you took years ago and put sunglasses or binoculars over part of it, and then shoot it. you are judging the underlying photo.
But under the new rule you could use a photograph of a potted plant, cut it out, put it on a stick, and hold it in your photo of an interior...legal.
you could use a photo of a lemon printed out and put among 8 items in a still life... legal.
how about this- under old rule or new. I did photograph essentially an existing pink painting...
or this one, clearly a photo of a polar bear that I took at a zoo, pasted onto a rear view mirror. |
|
|
|
07/27/2014 11:10:08 AM · #110 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
Originally posted by posthumous:
I like bears rewording of my rule, but ambiguity will never be removed Better to maintain a gallery of examples. This pic would be dqed. This pic would not. |
How would this one fall under the proposed new wording? |
unfortunately, even the most liberally applied rule would still to the conclusion that as a voter, this entry puts you in the position of judging the underlying photo of the people, with the slight addition of the glass. It fails that way. Just as if you take a photo of the Eiffel tower you took years ago and put sunglasses or binoculars over part of it, and then shoot it. you are judging the underlying photo.
But under the new rule you could use a photograph of a potted plant, cut it out, put it on a stick, and hold it in your photo of an interior...legal.
you could use a photo of a lemon printed out and put among 8 items in a still life... legal.
how about this- under old rule or new. I did photograph essentially an existing pink painting...
or this one, clearly a photo of a polar bear that I took at a zoo, pasted onto a rear view mirror. |
I think Lydia's wine glass should pass now. She took a picture of her own artwork, and made it more artful. It's the quality of the final product that I'm looking at.
Your polar bear would pass under the proposed ruling, but should have been DQd under the old.
I like the pink painting though at the time I only gave it a 5:)
But we need SC to weigh in because, ultimately, it's their call.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2014 12:31:43 PM · #111 |
The wineglass image is an example of what the rule's trying to prohibit: it would still be DQ'd.
The framed pink square image would be legal in any version of the artwork rule we've had, and still would be with this proposed modification.
The polar bear would be fine under the proposed modification. Arguably under the current rule as well, because it's a very minor part of the total composition, but it's debatable. It was fine in 2004, under the version of the artwork rule in effect when it was shot.
Message edited by author 2014-07-27 12:32:46. |
|
|
|
07/27/2014 01:00:54 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The wineglass image is an example of what the rule's trying to prohibit: it would still be DQ'd. |
I don't want to prohibit it, and don't feel I'm being put in the position of judging the photo based only on the quality of the underlying photo, but rather the overall composition and the idea. I don't have a problem with creating composites using other artwork or photos, if they are created by the photographer, especially if made within the submission time frame -- we are, after all, still judging the photographer's own work.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'm already on record as saying That as far as the artwork rule goes, I'd have passed Art's image under this wording. Art wasn't putting me into the position of judging the quality of the artwork. The key difference is that in the CURRENT rule, ALL "existing artwork" must be "clearly recognizable as" existing artwork. When you take away the edge of an image and morph it to fit into a scene, it's no longer "clearly recognizable", at least not in my opinion. |
"Not clearly recognizable?" See, IMO it was either artwork, or you had to believe there were actually gears and a hole in Art's head. Whether the artwork was "legitimately acquired" (copyright, timing, etc.) is a separate question, but I'd contend that anyone who didn't believe that was a photo of gears "somehow" composited into the final image is a potential purchaser of a well-known New York bridge ... |
|
|
|
07/27/2014 01:09:58 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'm already on record as saying That as far as the artwork rule goes, I'd have passed Art's image under this wording. Art wasn't putting me into the position of judging the quality of the artwork. The key difference is that in the CURRENT rule, ALL "existing artwork" must be "clearly recognizable as" existing artwork. When you take away the edge of an image and morph it to fit into a scene, it's no longer "clearly recognizable", at least not in my opinion. |
"Not clearly recognizable?" See, IMO it was either artwork, or you had to believe there were actually gears and a hole in Art's head. Whether the artwork was "legitimately acquired" (copyright, timing, etc.) is a separate question, but I'd contend that anyone who didn't believe that was a photo of gears "somehow" composited into the final image is a potential purchaser of a well-known New York bridge ... |
That's the ambiguity of the current rule. For me, "clearly recognizable" doesn't mean "not fooling anybody", it means "set aside from the scene as an artwork in its own right" or something close to that. For me, when you take a photograph, whether by yourself or someone else, and integrate it into a scene the way Lydia did with the feast and Art did with the gears, you remove it from the category "artwork" and make it into something else.
Had Art not photoshopped the edges of his inset image to introduce 3-dimensionality, had he left the image with sharp edges as it was in the original, it would have passed muster with me. In any event, this ambiguity is precisely what we're hoping to back away from with the proposed rewording. |
|
|
|
07/27/2014 01:38:17 PM · #114 |
| Who was fooled into thinking what? |
|
|
|
07/27/2014 01:50:26 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Who was fooled into thinking what? |
When a thing is distinctly in front of another thing, that's "clear". When it's inset into something, that's a lot less clear. Imagine this: suppose I planned a self-portrait in front of one of my landscapes, and then suppose I shot the exact scene without me in it. Suppose I then printed out the me-less scene, cut out a circular portion of it from the right section, and pasted it on my head, then shot the self-portrait. Then suppose I manipulated the borders of that circular cut out to make it look 3-dimensional. Who's to say that's clearly artwork, now?
Now, Paul, I agree with you that such things OUGHT to be allowed, but IMO the current rule doesn't allow them. The modified rule would. |
|
|
|
07/27/2014 01:53:34 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Who was fooled into thinking what? |
 Generale, do you think the wording of the proposed new rule solves this perceived ambiguity?
You may: include existing artwork when photographing your entry, but you must not put voters into the position of voting on the quality of the artwork you've photographed, instead of the quality of your photograph.
If not, would you suggest language that might be more explicit?
|
|
|
|
07/27/2014 02:28:50 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Had Art not photoshopped the edges of his inset image to introduce 3-dimensionality, had he left the image with sharp edges as it was in the original, it would have passed muster with me. In any event, this ambiguity is precisely what we're hoping to back away from with the proposed rewording. |
Question: If Art had placed a bunch of real gears on a printed self-portrait, & then photographed that...would it still have been DQd? In your opinion?
[eta]
I read somewhere in this discussion that because it was a challenge about 'wheels' & Art faked the wheels with a piece of art, it was DQd as an attempt to get around the challenge requirements. Among other things. Do I have that right? I still feel no confidence in my understanding of the original reason for the original DQ. And how I could avoid such a DQ myself. I think that's one motivation for our attempt to rework the rule. Right? To build confidence in the rule? And it's enforcement.
Message edited by author 2014-07-27 14:36:14. |
|
|
|
07/27/2014 03:22:13 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
I read somewhere in this discussion that because it was a challenge about 'wheels' & Art faked the wheels with a piece of art, it was DQd as an attempt to get around the challenge requirements. Among other things. Do I have that right? |
That's not quite right, no: my point was that BECAUSE it was a "wheels" challenge the voters were inevitably "judging" the artwork to some extent, because without the artwork the image would have been DNMC. It is even arguable that if the challenge had been a self-portrait challenge instead of a wheels challenge, Art might not have suffered the DQ.
Look, lets make one thing as clear as possible here: speaking for myself, I don't LIKE the rule as it stands. I don't LIKE that I had to vote to DQ Art's image. But as long as I'm tasked with enforcing the rules, I have to be careful, obviously, to enforce the rule as written, to the best of my ability, not as I wish it would be.
I think the rule is discoragingly ambiguous as written, and that's why I suggested this debate thread be opened. I believe we NEED an "artwork rule" or the rest of the rules are meaningless. I think the current version of the "Posthumous Proposal" would be an excellent modification of the existing rule, preserving its spirit while minimizing the inherent ambiguity that will come from ANY "artwork rule"... |
|
|
|
07/27/2014 03:36:36 PM · #119 |
The question before us now is to formulate a new rule to avoid the difficulty of following the "Current Rule."
Please let us not get into the trap of rehashing an old DQ unless its legality (or lack) is not clear under the proposed new rule,
which again is:
You may: include existing artwork when photographing your entry, but you must not put voters into the position of voting on the quality of the artwork you've photographed, instead of the quality of your photograph. |
|
|
|
07/27/2014 04:27:34 PM · #120 |
Okay, we've spent almost exactly 3 days discussing this matter, and 119 posts(so far).
We've received excellent input from a wide variety of photographers.
Shall we give it another 4 hours (making it 3 days, exactly) and then send it on to Site Council for their consideration?
Let's take the next few hours to fine-tune and carefully consider those points on which we have reached consensus.
If you think we need more time, this would be a good time to say so.
There are three strong candidates to replace the Current Rule.
1. Revoke the Artwork Rule.
2. Other than used as a physical object (photo in a frame on a table, on the wall - part of the environment), that artwork not be allowed in anything but Expert challenges
3. Revise the rule to read:
You may: include existing artwork when photographing your entry, but you must not put voters into the position of voting on the quality of the artwork you've photographed, instead of the quality of your photograph
|
|
|
|
07/27/2014 04:48:55 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'm already on record as saying That as far as the artwork rule goes, I'd have passed Art's image under this wording. Art wasn't putting me into the position of judging the quality of the artwork. The key difference is that in the CURRENT rule, ALL "existing artwork" must be "clearly recognizable as" existing artwork. When you take away the edge of an image and morph it to fit into a scene, it's no longer "clearly recognizable", at least not in my opinion. |
Bear... I'm intrigued by the comment above, where it is the morphing or integration of artwork into the scene that becomes a critical part of the rule. As much as I like Art's image (even to the point of not wanting it to be DQ'ed) by this rationale, under this construct, I suspect you would need to uphold the DQ, based on the presumed blending techniques used used to "morph" the edges of the printed artwork into the skull. This does feel more like "expert" compositing, even though both objects (artwork and skull) were present in the image.
Perhaps it could be addressed in the rule with something like.. You may include existing artwork when photographing your entry, but you must not use digital processing techniques to artificially integrate the artwork with other objects being photographed, or otherwise put voters into the position of voting on the quality of the artwork you've photographed, instead of the quality of your photograph. |
|
|
|
07/27/2014 05:26:47 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by wbanning:
Perhaps it could be addressed in the rule with something like.. You may include existing artwork when photographing your entry, but you must not use digital processing techniques to artificially integrate the artwork with other objects being photographed, or otherwise put voters into the position of voting on the quality of the artwork you've photographed, instead of the quality of your photograph. |
The problem with that is that once we start banning specific aspects of compositing, then by implication non-specified acts may be legal. I think we've addressed your concern by eliminating the wording "clearly recognizable", making it OK to do what Art did. Personally, I'm OK with what Art did, I just don't think the current wording allows it. |
|
|
|
07/27/2014 07:36:49 PM · #123 |
Just askin', is all. Not complaining. Thank you for taking the time to go over it again.
I could never do the job you are doing on the SC. It's tough. Thanks & praises to those on the SC for the time & effort put into this site. And thanks & praises to sfalice for shepherding this thread through to a successful conclusion. I'm sure I speak for everyone. |
|
|
|
07/27/2014 08:41:34 PM · #124 |
Okay, four hours have passed and it appears consensus has been reached. I will now send the following PM to all Site Council members and to Langdon:
A couple of days ago I sent a message to all Site Council members and to  Langdon alerting you to this thread and thanking  Scalvert, GeneralE and Bear_Music for taking part and help to lead our discussion.
After three days of discussion and enormous assistance from the above-mentioned trio, we have come to the following consensus on replacing the Current Rule:
1. Revoke the Artwork Rule.
2. Other than used as a physical object (photo in a frame on a table, on the wall - part of the environment), that artwork not be allowed in anything but Expert challenges
3. Revise the rule to read:
You may: include existing artwork when photographing your entry, but you must not put voters into the position of voting on the quality of the artwork you've photographed, instead of the quality of your photograph[/b]
We hope you will consider this rule change expeditiously. If you have any questions to ask of the membership, perhaps you will ask them in the Thread still open for that purpose.
Everyone involved in this discussion has expressed great appreciation and admiration for the work you all do and we hope this dialog will assist you in making the correct decision in regard to this rule.
Alice |
|
|
|
07/28/2014 08:08:47 AM · #125 |
instead of trying to rewrite the rules, maybe the solution is in validation, for instance consistency, the precedent is all over the place.
if the spirit of the rule is to keep people from circumventing restrictions why not just validate images based on that? DQ images that use the artwork loophole to get around other restrictions and allow those that support the composition and dont violate date or editing rules.
i think its pretty clear when artwork is used to support the composition and when its used as the main element to circumvent another rule.
Message edited by author 2014-07-28 08:09:55. |
|
