| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/11/2008 10:49:29 AM · #526 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
I am bent out of shape over the the fact that photographers of real wildlife spend many hours or days trying to get a good shot. When they do get that good shot, it deserves MUCH better then to be scored in the same way as a FAKE wildlife photo from someone who captured a snapshot of a set exhibit with a photo-realistic (again pun intended) backdrop. Essentially your fakery is cheapening every great photo ever posted here. When the voters see a great photo now they might actually score it lower thinking that they are being duped because it is "too perfect" to be true. That is exactly why I questioned your ethics. |
Give me a break. I'm sorry you feel slighted because you went out in the cold to take real wildlife shots. But that's not my problem. It was a nice looking display, I took a picture and liked it. I entered the picture. Others liked it. This site is all about virtual scores. Not that big a deal in the real world. You need to get over it.
As for the voters being duped, happens all the time on this site. So are you going to scream for a DQ on every picture that fools you? |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 10:51:11 AM · #527 |
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by basssman7:
Ok, let's go back to the original post in this mess by AlanFreed, that he posted on behalf of SC:
Here's where this becomes a problem... occasionally we'll receive submissions where it is not obvious that the submission is largely a photo of a photo. If the artwork/photo within the submission is realistic AND important enough that voters are likely judging the photographic qualities of the elements within that art as if they were real, then it's a problem.
The painted backdrop of this set contains the wonderful light which the voters were partly judging the photo on. They were "judging the photographic qualities of the elements within that art as if it were real". That is exactly what the rule was meant to get rid of, and is EXACTLY what we are talking about here. |
And my point is that in the cases where this method is used for 'cheating' the rule is unenforceable.
The *only* way we knew about the manatees was that Marc923 told us. If he'd left the comment about taking the shot while he was scuba diving, a) we wouldn't be any the wiser and b) the only way we'd have been able to prove otherwise would be to pay him a personal visit and ask to see his scuba gear, or hope that some DPC-er happens across the exhibit display and reports it to SC within the 7 days DQ period. |
You are arguing about something that is not happening! The facts are that he DID mention it was an exhibit (which I was curious about anyways and would likely have explored it) so it is a known violation of the rule. Isn't your arguement a bit like saying because they do not test ALL athletes at the Olympics they should not punish those they catch with performance enhancing drugs? |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 10:51:44 AM · #528 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by Marc923:
Here is the rule,
"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."
Notice the bold. The rule is meant to stop people from taking a picture of an existing photograph and passing it as their own.
And sorry you disagree. But I did not violate any rules. |
Marc if you have followed along you will no doubt have seen that the idea of photographing a painting has been brought up, and it was ruled that is the same as a photograph and therefore illegal. Shannon said if we take away the glass in Lydia's case then all that is left is the photograph. If we do the same with your stuffed Manatee's we also have a photograph(ie the painting) do you see why I am confused and wanting the answer to my question for clarification.
Matt |
Matt, yes, I see your point. But let me throw this out there. Some takes a nice portrait against an nice painted muslin. Are you going to ask for that to be DQ'd? Take away the person and you have nothing but a painted muslin. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 10:52:18 AM · #529 |
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by Marc923:
Here is the rule,
"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."
Notice the bold. The rule is meant to stop people from taking a picture of an existing photograph and passing it as their own. |
Yes! Exactly! The rule was originally created to deter direct plagiarism and prevent 'photo-of-a-photo' to circumvent editing rules. That's all. |
Interesting. That is not what AlanFreed said on behalf of the SC, and is not what many other dq'd examples in this thread say. How do you know the true intent when the SC does not? |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 10:54:59 AM · #530 |
Originally posted by MattO:
IMHO your photo and Lydia's are no different, either they are both legal or they both arent. |
I agree that both photos violate the artwork rule as it now stands.
In the case of Lydia, however, I think it's unfortunate that her experiments with composite images are not allowed in the DPC ruleset. They are perfectly valid expressions of this thing called "photography," and totally original to her. Time to bring back Expert Editing!! |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 10:55:12 AM · #531 |
Originally posted by Marc923:
[
Matt, yes, I see your point. But let me throw this out there. Some takes a nice portrait against an nice painted muslin. Are you going to ask for that to be DQ'd? Take away the person and you have nothing but a painted muslin. |
Now you are following my thought process.......this is all about how the rule leaves open so much to interpretation that issues such as this can arise. That is why I feel there is such a need to fix what is an obvious problem in the ruling. This was only brought to my attention by what is going on with your and Lydia's photo. The rule as written makes alot of things illegal and only leaves the subjective enforcement of those wearing the funny hats by their names. This needs to be clarified so that this isnt an issue in the future. There has been great wording added by someone way back in this post that I think would fix alot of this......and when I'm not suppose to be working I will find it and copy and paste it in.
Matt
Edit to add that by using Shannon's thought process of removing the three dimensional object from the photo or the painting we then have to declare portraits and other things that use the same principle as illegal.
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 11:03:17.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 10:56:43 AM · #532 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
Originally posted by JH:
The *only* way we knew about the manatees was that Marc923 told us. If he'd left the comment about taking the shot while he was scuba diving, a) we wouldn't be any the wiser and b) the only way we'd have been able to prove otherwise would be to pay him a personal visit and ask to see his scuba gear, or hope that some DPC-er happens across the exhibit display and reports it to SC within the 7 days DQ period. |
You are arguing about something that is not happening! The facts are that he DID mention it was an exhibit (which I was curious about anyways and would likely have explored it) so it is a known violation of the rule. |
Okay, let's look at what actually did happen then;
Marc923 submitted his manatee photo under this ruleset; "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."
His photo did not consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph (or painting) - Therefore he didn't break the rules. Which rule are you claiming it's in violation of? |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 11:00:45 AM · #533 |
Originally posted by Marc923:
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by Marc923:
Here is the rule,
"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."
Notice the bold. The rule is meant to stop people from taking a picture of an existing photograph and passing it as their own.
And sorry you disagree. But I did not violate any rules. |
Marc if you have followed along you will no doubt have seen that the idea of photographing a painting has been brought up, and it was ruled that is the same as a photograph and therefore illegal. Shannon said if we take away the glass in Lydia's case then all that is left is the photograph. If we do the same with your stuffed Manatee's we also have a photograph(ie the painting) do you see why I am confused and wanting the answer to my question for clarification.
Matt |
Matt, yes, I see your point. But let me throw this out there. Some takes a nice portrait against an nice painted muslin. Are you going to ask for that to be DQ'd? Take away the person and you have nothing but a painted muslin. |
That is totally different. A painted muslin backdrop is intended as a backdrop. It is not something that is photo-realistic with painted on lighting which matches the 3d part of the scene in such a way as trying to fool viewers into believing that the backdrop is part of the 3d scene.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 11:02:55 AM · #534 |
Originally posted by Marc923:
It was a nice looking display, I took a picture and liked it. I entered the picture. Others liked it. This site is all about virtual scores. Not that big a deal in the real world. You need to get over it. |
It's remarkable to me that the SC and the owners of this site feel that the integrity of photography is so threatened by digital editing, and yet show no concern about someone entering a photo that has been completely set up by someone else. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 11:04:02 AM · #535 |
I'm done with this. We can go round and round here all day. And like Matt, I really should be working. Whatever SC says I'll go with. Their call. Not ours.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 11:06:37 AM · #536 |
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by basssman7:
Originally posted by JH:
The *only* way we knew about the manatees was that Marc923 told us. If he'd left the comment about taking the shot while he was scuba diving, a) we wouldn't be any the wiser and b) the only way we'd have been able to prove otherwise would be to pay him a personal visit and ask to see his scuba gear, or hope that some DPC-er happens across the exhibit display and reports it to SC within the 7 days DQ period. |
You are arguing about something that is not happening! The facts are that he DID mention it was an exhibit (which I was curious about anyways and would likely have explored it) so it is a known violation of the rule. |
Okay, let's look at what actually did happen then;
Marc923 submitted his manatee photo under this ruleset; "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."
His photo did not consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph (or painting) - Therefore he didn't break the rules. Which rule are you claiming it's in violation of? |
You really are barking up the wrong tree. This part of the ruleset has already many, many times before (mentioned in this thread previously) been used to dq shots that have photos or paintings or drawings as a background if the voter was fooled into voting partly on the esthetics of the background because they did not realize they were just a background. Do not blame me for previous interpretation of this ruleset, that is a whole other part of this discussion. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 11:07:29 AM · #537 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Marc923:
It was a nice looking display, I took a picture and liked it. I entered the picture. Others liked it. This site is all about virtual scores. Not that big a deal in the real world. You need to get over it. |
It's remarkable to me that the SC and the owners of this site feel that the integrity of photography is so threatened by digital editing, and yet show no concern about someone entering a photo that has been completely set up by someone else. |
Very valid and important point. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 11:07:47 AM · #538 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by MattO:
IMHO your photo and Lydia's are no different, either they are both legal or they both arent. |
I agree that both photos violate the artwork rule as it now stands.
|
I would alter this to read
"I agree that both photos violate the artwork rule as it is now interpreted."
I always felt the spirit of the artwork rule was to avoid photographic plagiarism. It seems to be applied in a more conservative note now that, imo, stifles and limits the use of a basic photographic (and artistic) tool - the prop.
Originally posted by posthumous:
In the case of Lydia, however, I think it's unfortunate that her experiments with composite images are not allowed in the DPC ruleset. They are perfectly valid expressions of this thing called "photography," and totally original to her. |
I concur, from foot to head I could not concur more. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 11:11:33 AM · #539 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
You really are barking up the wrong tree. This part of the ruleset has already many, many times before (mentioned in this thread previously) been used to dq shots that have photos or paintings or drawings as a background if the voter was fooled into voting partly on the esthetics of the background because they did not realize they were just a background. Do not blame me for previous interpretation of this ruleset, that is a whole other part of this discussion. |
Well, I think I'll leave this little can of worms for the SC to untangle then... ;-)
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 11:19:02 AM · #540 |
| You know the funny thing is that after all the arguing back and forth trying to make our points for either side....unless the SC (all of them voting on the image dq's or rule changes) actually read this (which is doubtful) it will not make one iota of difference! lmao |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 11:27:10 AM · #541 |
 marc923 in my opinion did nothing outside the rule set, if he had taken a photo of a stained glass window in a building or a sculpture inside or out no one would care, to me the real debate is what is acceptable to use as a back ground and the thing that does not make sense to me is how sometimes allowing the use of a monitor is OK and some times not. My understanding is the intent of the rule was to make sure an old photo in its entirety is not used to get around the rules which I am sure we cam all agree with. Even if the photo used as a back ground was an old photo (which she says is not the case) the photo still incorporates a toast being made to a group of people and that is what was being voted on. If she toasted a picture in a frame it would have been OK but with no frame showing or monitor edges showing it gets a DQ which makes little or no sense to me. Just my opinion.
I stated earlier that when I saw the photo I thought what Lydia had done was against the interpretation of the rules that had been stated in an earlier thread from over a year ago but still feel the rule is not well defined and does not make sense. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 11:39:50 AM · #542 |
On a non-point by point basis, I just want to say that given all of the possibilities of a rules violation, it seems that what is going to happen to a lot of us is that we'll be standing with our cameras on tripods, feeling hemmed in and blocked because we can't figure out what is considered "real" or "fake" or "foolery" or, what editing methods will result in a DQ.
All of this bantering over what is legal in a background, what isn't and NOT KNOWING for sure is going to hamper a LOT of creativity and that's a shame because that's what photography is all about, creativity. To stand and wonder if a background is considered a piece of art, or whether our subjects are pieces of art (ie: the manatee example) could lead a lot of us to "playing it safe" lest we "fool" the viewer. It's also going to lead a lot of us to back off of doing anything more creative than basic editing levels. Again, a shame because it's limiting creativity. Yes, there needs to be limits and rules but, they need to be clearso that no one has to stand and go through a 500+ point debate in our own heads before we even attempt to shoot a shot! :) Given the confusion in all of these posts, it seems that is not the current case.
Bottom line here is that SC really needs to decide what is acceptable and what is not and perhaps, trying to put it into a sentence or two just won't suffice from here on out! Rules need to be concrete, not subjective to council's point of view or, whether the photographer divulged how they took a shot in their photo description. That will lead to no one putting in photog notes, period. That will be a shame because a lot of us want to know how something was done. Had the photographer of the manatee shot not put in their notes that it was a display, no one would have known the difference. So, in that aspect, the fact that the notes were there creates a sitution where the photographer came under fire because he did put the truth in. It shouldn't really matter. If I can get a shot of a silk/fake flower that looks just as good as a real flower, it should score the same as a real flower shot. The fact that I put it in my notes that it's a fake flower shouldn't bring up the idea afterwards, "I was fooled! I thought it was a real flower. I would have voted it lower had I known it was a fake!" It's ridiculous. It was a photo!
All of this bickering over all of this type of thing is really disrupting the creative process and SC needs to really take a hard and long look at this idea in re-creating this rule....even if it takes a half page on the rules page to clarify this rule. NOT doing that will result in a lot more DQ's and a lot more hampering of creative photography.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 11:42:38 AM · #543 |
Originally posted by PapaBob:
marc923 in my opinion did nothing outside the rule set, if he had taken a photo of a stained glass window in a building or a sculpture inside or out no one would care, to me the real debate is what is acceptable to use as a back ground and the thing that does not make sense to me is how sometimes allowing the use of a monitor is OK and some times not. My understanding is the intent of the rule was to make sure an old photo in its entirety is not used to get around the rules which I am sure we cam all agree with. Even if the photo used as a back ground was an old photo (which she says is not the case) the photo still incorporates a toast being made to a group of people and that is what was being voted on. If she toasted a picture in a frame it would have been OK but with no frame showing or monitor edges showing it gets a DQ which makes little or no sense to me. Just my opinion.
I stated earlier that when I saw the photo I thought what Lydia had done was against the interpretation of the rules that had been stated in an earlier thread from over a year ago but still feel the rule is not well defined and does not make sense. |
The interpretation of the rule as stated in the first post of this thread by AlanFreed on behalf of the SC is clearly violated by Marc because people were voting based in part on the beauty of the "lighting" in the photo, which as it turns out is a painted background, which the voters thought was real light. Many people who voted on the Feast shot thought that it was done by a glass in the foreground, and a real, live family in the background which it was not. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 11:42:43 AM · #544 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
You know the funny thing is that after all the arguing back and forth trying to make our points for either side....unless the SC (all of them voting on the image dq's or rule changes) actually read this (which is doubtful) it will not make one iota of difference! lmao |
LOL...I so agree with you EB! ROFL!!!!
I hope that SC is thinking about the points that everyone has made in this thread and won't sweep it under the carpet. As I said in my post below, it's going to create a "Photographer's Block" or generate one heck of a pile more DQ's! :) |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 11:46:12 AM · #545 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
On a non-point by point basis, I just want to say that given all of the possibilities of a rules violation, it seems that what is going to happen to a lot of us is that we'll be standing with our cameras on tripods, feeling hemmed in and blocked because we can't figure out what is considered "real" or "fake" or "foolery" or, what editing methods will result in a DQ.
All of this bantering over what is legal in a background, what isn't and NOT KNOWING for sure is going to hamper a LOT of creativity and that's a shame because that's what photography is all about, creativity. To stand and wonder if a background is considered a piece of art, or whether our subjects are pieces of art (ie: the manatee example) could lead a lot of us to "playing it safe" lest we "fool" the viewer. It's also going to lead a lot of us to back off of doing anything more creative than basic editing levels. Again, a shame because it's limiting creativity. Yes, there needs to be limits and rules but, they need to be clearso that no one has to stand and go through a 500+ point debate in our own heads before we even attempt to shoot a shot! :) Given the confusion in all of these posts, it seems that is not the current case.
Bottom line here is that SC really needs to decide what is acceptable and what is not and perhaps, trying to put it into a sentence or two just won't suffice from here on out! Rules need to be concrete, not subjective to council's point of view or, whether the photographer divulged how they took a shot in their photo description. That will lead to no one putting in photog notes, period. That will be a shame because a lot of us want to know how something was done. Had the photographer of the manatee shot not put in their notes that it was a display, no one would have known the difference. So, in that aspect, the fact that the notes were there creates a sitution where the photographer came under fire because he did put the truth in. It shouldn't really matter. If I can get a shot of a silk/fake flower that looks just as good as a real flower, it should score the same as a real flower shot. The fact that I put it in my notes that it's a fake flower shouldn't bring up the idea afterwards, "I was fooled! I thought it was a real flower. I would have voted it lower had I known it was a fake!" It's ridiculous. It was a photo!
All of this bickering over all of this type of thing is really disrupting the creative process and SC needs to really take a hard and long look at this idea in re-creating this rule....even if it takes a half page on the rules page to clarify this rule. NOT doing that will result in a lot more DQ's and a lot more hampering of creative photography. |
I agree with most of what you have stated here. However your flower example is not the same at all. If you took a photo of a silk flower it is still a real, 3d object, and the voters would be voting based on the beauty of the way you captured that object in your photo, regardless of if it is real or fake. The manatee photo has a problem not with the manatee, but with the fact that the background which is painted contains the beautiful light that people were giving it the high marks for. Totally different then the flower example. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 11:48:31 AM · #546 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
On a non-point by point basis, I just want to say that given all of the possibilities of a rules violation, it seems that what is going to happen to a lot of us is that we'll be standing with our cameras on tripods, feeling hemmed in and blocked because we can't figure out what is considered "real" or "fake" or "foolery" or, what editing methods will result in a DQ.
All of this bantering over what is legal in a background, what isn't and NOT KNOWING for sure is going to hamper a LOT of creativity and that's a shame because that's what photography is all about, creativity. To stand and wonder if a background is considered a piece of art, or whether our subjects are pieces of art (ie: the manatee example) could lead a lot of us to "playing it safe" lest we "fool" the viewer. It's also going to lead a lot of us to back off of doing anything more creative than basic editing levels. Again, a shame because it's limiting creativity. Yes, there needs to be limits and rules but, they need to be clearso that no one has to stand and go through a 500+ point debate in our own heads before we even attempt to shoot a shot! :) Given the confusion in all of these posts, it seems that is not the current case.
Bottom line here is that SC really needs to decide what is acceptable and what is not and perhaps, trying to put it into a sentence or two just won't suffice from here on out! Rules need to be concrete, not subjective to council's point of view or, whether the photographer divulged how they took a shot in their photo description. That will lead to no one putting in photog notes, period. That will be a shame because a lot of us want to know how something was done. Had the photographer of the manatee shot not put in their notes that it was a display, no one would have known the difference. So, in that aspect, the fact that the notes were there creates a sitution where the photographer came under fire because he did put the truth in. It shouldn't really matter. If I can get a shot of a silk/fake flower that looks just as good as a real flower, it should score the same as a real flower shot. The fact that I put it in my notes that it's a fake flower shouldn't bring up the idea afterwards, "I was fooled! I thought it was a real flower. I would have voted it lower had I known it was a fake!" It's ridiculous. It was a photo!
All of this bickering over all of this type of thing is really disrupting the creative process and SC needs to really take a hard and long look at this idea in re-creating this rule....even if it takes a half page on the rules page to clarify this rule. NOT doing that will result in a lot more DQ's and a lot more hampering of creative photography. |
I agree with most of what you have stated here. However your flower example is not the same at all. If you took a photo of a silk flower it is still a real, 3d object, and the voters would be voting based on the beauty of the way you captured that object in your photo, regardless of if it is real or fake. The manatee photo has a problem not with the manatee, but with the fact that the background which is painted contains the beautiful light that people were giving it the high marks for. Totally different then the flower example. |
LOL...I was speaking in generalities with that point. :) |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 11:48:32 AM · #547 |
Artwork is clearly allowed as the rule is written as shown below;
Current rule;
"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."
Breaks down as follows;
"you may....include existing images or artwork as part of your composition" -This says you CAN use photos and artwork as part of a composition
With the following restrictions;
"the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph" -This qualifier applies only to photographs and only when the entire image presented is of said photograph
"in order to circumvent date or editing rules" - This portion applies again to photographs only as setup in the first section, it restricts one from trying to circumvent the rules by presenting an entire photograph, (ie I printed my picture that was 2 weeks old and shot it again with my camera and then stated that the image was a new image). Interesting to note that it DOES NOT however restrict a photo of a photo and so would IMPLY that if one were to capture the Photo within the Rules that It would be legal(thus the earlier torn eyes photo would be allowed)
"fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph" -This qualifier again only applies to photographs and prohibits the capture of work by other people or in other words this prevents Plagerism which is a good thing
The Feast shot, while it DID contain another photograph is not in violation as
a) it was not entirely composed of another photograph, the other photo was used as a backdrop
b) the photograph used did not violate the date or editing rules
c) the photographer captured the shot during the contest period and so was not trying to deceive as to the date of capture
d) the shot APPEARS unedited and as such would not SEEM to violate any editing rules
The Manatee shot does not violate this rule as;
a) it does not contain any photographs of any type which is specifically permitted("include existing images or artwork as part of your composition"
b) As no photographs were included, then the two qualifiers do not apply in any way as they are specific to photographs only as shown above.
There is nothing in this rule about deceiving the voter into seeing something that is not there, rather there is only a prohibition in passing off improperly edited or out of date photographs as ones own, OR passing off the work of another as ones own work(plagiarism)
Why is this so unclear as the rule is fairly plainly written??
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 11:52:06 AM · #548 |
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:
Artwork is clearly allowed as the rule is written as shown below;
Current rule;
"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."
Breaks down as follows;
"you may....include existing images or artwork as part of your composition" -This says you CAN use photos and artwork as part of a composition
With the following restrictions;
"the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph" -This qualifier applies only to photographs and only when the entire image presented is of said photograph
"in order to circumvent date or editing rules" - This portion applies again to photographs only as setup in the first section, it restricts one from trying to circumvent the rules by presenting an entire photograph, (ie I printed my picture that was 2 weeks old and shot it again with my camera and then stated that the image was a new image). Interesting to note that it DOES NOT however restrict a photo of a photo and so would IMPLY that if one were to capture the Photo within the Rules that It would be legal(thus the earlier torn eyes photo would be allowed)
"fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph" -This qualifier again only applies to photographs and prohibits the capture of work by other people or in other words this prevents Plagerism which is a good thing
The Feast shot, while it DID contain another photograph is not in violation as
a) it was not entirely composed of another photograph, the other photo was used as a backdrop
b) the photograph used did not violate the date or editing rules
c) the photographer captured the shot during the contest period and so was not trying to deceive as to the date of capture
d) the shot APPEARS unedited and as such would not SEEM to violate any editing rules
The Manatee shot does not violate this rule as;
a) it does not contain any photographs of any type which is specifically permitted("include existing images or artwork as part of your composition"
b) As no photographs were included, then the two qualifiers do not apply in any way as they are specific to photographs only as shown above.
There is nothing in this rule about deceiving the voter into seeing something that is not there, rather there is only a prohibition in passing off improperly edited or out of date photographs as ones own, OR passing off the work of another as ones own work(plagiarism)
Why is this so unclear as the rule is fairly plainly written?? |
Because SC, for the most part, has decided that "fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph" means "fool the voters into thinking what's in the background is real".
For some odd reason. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 11:52:46 AM · #549 |
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:
Artwork is clearly allowed as the rule is written as shown below;
Current rule;
"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."
Breaks down as follows;
"you may....include existing images or artwork as part of your composition" -This says you CAN use photos and artwork as part of a composition
With the following restrictions;
"the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph" -This qualifier applies only to photographs and only when the entire image presented is of said photograph
"in order to circumvent date or editing rules" - This portion applies again to photographs only as setup in the first section, it restricts one from trying to circumvent the rules by presenting an entire photograph, (ie I printed my picture that was 2 weeks old and shot it again with my camera and then stated that the image was a new image). Interesting to note that it DOES NOT however restrict a photo of a photo and so would IMPLY that if one were to capture the Photo within the Rules that It would be legal(thus the earlier torn eyes photo would be allowed)
"fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph" -This qualifier again only applies to photographs and prohibits the capture of work by other people or in other words this prevents Plagerism which is a good thing
The Feast shot, while it DID contain another photograph is not in violation as
a) it was not entirely composed of another photograph, the other photo was used as a backdrop
b) the photograph used did not violate the date or editing rules
c) the photographer captured the shot during the contest period and so was not trying to deceive as to the date of capture
d) the shot APPEARS unedited and as such would not SEEM to violate any editing rules
The Manatee shot does not violate this rule as;
a) it does not contain any photographs of any type which is specifically permitted("include existing images or artwork as part of your composition"
b) As no photographs were included, then the two qualifiers do not apply in any way as they are specific to photographs only as shown above.
There is nothing in this rule about deceiving the voter into seeing something that is not there, rather there is only a prohibition in passing off improperly edited or out of date photographs as ones own, OR passing off the work of another as ones own work(plagiarism)
Why is this so unclear as the rule is fairly plainly written?? |
WHOA!!! :) Have you had legal training because this is really well deciphered and stated very nicely!!! :) |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 11:59:33 AM · #550 |
Note a small proviso to my earlier analysis;
"fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph" -This qualifier again only applies to photographs and prohibits the capture of work by other people or in other words this prevents Plagerism which is a good thing, the qualifier of "Original Photograph" would imply the photo that was included(the photographed photo) in the submitted photo RATHER than the submitted photo itself, this is an important point as it appears that some have tried to imply that this means the photographer can not "Fool" someone into what they are photographing with their submitted image THIS IS HOWEVER AN INCORRECT READING OF THIS TEXT
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 12:00:53.
|
|
