| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/07/2003 03:57:07 PM · #76 |
@Gordon - perhaps some images are public domain? Taken by the government = no copyright.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2003 03:57:18 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by nathaliedoo:
I agree. I would also remind you that on other sites before submitting a photo you have to click a box confirming you own the copyrights on the photo. By doing it, it cannot be interpreted as a "mistake" if you submit somthing illegal and could also protect DPChallenge.com from lawsuit. Just me 2 cents. |
You already do that here.... |
Do you mean the box "I have read, understood, and followed all of the site rules." I meant a box saying "I declare being the owner of all copyrights regarding this submission" or something like this. Because the first statement seems to refer more to the challenge rules than to copyrights.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2003 03:59:32 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by nathaliedoo:
You already do that here.... |
Do you mean the box "I have read, understood, and followed all of the site rules." I meant a box saying "I declare being the owner of all copyrights regarding this submission" or something like this. Because the first statement seems to refer more to the challenge rules than to copyrights.[/quote]
The 'I have read, understood, and followed all of the rules'
In the rules it says 'Subject matter must comply with the DPChallenge Terms of Use'
The terms of use go on at length about copyright and ownership.
If someone checks 'I have read, understood and followed all of the rules' but hasn't either read, understood or followed them - what good will another check box do ?
|
|
|
|
08/07/2003 04:01:16 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
This is like high school policies - nowhere in the high school policy at the school I went to did it say "Murder is expressly disallowed." However, I'm pretty sure that since it's a more global law, it would apply, even on school property. :)
M |
You obviously didn't go to high school in New Jersey... Murder would result in a weeks detention at my school.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2003 04:02:14 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
@Gordon - perhaps some images are public domain? Taken by the government = no copyright. |
Even then, there would still seem to be a resonable expectation that the person submitting work to a digital photography competition actually took the pictures.
I find it bizzare that people feel its okay to just take other people's photographs, cut and paste them together then claim its their own photography.
it just seems to be be completely opposite to the point of the site, editing restrictions or no editing restrictions.
By that line of reasoning, my ISS photo above should be perfectly reasonable as an entry ?
Message edited by author 2003-08-07 16:02:50. |
|
|
|
08/07/2003 04:03:59 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by nathaliedoo:
You already do that here.... |
Do you mean the box "I have read, understood, and followed all of the site rules." I meant a box saying "I declare being the owner of all copyrights regarding this submission" or something like this. Because the first statement seems to refer more to the challenge rules than to copyrights. |
The 'I have read, understood, and followed all of the rules'
In the rules it says 'Subject matter must comply with the DPChallenge Terms of Use'
The terms of use go on at length about copyright and ownership.
If someone checks 'I have read, understood and followed all of the rules' but hasn't either read, understood or followed them - what good will another check box do ?[/quote]
Well, being a lawyer, I can think that some people might relate more to the contests rules (post-editing, borders, bla bla) than copyrights. But again, maybe it's just a professional distorsion. On Photosig for example, there is a specific box to check regarding copyrights. Of course, in Court it might be interpreted as DPC did enough but would you wait there to get an answer... Again, this is a lawyer's approach. And it's free! ha ha
Message edited by author 2003-08-07 16:05:39.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2003 04:07:04 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
@Gordon - perhaps some images are public domain? Taken by the government = no copyright. |
Good point. That was not clarified in the present challenge.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2003 04:07:32 PM · #83 |
Ok, last thing I'm posting here... I want to give everyone the advice I often give my daughter at times like this...
Everyone take a deep breath...
Feel better? If not, repeat :)
It ain't worth gettin' upset about... This too shall pass...
|
|
|
|
08/07/2003 04:07:46 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by nathaliedoo:
Well, being a lawyer, I can think that some people might relate more to the contests rules (post-editing, borders, bla bla) than copyrights. |
I understand what you are saying, the problem is we would end up with a check box for each of the major rules that people violate all the time.
image ownership, spot editing, entry taken during the time frame, illegal filter usage, and so on. It was assumed that a box that said 'I've read the rules, and I agree to them' would mean that people would actually go and read the rules. That was probably expecting too much, given the various DQs we do each week. |
|
|
|
08/07/2003 04:14:39 PM · #85 |
i dont think so gordon. i think that most of the people are pretty good people on this site.
i think the only reason this happened is no one really thought that it would be a problem, or even saw it coming. so i think some people just made some honest mistakes. the exhortation of 'no holds barred' didn't help.
now that we know, i think the idea of an 'i am the copyright holder' is probably one the site should implement.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2003 04:14:41 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I understand what you are saying, the problem is we would end up with a check box for each of the major rules that people violate all the time.
image ownership, spot editing, entry taken during the time frame, illegal filter usage, and so on. It was assumed that a box that said 'I've read the rules, and I agree to them' would mean that people would actually go and read the rules. That was probably expecting too much, given the various DQs we do each week. |
I know, I know. I was thinking of ONE extra box that would show after we click on the present SUBMIT button saying about owning copyrights. I don't garantee that no one would push without really owning but than it is more difficult to plea that you didn't know, it was not clear... you kow all the things we hear around...;o)
|
|
|
|
08/07/2003 04:16:18 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
I've already requested DQ on a few of them, Gringo, so calm down. I love your stuff and I'm sorry if you are one of the ones I hit - I just think that "no holds barred" leaves the exception "it must be LEGAL."
|
Thanks Mavrik,
I'm not mad at all. I'm just trying to understand how once again I find myself all alone in the far left field. I guess it happens to brilliant people all the time, I'm still trying to get use to it is all. I can honestly say, I saw this one coming.
I was a little agitated yesterday when specific pictures were being discussed in the forum. My score went from a 6.9 to a 4.1 At this point the damage is done, I'm over it.
DQ me and lets move on to the next challenge.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2003 04:19:27 PM · #88 |
hate to break it to you but people's scores always change drastically in the first 20 hours of voting or so. usually they go DOWN. that may or may not be because of the forums and probably isnt because only about 5% of the users of this site actually read or participate on these forums. not only that but you're shot isnt the only one that's got astronomical objects in it. so please feel better, and stop thinking it's all about you :)
Originally posted by Gringo:
Originally posted by mavrik:
I've already requested DQ on a few of them, Gringo, so calm down. I love your stuff and I'm sorry if you are one of the ones I hit - I just think that "no holds barred" leaves the exception "it must be LEGAL."
|
Thanks Mavrik,
I'm not mad at all. I'm just trying to understand how once again I find myself all alone in the far left field. I guess it happens to brilliant people all the time, I'm still trying to get use to it is all. I can honestly say, I saw this one coming.
I was a little agitated yesterday when specific pictures were being discussed in the forum. My score went from a 6.9 to a 4.1 At this point the damage is done, I'm over it.
DQ me and lets move on to the next challenge. |
|
|
|
|
08/07/2003 04:21:11 PM · #89 |
My goodness.
Melodramatic much?
|
|
|
|
08/07/2003 04:21:11 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by Gringo:
DQ me and lets move on to the next challenge. |
Hey you sound so discouraged! Maybe your shot is ok, isn't it possible? You need to hire a lawyer... what's your defence? ha ha! have a good laugh about it! Things are sort of tense since a while around here.
Message edited by author 2003-08-07 16:21:49.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2003 04:51:00 PM · #91 |
After a fine evening's swim, and then a fine dinner, it's very difficult to take this too much to heart, but there are some concerns raised here which i want ot acknowledge - as much out of repect for the posters of them as for anything.
Haven't voted yet, and haven't actually decided if I'm going to or not.
Copyright infringement: difficult. A lot of people won't know about this, or if they know won't understand, or might look elsewhere around the web and decide it isn't that much of an issue. I never thought to use images other than my own in composing my image, but I know of at least one place I could have found some of the source images and used them AND been able to declare ownership of the copyright as far as the challenge goes: unless one is able to define the (v optimistic) possibility of a ribbon here as falling within the realms of 'personal gain'. So there's not necessarily an argument there.
I suspect, as others do, that there are myriad copyright infringements in this challenge - but I'd also submit that likewise they'reunlikely to result in any personal gain, and therefore the detail of the law isn't properly tried yet - so legally it remains a grey field.
However:
1. I've really enjoyed preparing and submitting my image for this challenge, and I hope that we can have similar challenges in the future.
2. It should be made absolutely clear that all images used should be provably one's own - simply the ability to provide originals c/w EXIF data would suffice.
3. Remember that this is an extra to the normal run of members/open challenges, just like the (and when was the last of these?) 24 hour challenges, and various other extras.
4. Read 1 again. I think it'll apply to more here than just me.
Ed
|
|
|
|
08/07/2003 05:05:33 PM · #92 |
Wow, it seems we can't please anyone here with the rules that are in place, and can't please anyone with a wide open no holds barred challenge either....such a dilemma
If there are certain photos that you feel are just outright stolen, request a DQ and have the admins deal with it...the submitter should be able to provide the original with EXIF info or the photo is DQ'ed...pretty simple I think...
If there is a photo that you feel has been used violating a copyright, request a DQ and the submitter should be able to provide their original and proof of permission from the original copyright holder
That all being said, I am not a big fan of all the super PhotoShopped images either...I don't feel that is photography, it is digital art which is a completely different genre and really doesn't belong on a digital photo site
|
|
|
|
08/07/2003 05:14:08 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by rickhd13:
That all being said, I am not a big fan of all the super PhotoShopped images either...I don't feel that is photography, it is digital art which is a completely different genre and really doesn't belong on a digital photo site |
Unless of course there is an occasional challenge which does allow it.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2003 05:18:05 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by kiwiness:
Originally posted by rickhd13:
That all being said, I am not a big fan of all the super PhotoShopped images either...I don't feel that is photography, it is digital art which is a completely different genre and really doesn't belong on a digital photo site |
Unless of course there is an occasional challenge which does allow it. |
point taken kiwi :)
|
|
|
|
08/07/2003 05:25:23 PM · #95 |
I too thoroughly enjoyed preparing my entry for this challenge (a heavily edited montage of two of my own photos). But my score tells me that we do have an issue here, because I'm clearly being punished for submitting such an "impure" photo. It's not that I expected a higher than usual score, but I certain wasn't expecting my lowest score ever.
Maybe future challenges allowing more than usual editing should be of two types: those that allow minor spotediting for a specific reason (like allowing the text in the Postcard challenge), and those where you are expected (or required?) to produce heavily manipulated results. It would certain make voting easier! (I'm voting on this one based on how imaginative I find the entry, I'm equally harsh on pure photos and digital art if it's boring to me).
|
|
|
|
08/07/2003 05:44:00 PM · #96 |
Perhaps its my naivete and I in no way am pointing a finger at anyone else on this site. If you like editing in Photoshop, teach me how. But not on DPC. I enjoy DPC because it is one place where I feel a sense of community about the art and technicality of my photography. If you enjoy enhancing or montaging or whatever in Photoshop then I'd love to learn some of your skills but I don't want to use them here. After recent blind comments (where the commentor didn't know who posted the picture) I asked for more direction on how to do overall editing in PS (like saturation or contrast) because I am such a tyro that I have trouble producing a BASIC picture with BASIC editing such as I would get if I dropped my film at Eckerds or Walgreens or Wal-Mart. I don't want to come to DPC to get blown away by some whizkid artist that may or may not be able to compose and image but can definitely generate PS or Gimp artwork. I find that impressive as a skill but not germain to this web community. For my money and time, I enjoy getting solid comments about how I can enhance my skills so that I can express myself with the images I compose in the viewfinder. If I took the same picture with my Canon Rebel and then dropped it at Wolf or Ritz and they simply punched the colors more to the red spectrum, I don't think that's the same as if the technician behind the glass wall edited the heck outta my photograph and gave me some shot that barely resembled what I saw in TTL. Of course, that's just what I appreciate about this site. I also pay to present my work at PhotoSIG and PBase (where people DO edit the heck outta their work. I appreciate those sites for different reasons but DPC is a purist community where I can learn the basics of composing, taking and producing an aesthetically pleasing and, perhaps, artistically challenging photo. If it borders on art for some viewers, then all the better. If not, then let's go to some other site and you can teach me to enhance the picture further with some digital tool and I'll try to learn that, too.
Kev
|
|
|
|
08/07/2003 06:02:56 PM · #97 |
this is degenerating into the spot editing debate all over again. let's nip that in the bud.
and i'm not worried about copyright infringement or government photographs or anything. if YOU didn't take the picture (or any part of it) YOU shouldn't submit it. period.
my score is tanking 'cause i did some digital artwork that i thought was appropriate for the challenge. however, i used all of my own source materials. i did WAY more than "spot editing" and am not looking at being able to do this all of the time. it was a special case and i'm paying the price score-wise.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2003 08:40:49 PM · #98 |
Holy smoke, I went away for few hours and returned to this major debate. This forum is really fun to read. I posted some comments earlier on in this thread, about being dissapointed with "the future" challenge quality.
But with that said, I have not and will not DQ anyone. I value anyone's effort to produce art and will leave the DQ deccissions up to the site administrators for now.
People, relax and enjoy photography. That's it. I am done with this one.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2003 09:16:15 PM · #99 |
Wow, this thread got heavy. I have a few useless things to say that people have probablly heard already, but here goes.
There is nothing wrong with using someone else's art in your art so long as you are not violating copyrights. I suspect that many of the entries violated copyright laws, but had these people cared to do so, they could have composed basically the same thing using copyright free stock images from acceptable sources or simply by asking people if they could use their photos.
Certainly, breaking the law is bad, but does that make the art bad. What about all the shots of previously existing art like a statue or painting? What about even say wine glasses or chess pieces. You made them too I suppose... What I'm saying is that we are complaining about arbitrary rules when what it boils down to is the final images. You will like it or you won't. There are heavily manipulated images containing work other than the artist's that don't look exactly like traditional photography but similar effects could be achieved by a traditional photographer and they are done in a well composed and thought out way. Certainly, you can apply the same ideas to critiquing a photograph and a piece of digital art. I don't really see where the problem is.
Of course, I agree that there are a lot of heavily over-manipulated shots in the contest that are pretty bad, but I also think that these bad pieces of "digital art" are a lot more interesting to look at than the equal amount of bad photos that get submitted to every challenge. I think it shows more effort too. I mean, at least someone took the time to cut and paste (even if badly). That's better than someone who really seems to have pointed their camera awkwardly at nothing in particular and taken a terrible photo. I applaud people for trying to experiment with PS and learn new things.
In short, I gave more 10s in this challenge than I have in any past challenge. I thought there were many emotive and provocative shots, many of which used PS and mult-images excellently. Congrats to everyone who submitted something for enduring through the hardships of the voting and feedback process.
Have a good day.
Message edited by author 2003-08-07 21:18:42. |
|
|
|
08/08/2003 04:09:37 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by Gringo:
No Holds Barred – was pretty clear in my mind. That clearly means to me NONE of the previous rules apply. NONE of them. Not even the "humorous" extra boxes.
I hope at this point you will DQ this shot. |
It didn't say all rules were suspended. The "no-holds-barred" tag was just fluff - extra language for cute emphasis. Before that, it was very specific on what rules were suspended - only editing and date restrictions. No mention of lifting any other rules, especially the use of other people's work.
People need to stop latching on to one or two words in the descriptions and ignoring everything else. (This goes for both the hyper-literal and the hyper-abstract interpretations of the descriptions...) |
---------------------------------------
I think quite a handful of folks assumed that everyone would just know there are some implied rules and restrictions that exist even if the special rules say: There are NO editing restrictions.
That is a capital NO editing restrictions. That seemed simple enough to me, I took it as verbatim, and it was followed up and reaffirmed with No holds barred. I don̢۪t believe I tweaked the meanings to meet my needs.
4 of the shots for my entry were digital, 1 was film from the old days and I threw in a stock photo of the Earth. I listed this information in my hidden comments on the shot so there were no secrets.
I had a good time working on this challenge entry, and isn̢۪t that really what its all about anyway.
What̢۪s done is done, Im going to see if I can take a good picture now. Cheers
|
|
