| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/24/2014 05:21:39 PM · #1 |
"You may:
include images that are clearly recognizable as existing artwork when photographing your entry. Images that could be mistaken for real objects in the scene may also be included, but must not be so prominent that voters are basically judging a photo of a photo."
Bear Music offered this suggestion when locking a recent thread:
"If you want to debate the artwork rule and how to improve it, please start a thread for that purpose."
It's no secret that the Artwork rule has proven to be difficult to understand.
This was one of several threads on the subject over the years. Sadly, these threads tend to confuse our members and in some cases participants even get so angry they leave the site. Not a happy outcome. In other cases folks are afraid to try something innovative because they don't want to face a possible DQ.
Obviously, a fair number of participants feel the rule is ambiguous. With that in mind, and understanding that there have been many tries to reword the rule to make it more transparent to the user, let's try again.
Let's try to resolve the ambiguity.
Bear Music has suggested we try our hands at fixing the language of this rule. And perhaps others on Site Council will chime in with their thoughts and language.
Let's keep it constructive. If responders agree with proposed wording good, but if we disagree say why and perhaps tell how to effect more easy-to-understand wording.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2014 05:35:31 PM · #2 |
What's funny about this rule is that it's based on the honor system.
For example, Art could have lied and said that he opened his skullcap or used a mirror.
So, that means that a rewrite can also be based on the honor system, and be just as valid. Here is my suggestion:
You may: include images that you drew or photographed during the time frame of the challenge. |
|
|
|
07/24/2014 05:38:48 PM · #3 |
I've decided to temper my rule a bit:
You may: include images that you drew or photographed during the time frame of the challenge, but your photo must be something more than a photo of a photo or a photo of a drawing. |
|
|
|
07/24/2014 05:40:53 PM · #4 |
|
|
|
07/24/2014 06:18:36 PM · #5 |
For this wording I would suggest one minor clarification:
You may: include images that you drew or photographed during the time frame of the challenge, but your photo entry must be something more than a photo of a photo or a photo of a drawing. Originally posted by posthumous:
|
|
|
|
|
07/24/2014 06:29:29 PM · #6 |
Bear in mind that if this wording is adopted then we'd have to require more than one original on such entries.
And I'm at a loss as to how we'd verify that something was DRAWN within the challenge frame. That's actually a bit harsher than it is now, because there are very few restrictions on using non-photographic artwork. So basically, this should only apply to photographs?
Also, if you're suggesting that the entire "artwork rule" be replaced by that sentence, isn't there a hole? Here's the current rule:
You may include images that are clearly recognizable as existing artwork when photographing your entry. Images that could be mistaken for real objects in the scene may also be included, but must not be so prominent that voters are basically judging a photo of a photo.
Here's the proposed rule:
You may: include images that you drew or photographed during the time frame of the challenge, but your photo entry must be something more than a photo of a photo or a photo of a drawing.
I admire the simplicity of it very much, but does it by implication say you may NOT use any artwork not made by you in the challenge period? Or, since it makes no mention of existing artwork other than work of your own, does this mean we'd be free to use other peoples' work with impunity?
So some tuning up might be necessary... |
|
|
|
07/24/2014 07:22:16 PM · #7 |
Yes, Bear is right. Some more fiddling is required. While everyone works on that let's all go out and buy one of those newfangled pencils that imbues the artwork with exif data.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2014 07:27:17 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Bear in mind ... |
Ha! You said "Bear"...
Originally posted by posthumous:
You may: include images that you drew or photographed during the time frame of the challenge, but your photo entry must be something more than a photo of a photo or a photo of a drawing. |
Does this handicap people who cannot draw, but can photograph well (or encourage more lying)? This IS a photography contest, right?
If we then allow us to photograph a drawing by someone else... we're back to "square one".
What does it matter WHO drew the art? I think we should leave that part out... But, then again, there are copywrites or ... whatever they're called for us... and is it legal to photograph someone else's art? How will we prove that we have the right to photograph someone's art?
It's madness! Madness, I say!!
|
|
|
|
07/24/2014 07:43:44 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Lydia:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Bear in mind ... |
Ha! You said "Bear"...
Originally posted by posthumous:
You may: include images that you drew or photographed during the time frame of the challenge, but your photo entry must be something more than a photo of a photo or a photo of a drawing. |
Does this handicap people who cannot draw, but can photograph well (or encourage more lying)? This IS a photography contest, right?
If we then allow us to photograph a drawing by someone else... we're back to "square one".
What does it matter WHO drew the art? I think we should leave that part out... But, then again, there are copywrites or ... whatever they're called for us... and is it legal to photograph someone else's art? How will we prove that we have the right to photograph someone's art?
It's madness! Madness, I say!! |
 Lydia, you have identified what you feel is a weak spot in the proposed artwork definition. Could you please also suggest language that might clarify this point? |
|
|
|
07/24/2014 08:07:32 PM · #10 |
I dunno, for once I'm on the fence on this one. I always opt for integrity and hope that fellow DPCers are not using shortcuts by using a photo of a photo or a photo of a drawing. Sad to see DQs of some recent images due to photos by another photog being used.
However, if we DO allow other's images (photos and/or drawings) to be used, well then won't we just turn into a PhotoChop site a la Worth1K, where using images off the internet (albeit you are supposed to credit the originator of the artwork) is encouraged?
Personally I am all in favour of a rule which allows us to use images (drawn or shot by us) at an earlier date, to be used in entries. Make that Expert challenge entries, which limits it somewhat. But at least then we're sourcing from our own images (let's call it 'self stock'), not from whatever pops up when you use GoogleImages to find, say, shots of a campfire scene. If I shot some really nice campfire images just last week, and a new Expert challenge pops up, do I really want to have to go shoot another campfire scene?
As always, just my .002 CDN$ worth. Maybe a bit limiting, but hey...in terms of challenge rules, I still have yet to make sense of the 'up to 10 captures of an image' rule for Advanced.
Message edited by author 2014-07-24 20:10:03. |
|
|
|
07/24/2014 08:32:31 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Lydia, you have identified what you feel is a weak spot in the proposed artwork definition. Could you please also suggest language that might clarify this point? |
I cannot, Alice. |
|
|
|
07/24/2014 08:44:48 PM · #12 |
snaffles- all good points, but what we are working on specifically in this thread is very narrow.
It is how to reword the existing rule in Advanced Editing so that it is clearer to the participant. This one rule has caused considerable confusion among our participants because it is difficult to understand.
"You may:
include images that are clearly recognizable as existing artwork when photographing your entry. Images that could be mistaken for real objects in the scene may also be included, but must not be so prominent that voters are basically judging a photo of a photo." [/b]
Right now the rewording stands at:
[b]You may: include images that you drew or photographed during the time frame of the challenge, but your photo entry must be something more than a photo of a photo or a photo of a drawing.
but there are problems as Bear Music points out:
"I admire the simplicity of it very much, but does it by implication say you may NOT use any artwork not made by you in the challenge period? Or, since it makes no mention of existing artwork other than work of your own, does this mean we'd be free to use other peoples' work with impunity?
So some tuning up might be necessary..."
So, for this rule, let's think of ways to make it work as intended. |
|
|
|
07/24/2014 08:52:56 PM · #13 |
What about something like;
You may include existing artwork in a manner that does not violate copyright, but your entry must be something more than a photo of pre-existing artwork.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2014 09:04:27 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
snaffles- all good points, but what we are working on specifically in this thread is very narrow.
It is how to reword the existing rule in Advanced Editing so that it is clearer to the participant. |
Note that currently this rule is the same and applies to ALL of the rule sets. |
|
|
|
07/24/2014 09:09:57 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by jomari:
You may include existing artwork in a manner that does not violate copyright, but your entry must be something more than a photo of pre-existing artwork. |
That's basically the old rule– except that the use of ANY artwork that isn't your own or specifically released into the public domain likely violates a copyright. The three main issues with the old rule were:
1. It allowed otherwise-illegal Photoshop edits to be re-photographed for an entry
2. People would enter a photo outside the challenge dates (or someone else's) and just add something insignificant to make it legal
3. We had to DQ "acceptable" things like a macro detail of currency or a shot of grafitti because they were only pre-existing artwork
Message edited by author 2014-07-24 21:11:17. |
|
|
|
07/24/2014 09:20:21 PM · #16 |
 GeneralE - okay so noted. The artwork rule applies to all rule sets.
jomari - you have suggested this rewording:
You may include existing artwork in a manner that does not violate copyright, but your entry must be something more than a photo of pre-existing artwork.
 scalvert- please note that at this point we are not trying to change the old present rule, only to make the old present rule more understandable to the participant. Does jomari's proposed wording do that? If not, how could it be reworded to conform?
Message edited by author 2014-07-24 21:48:42. |
|
|
|
07/24/2014 09:42:41 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
please note that at this point we are not trying to change the old rule, only to make the old rule more understandable to the participant. Does jomari's proposed wording do that? If not, how could it be reworded to conform? |
The old rule is not the current rule, and while that's certainly more understandable, it actually goes beyond the old rule to reopen even bigger problems than we were trying to address with the current version. |
|
|
|
07/24/2014 09:44:09 PM · #18 |
Maybe I am missing something, but if clarification, not a real change is desired, what about something like:
You may include items that are clearly recognizable as existing artwork when photographing your entry. Drawings or prints that could be mistaken for real objects may be included as part of the scene but cannot be a prominent part of the subject or image, they can be present for compositional support only.
It seems as if we get rid of that first sentence that photos in museums or graffiti or whatever can be DQ'd? |
|
|
|
07/24/2014 09:47:46 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by sfalice:
please note that at this point we are not trying to change the oldpresent rule, only to make the old present rule more understandable to the participant. Does jomari's proposed wording do that? If not, how could it be reworded to conform? |
The old rule is not the current rule, and while that's certainly more understandable, it actually goes beyond the old rule to reopen even bigger problems than we were trying to address with the current version. |
Okay, Shannon, I will edit my post to read "the current rule" instead of the "old rule" by which I meant the rule presently in place that we are trying to make more understandable to the participants by rewriting it.
Does that help you understand? I know it's tough. Forgive me.
So, to continue on, does the rewording of the 'present rule' by jomari make the rule more understandable to the participant? If not, how could it be reworded to conform?
Message edited by author 2014-07-24 21:50:15. |
|
|
|
07/24/2014 10:01:53 PM · #20 |
You can't reword a rule without changing it. If everyone understood the spirit of the rule, there would be no need to reword it.
There is no ghost in the machine. |
|
|
|
07/24/2014 10:11:57 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
You can't reword a rule without changing it. If everyone understood the spirit of the rule, there would be no need to reword it.
There is no ghost in the machine. |
Correct. IMO the goal here would be to first DEFINE specifically what we want to prohibit and what we want to allow, then word the rule in such a way that people understand the SPIRIT of it, which currently is not the case. |
|
|
|
07/24/2014 10:14:19 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Jules1x:
Maybe I am missing something, but if clarification, not a real change is desired, what about something like:
You may include items that are clearly recognizable as existing artwork when photographing your entry. Drawings or prints that could be mistaken for real objects may be included as part of the scene but cannot be a prominent part of the subject or image, they can be present for compositional support only.
It seems as if we get rid of that first sentence that photos in museums or graffiti or whatever can be DQ'd? |
We probably want a little more action out of the inclusion than compositional support.
What about;
You may include items that are clearly recognizable as existing artwork when photographing your entry. Images that could be mistaken for real objects may be included as part of the scene but cannot be the predominant factor unless photographic technique presents it in a new light.
This would allow for super macro shots of money etc.
Message edited by author 2014-07-24 22:15:22.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2014 10:24:04 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by posthumous:
You can't reword a rule without changing it. If everyone understood the spirit of the rule, there would be no need to reword it.
There is no ghost in the machine. |
Correct. IMO the goal here would be to first DEFINE specifically what we want to prohibit and what we want to allow, then word the rule in such a way that people understand the SPIRIT of it, which currently is not the case. |
 Bear_Music, going out on a limb here, I would think that any Site Council member could define specifically what is prohibited and what is allowable in the Artwork Rule, since Site Council is in the unenviable position of enforcing the Artwork rule.
So the challenge is to give us easy to understand words.
Message edited by author 2014-07-24 22:24:52. |
|
|
|
07/24/2014 10:26:49 PM · #24 |
What about;
You may include items that are clearly recognizable as existing artwork when photographing your entry. Images that could be mistaken for real objects may be included as part of the scene but cannot be the predominant factor unless photographic technique presents it in a new light.
Actually I can already foresee the arguments about which factor is predominant. So how about ... cannot be the predominant factor and must interact with other essential elements...
|
|
|
|
07/24/2014 10:35:23 PM · #25 |
So that we can keep on track here, below are the suggestions so far on how to reword the current artwork rule to that it is more understandable to the participant.
 Posthumous: You may: include images that you drew or photographed during the time frame of the challenge.
Posthumous, revised: You may: include images that you drew or photographed during the time frame of the challenge, but your photo must be something more than a photo of a photo or a photo of a drawing.
GeneralE: Rewording of Posthumous suggestion to add clarity.
You may: include images that you drew or photographed during the time frame of the challenge, but your photo entry must be something more than a photo of a photo or a photo of a drawing.
jomari: you may include existing artwork in a manner that does not violate copyright, but your entry must be something more than a photo of pre-existing artwork.
jules1x: You may include items that are clearly recognizable as existing artwork when photographing your entry. Drawings or prints that could be mistaken for real objects may be included as part of the scene but cannot be a prominent part of the subject or image, they can be present for compositional support only
jomari, revised: You may include items that are clearly recognizable as existing artwork when photographing your entry. Images that could be mistaken for real objects may be included as part of the scene but cannot be the predominant factor unless photographic technique presents it in a new light.
to recap, this is the Current Rule that we are trying to make more understandable for the participant:
"You may:
include images that are clearly recognizable as existing artwork when photographing your entry. Images that could be mistaken for real objects in the scene may also be included, but must not be so prominent that voters are basically judging a photo of a photo."
Message edited by author 2014-07-24 23:19:46. |
|
