Demotivational posters - DPChallenge Forums

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II

08/30/2005 10:10:27 AM · #26

no, it would be over all composition. The text must be supported by the foto. This was evidenced in the jewelry competition.

If anything, one might find that poor text will detract from the overall score of a good foto, as it did in the jewelry where some great entries had really lousy text.

cycomerlin14

Konica Minolta DiMAGE Z1

08/30/2005 12:39:35 PM · #27

Originally posted by Firsty:

while I like this Idea
would we not end up voting a large part of the score on the text not the photograph this would help those with a better grasp of English
maybe we should give a list of ten different sayings and entrants must pick one of those and take a shot to fit.. this would put the focus back on the photography

I second this idea.

And would this be a member or general challenge?

BMacD

Olympus 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 Zuiko Digital Zoom

08/30/2005 12:46:32 PM · #28

The following would make an interesting picture.
"the early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese"

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/30/2005 01:52:52 PM · #29

Roget's Thesaurus lists "demotivate" as the antonym (opposite) of "motivate" when motivate is used in the sense it is used in "motivational poster". I don't think we'd have any problem at all with copyright issues.

I also don't have any problem with making this one text-dependent; in fact, it excites me. We don't get many challenges like this (one only since I joined, "jewelry" and I think they are fun.

Big thumbs-up for this idea!

Robt.

brianlh

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

08/30/2005 01:59:58 PM · #30

Though I'm not one to get into discussions of what challenges "truly" mean, you can be sure that if the title was "Non-motivational Poster" there would be some people asking "Does it have to be DEmotivational? Or does it just have to be something that isn't a motivational poster?".. etc, etc..

Message edited by author 2005-08-30 14:01:13.

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

08/30/2005 02:19:03 PM · #31

Originally posted by brianlh:

Very much so; a big potential problem. An alternative is "unmotivational", another synonym, but it doesn't have the ring of "demotivational" to my admittedly fussy ear.

R.

Strikeslip

Canon EOS-5D

08/30/2005 02:35:27 PM · #32

Originally posted by bear_music:

Originally posted by brianlh:
Though I'm not one to get into discussions of what challenges "truly" mean, you can be sure that if the title was "Non-motivational Poster" there would be some people asking "Does it have to be DEmotivational? Or does it just have to be something that isn't a motivational poster?".. etc, etc..

Very much so; a big potential problem. An alternative is "unmotivational", another synonym, but it doesn't have the ring of "demotivational" to my admittedly fussy ear.

R.

Anti-Motivational ?

I spent the worst year of my life as the IT Manager at an insurance company until I quit. During that time I had the dubious honour of attending the twice-weekly management meetings, which most of us referred to as The Anti-motivational meetings. Lots of screaming, cursing, & belittling.

09/01/2005 11:35:25 AM · #33

Originally posted by bear_music:

"Demotivational" is not a dictionary word, though. And the issue would be use of a trademark, not copyright. Not sure how it works in the US, but if it has gotten as far as being a registered trademark, there is limited point in trying to challenge the trademark by trying to establish it as being a dictionary word.

The practical issue I can think of would be in using a trademark ("Demotivational") as a header when selling prints of the challenge images - it could be seen as "stealing" business from, or trading under a pretence of being, the trademark holder whose business is selling similar products!

I think that it could be worth using a slightly different word (pref a dictionary word) or getting the trademark holder's consent.

09/01/2005 11:45:44 AM · #34

Once again, intellectual property shows itself to be the slave master that it is...

And common man has no protection...sure "demotivational" may not be a proper english word. Bet you a thousand dollars it's been used by people before. Even if it were, it would not matter. See Microsoft and their trademark for "Windows" which went against every precedent and established understanding.

*shrug*

Another reason I opposed Intellectual Property rights....

09/01/2005 01:55:49 PM · #35

Originally posted by theSaj:

Fine. Jason has a problem with one trademark. Let's strike a blow for freedom and demolish the entire system.

Anyone care to start up a new company with me? Let's go into the drugs making business, call ourselves GlaxoSmithKline Beecham - we can pretend to be the real GSKB and sell crappy products for a mark up until GSKB's reputation is done for by all of the crappy products using their name, then we can move on to other industries and ruin them too. We can steal Despair Inc's business model, and try and steal their customers by pretending to be them. We can set up banks using the names of real banks, except that we will take the money and go bust a few times. We can use up all that intellectual value for our greedy selves.

Ignore my advice: it is irrelevant in the new world order of the free for all.

09/01/2005 01:59:10 PM · #36

Main Entry: demotivate
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: to make someone lose motivation, esp. to carry out a task or job
Etymology: de + motivate

Source: Webster's New Millenniumâ�¢ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.6)
Copyright Â© 2003-2005 Lexico Publishing Group, LLC

09/01/2005 02:17:52 PM · #37

Not sure if this means that the negative adjectival form of the verb, "demotivational", is also a dictionary word for these purposes(though by extraction, the meaning is obvious). I do not think that DPC would ever want to get as far as testing that formally. I can just see the conversation-

Despair: stop carrying out business using our registered trademark
DPC: but your trademark must be invalid as it uses a dictionary word
Despair: do you really want to challenge the validity of our trademark which we have validly registered, have asserted all over our website and printed literature and have been using succesfully for the last X years?
DPC: we will change the name of the challenge and send you all of the profits made so far out of related print sales.

Regardless - whether it is a dictionary word or not, selling prints of demotivational pictures (many of which will, no doubt, be in the same format as those prepared by Despair Inc) and carrying out the same business of selling prints, under a heading that is the same as the registered trademark of Despair Inc, seems to me to carry some risk. Changing the word slightly avoids the risk linked to the registered trademark.

Message edited by author 2005-09-01 14:18:42.

09/01/2005 02:36:44 PM · #38

You're probably right, but I'm not sure we are SELLING them under that heading; it's just a challenge title. How about:

De-Motivate Us!

You've all seen "motivational" posters; show us the opposite. Text may be used in this challenge.

I am sure UnMotivate would work fine though, sigh. The problem for jme is that "unmotivational" implies, for me, anythign that does not motivate. "Demotivational" points more directly at whatever serves to REMOVE motivation.

Robt.

Message edited by author 2005-09-01 14:38:08.

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

09/01/2005 02:51:47 PM · #39

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

We can steal Despair Inc's business model, and try and steal their customers by pretending to be them.

That would fall under false/misleading advertising. And should be penalized. But if "Emotional Photos, Ltd" wanted to sell photos under the following categories:

"Happy Photos"
"Sad Photos"
"Uplifting Photos"
"Depressing Photos"
"Motivational Photos"
"Demotivational Photos"

They should be allowed to... the original idea of a trademark IMHO was to prevent just what you say. Someone "pretending to be" another company.

I do not believe it was supposed to grant that company a monopoly. And saying that one cannot sell "Demotivational Posters" because someone has that trademarked would be akin to making "Trademark" a right to a monopoly. (Which I believe many have done just that.)

skief

Pentax *ist DS

09/01/2005 02:54:08 PM · #40

Well, you could just call it "Anti-motivational," or how about... "The opposite of a motivational poster as we are afraid that we'll have our pants sued off of us (oops, already had that challenge last week)"

willem

Sony Alpha a6700

Sony E 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS

09/01/2005 03:07:59 PM · #41

anti-stimulation
discouragement

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

09/02/2005 05:02:52 AM · #42

I think that DPC Prints does exactly that: sells prints under challenge headings. I agree with you that the challenge itself is not a real issue, it is the sales afterwards that I was thinking about.

Originally posted by bear_music:

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

09/02/2005 10:48:05 AM · #43

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

I think that DPC Prints does exactly that: sells prints under challenge headings.

It does? I though it only sold thngs under the name of the photographer.

09/02/2005 11:15:01 AM · #44

Copyright will pass away....

It is an unworkable system...and one founded by a current state of near infinite greed by companies who could not even do what they do if the current copyrights existed 50-100 yrs ago. Copyrights as they currently exist are unstable and will collapse.

(example: Disney, would not be the company it is today if copyrights of today existed yesteryear. Take for example the recent Disney movie "The Brothers Grimm". If the current copyright laws existed Disney could not make such a movie. Nor would they have been capable of making many of their movies. Shall I list a few movies that they would not have been able to make:

Cinderella
Snow White
Davy Crocket
The Hunchback of Notre Dame
Aladdin
Beauty and the Beast
The Little Mermaid
Peter Pan
Robin Hood
Sinbad
Hercules
The Jungle Book
Pinnochio
Tarzan
Treasure Island

Just to name a short list by a single company that is probably the most diligent proponent of tighter exclusive "copyright" laws.

So, yes....they decry theft and use....but that's exactly what they do. And you can say...well the law was different. In which case, I say to you either it was morally wrong to steal the ideas or if it is not morally wrong...we should not now have the laws.

Please, LB and other copyright pundits...please explain to me the moral nature of copyright theft in this context. It was morally right 100 yrs ago but it's now morally wrong today because of new laws?

If it is morally wrong, companies like Disney should be penalized. If it is not morally wrong...why do we have a law?

Frankly, I don't give a crap about laws. Only morality. Any one with enough money can "buy a law". So what do I care about laws. No, I care about morality. Hence, it may be illegal to violate copyright but it is not immoral.

- The Saj

09/02/2005 12:26:01 PM · #45

Peter Pan

Small point to start with:- Peter Pan was under copyright when Disney made the film (interestingly, it has a unique history. The copyright for that single work was extended into perpetuity by parliament as the benefits of the copyright were assigned by JM Barrie to Great Ormond St Children's Hospital).

You are missing the point:- where stories were under copyright, Disney had to licence the right to reproduce the stories in a new medium. To get a licence, it would have paid the author or his assignee.

Importance of Copyright

Without copyright, Disney could not have made any of those movies: as soon as the first one was released, it could have been copied and shown at cinemas, or copied onto VHS/DVD etc without a single penny going to Disney. Now some of us think that a world wthout Disney might be a better place, but there are some other movie manufacturers I quite like...!

You have an amazingly simplistic view of the matter. I will give you just a brief overview example using a movie of how Disney is prevented from "stealing" by copyright law (there are plenty of technical tweaks to this, but I do not have the time or inclination to produce a textbook on copyright law here).

Copyrights in a film

The books upon which the movie is based are subject to copyright law. In order to use the language of the book and its title, Disney must pay the writer for a licence because of copyright law.

The script writers are usually freelance. They have copyright interests in the script. Because of the copyright interest, they can send the script to Disney without fear of it being used for free.

The musical score is subject to copyright interests that mean that the composer has a right to payment for the composition; the printer of the score gets paid because of his right in the arrangement of the score on the paper; the musicians and conductor have a copyright interest in their performance, which means they get paid; the sound recordist has an interest in the recording, which means he gets paid. If the song has lyrics, the writer of the lyrics has an interest in the words sung, which means he gets paid. The singer has a right in the performance, which means he gets paid.

The fonts used in the end credits are subject to a right that means the font designer gets paid.

The posters for the movie contain text, fonts, photos, pictures etc, all of which are subject to rights which means their designers/photographers/writers get paid.

There are rights in every cell drawn, the composition of the cells into a moving image, the editing, the composition of the music and film, and the people responsible all have rights in their work.

Payment for work

Now Disney is paying a lot of people for their work, none of which has resulted in a tangible product (the only tangibles are some celluloid, some magnetic tape and some paper). Those people have a bundle of rights to demand payment, largely revolving around copyright. If Disney does not pay those people, they can enforce their rights and obtain payment or prevent the use of their creative expression.

So - Disney has to pay a lot of people, and in return it will have the right to release a movie containing all that work. Disney needs to have some security that it will be able to charge people for displaying the movie, or for selling DVDs etc that contain it. If Disney has no such rights, the first copy released can be copied ad infinitum by people who would not be paying Disney. Disney would spend a lot of money and receive nothing back. I am not sure how I can spell this out any clearer. Disney receives no money, it goes bust and pays no-one. All of the hundreds of people who made the movie, receive nothing. Morally - I have a problem for not paying people for work they have created.

So the concept is pretty sound. In fact, it is a modern necessity.

Expiry of Copyright

The increasing value of intellectual property in modern society is equalled by the rise of technical means of copying that valuable intellectual property. Accordingly, protective laws have become necessary. Those laws attempt to balance the interests of the community against the interests of the owner of the intellectual property.

The bit you appear to have a problem with is one element of copyright law: copyright is designed to expire after a period, so that society will benefit from the free availability of valuable intellectual property. Ie, when the author has had recouped a reward for his work, society gets to share in the value communally by virtue of free access. Some corporations see this deadline looming for valuable works (eg Disney), and lobby for the period for their reward to be extended, at the cost of the communal interest. You think that should not happen. I agree with you.

Morality

You say that it is not immoral to breach copyright and copy media. Presumably, you feel that no artist, singer, designer, writer, etc deserves to be paid for the work that you are copying.

You say that Disney (and presumably any other person who enforces their rights under copyright law) is a thief.

Disney pays people for their work. You don't. The real thief is, to my mind, easy to spot.

09/02/2005 12:30:36 PM · #46

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I think that DPC Prints does exactly that: sells prints under challenge headings.

It does? I though it only sold thngs under the name of the photographer.

//www.dpcprints.com/browse_challenge.php

09/02/2005 12:55:35 PM · #47

My posts on the risks need to be read in the context of me not really knowing the effect of registered trademarks in the US and how closely they are defended. I think that if we had a challenge headed "Alamy" or "Getty Images" and a page with that heading in DPC Prints, they might get a bit arsey about it, even if it was reasonably clear that DPC was not selling their prints. I am merely pointing out a risk (that may be quite small) and an easy way around it.

I don't like Unmotivational either - hence suggesting Demotivating Posters (using the gerundial rather than the adjectival form).

09/02/2005 01:06:23 PM · #48

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

"where stories were under copyright"

No, you're missing the point...many of those stories "were not under copyright"...and my point is ALL of today's stories will NEVER not be under copyright.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

"In order to use the language of the book and its title, Disney must pay the writer for a licence because of copyright law."

Not if the book is or story or character is in public domain. My point is we no longer have public domain.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

"The increasing value of intellectual property in modern society is equalled by the rise of technical means of copying that valuable intellectual property. Accordingly, protective laws have become necessary. Those laws attempt to balance the interests of the community against the interests of the owner of the intellectual property."

Balogney....a 200 yrs ago a writer was given 14 yrs to profit from his book. Means of publishing and replicating and receiving a profit were much less than today. But 14 yrs was deemed a reasonable period for profit.

Now, when technology allows for more readily published works, more profit collection, etc. 125 yrs is deemed not enough for profit.

I don't mind copyright laws that are limited and for a short period. But infinite and near infinite (exceeding the average lifespan) I am adamantly against.

Essentially, what you're saying above is "Since copyright holders can now make more money they are entitled to more protections to allow them to make even more money."

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

"The bit you appear to have a problem with is one element of copyright law: copyright is designed to expire after a period, so that society will benefit from the free availability of valuable intellectual property. Ie, when the author has had recouped a reward for his work, society gets to share in the value communally by virtue of free access. Some corporations see this deadline looming for valuable works (eg Disney), and lobby for the period for their reward to be extended, at the cost of the communal interest. You think that should not happen. I agree with you."

That is one of the two issues I have with current copyrights.

1) The extension of term. Seeing as the current U.S. Copyrights are not limited (125 yrs with the near guarantee once we reach the 125 yrs they will be indefinite) I do not give any respect to the copyright laws because in their current form our government does not have the right to pass them nor enforce them.

2) Non-profit use during the granted protection period. In otherwords, to print "Mickey Mouse" shirts and sell them would be illegal. But to have a fan site expressing your like of said mouse should not.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Morality

You say that it is not immoral to breach copyright and copy media. Presumably, you feel that no artist, singer, designer, writer, etc deserves to be paid for the work that you are copying.

You say that Disney (and presumably any other person who enforces their rights under copyright law) is a thief.

Disney pays people for their work. You don't. The real thief is, to my mind, easy to spot.

Actually, I did not say any of that. You're arguing against points I haven't made. I challenged you to answer a question NONE of the defendents of copyrights seem willing to address.

Many of Disney'd works relied upon the expanse of material within "public domain"...every year older works moved into public domain. So Disney was able to make a movie based upon "The Little Mermaid"...or even more recently "The Brothers Grimm". They were able to do so freely and without license because the copyright period has passed.

However, had these works been written today Disney would never be able to have used them freely because they'd be perpetually in copyright. So where as the original intention was to have such works added to the "public domain" this is now being avoided.

But to address your question:

"You say that it is not immoral to breach copyright and copy media."
Illegal, yes...immoral...no because the copyright to me is invalid because our agreement with the holders is not being kept. Thus the contract is null and void. And I do not believe intangibles are property. I believe thought, idea, invention is free...given to man by God for the benefit of all.

"Presumably, you feel that no artist, singer, designer, writer, etc deserves to be paid for the work that you are copying."
In fact, I do believe they should be paid. And in fact, am willing to give them exclusive right to such payments for a limited period of time. But that is all... (and that is exactly what our founding fathers established and exactly what our Constitution dictates; it is not however what recent laws in violation of the Constitution provide for).

"You say that Disney (and presumably any other person who enforces their rights under copyright law) is a thief."
I never said that. But I will say that any copyright holder who enforces their copyright beyond a limited period and withholds entrance to public domain - IS A THIEF!!!

And you may say it's there right. Well guess what....it is their right to profit from their work. But it is not their right to be granted an exclusive monopoly by society. (Which in fact is all a copyright is) So if they want that exclusive right then then must provide benefit to society. Otherwise, there is no reason for society to provide benefit to them.

"Disney pays people for their work. You don't. The real thief is, to my mind, easy to spot."
So long as the product is good, Disney more than re-coups the expenditure in making their work within the first year. 14 yrs gives a sizeable profit. A 100 yrs...is simply stealing what belongs to society.

ONCE AGAIN....

I ask you why it is right for Disney to make money from other creator's work with no compensation to those creator's...but wrong for me to do it with Disney's works?

If the only answer you can provide is "it's the law" then I'm sorry, that's not an argument. Returning runaway slaves to their owners was the law. I don't obey laws - I obey what I believe to be right and moral.

FURTHERMORE....

Copyright holders are also stealing from me by restricting what I can do. Both with the legally purchased products of theirs. But even worse....with my own property.

Time and time again I have been unable to do or perform tasks because of "copyright" protections. Equipment that is disabled so that it can't perform functions because of fear of copyright abuse. So while I was working with my friend to record and album I found that I encountered repeated restrictions to protect copyright holders. But these were our own works.

Furthermore, copyrights are causing a stagnation of technical innovation and development. ie: the broadcast flag which they're trying to forced by law on recording devices so you can't by-pass commercials. The fact that I can't send my own home movies to friends from my cam-corder because they put DRM management on it and others can't view it. The fact that the USB connector for my mini-disc will let me transfer audio to the recorder but not allow me to transfer it from the recorder back to my PC. Of course, they never mention any of this information on the box before you buy said items and then often refuse to take them back.

Lastly, I have no regard to copyright holders such as music distributers who do not provide me with a legal license. If I am buying a $0.50 cent CD and all of my actual $20 cost is for a license. Then I want a license to be provided. If my CD is damaged, fails, etc. I should NOT have to re-purchase a second license. The copyright holders are trying to have all the trump and control cards. But if they have all of those and do not play fair - then they cannot expect the common citizenry to keep playing by their rules.

Lastly, I find it funny that RIAA the #1 proponent of copyrights and anti-piracy is also the number one thief of artist royalties in the world.

Which makes it oh so clear this is all about the $$$ and that the issue at hand is that they are losing their control.

By the way, another reason I will not respect RIAA. I released an album for a friend's band. Guess who collects the royalty rights for any use of tracks from that album by an online radio station.... RIAA. Did I authorize RIAA to handle our account? No...

So it's all a crock of bull....

I'm willing to see artists compensated...but for no more than a short period.