| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/22/2014 08:44:17 PM · #1 |
| Agreed. This thread has reached its logical conclusion. If you want to debate the artwork rule and how to improve it, please start a thread for that purpose. |
|
|
|
07/22/2014 07:02:14 PM · #2 |
It was a good discussion, but getting a little redundant. As mentioned, some of it comes down to interpretation and collectively, the SC's majority interpretation has the last word. I'm fine with that. The hole in my head has long since healed up. Let's move on.
|
|
|
|
07/22/2014 06:15:21 PM · #3 |
Aren't people getting tired of this thread already?
It seems to me the people mad are the ones it didn't effect and the person it affected had no problem with it at all.
Let's give it a rest, and in the mean time here's some funny memes to laugh at...
//buymelaughs.com/20-funny-inspirational-quotes/ |
|
|
|
07/22/2014 04:26:41 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Mike:
then Kens image should have been no deliberation. It should be cut and dry.. |
Originally posted by MattO:
Ken's head is the main subject, gears are the supporting subject. |
There's your deliberation, albeit borderline absurd. The surrounding head was not in any plausible sense the main visual impact of Ken's entry.
Message edited by author 2014-07-22 16:28:18. |
|
|
|
07/22/2014 04:21:12 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by MattO:
The voters would have voted different without it there. That tells me it's a significant part of the entry. Just as you said with Ken's entry. That tells me it's significant part of the entry. Without the fish, you don't need the bowl, it's a different entry all together. Making it a DQ just as much as Ken's is using your words. |
That tells me the supporting element did its job, but it's still not the primary imapct of the entry. Without the fish, you have the Cat in the Hat playing with three objects instead of four– not quite as interesting, but not a fundamental change either. |
Ken's head is the main subject, gears are the supporting subject. They also did their job. Yet he got a DQ.
|
|
|
|
07/22/2014 04:19:01 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
the first part of the rules says that multiple originals have to be of the same scene, doesn't it? |
That depends on how you define a scene. |
Fortunately, the rules define it for you: "(defined as a scene whose composition/framing does not change)" |
then Kens image should have been no deliberation. It should be cut and dry.. |
|
|
|
07/22/2014 04:14:11 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
the first part of the rules says that multiple originals have to be of the same scene, doesn't it? |
That depends on how you define a scene. |
Fortunately, the rules define it for you: "(defined as a scene whose composition/framing does not change)" |
|
|
|
07/22/2014 04:11:48 PM · #8 |
| possibly this is a tribute to Ken's legerdemain/tete. perilously, we were given to think he had grafted an image of gears inside his head? |
|
|
|
07/22/2014 04:11:41 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by MattO:
The voters would have voted different without it there. That tells me it's a significant part of the entry. Just as you said with Ken's entry. That tells me it's significant part of the entry. Without the fish, you don't need the bowl, it's a different entry all together. Making it a DQ just as much as Ken's is using your words. |
That tells me the supporting element did its job, but it's still not the primary imapct of the entry. Without the fish, you have the Cat in the Hat playing with three objects instead of four– not quite as interesting, but not a fundamental change either. |
|
|
|
07/22/2014 04:06:05 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by MattO:
how did your fish, which wasn't being presented as artwork by the wording that you just presented pass muster? |
Originally posted by MattO:
It would not have been completely ruined... |
That passes the final test of my chart. |
The voters would have voted different without it there. That tells me it's a significant part of the entry. Just as you said with Ken's entry. That tells me it's significant part of the entry. Without the fish, you don't need the bowl, it's a different entry all together. Making it a DQ just as much as Ken's is using your words.
|
|
|
|
07/22/2014 04:05:44 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
OK, that's good. Take it one step further, though; to make this distinction of yours viable, A photographer would have to submit two originals, right? But the first part of the rules says that multiple originals have to be of the same scene, doesn't it? |
That depends on how you define a scene.
|
|
|
|
07/22/2014 04:04:44 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Could I then clone out my insignificant hand? |
Nope, major element rule. ;-P |
|
|
|
07/22/2014 04:04:05 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by MattO:
how did your fish, which wasn't being presented as artwork by the wording that you just presented pass muster? |
Originally posted by MattO:
It would not have been completely ruined... |
You just validated the final artwork test of my chart. If the image wouldn't have scored any lower without the fish I wouldn't have bothered. That's kinda' the point of a supporting element.
Message edited by author 2014-07-22 16:07:31. |
|
|
|
07/22/2014 04:02:30 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
If Ken had simply taken the same print, cutout exactly as shown, and held it up in front of his head with his hand, that would have been fine. |
Could I then clone out my insignificant hand? |
|
|
|
07/22/2014 04:01:33 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
This isn't obvious artwork. |
When a photo in a frame isn't an obvious pre-existing image, it's time to lay off the vodka. |
|
|
|
07/22/2014 04:00:15 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by MattO:
OK so then how did your fish, which wasn't being presented as artwork by the wording that you just presented pass muster? To me it's the same, I have no idea if it's real, its just as a prominent part of the entry as this is. The fish is a huge part of that presentation to me. |
It was a supporting element there. The fish does not serve as the primary impact of the the entry (the Cat in the Hat), and the entry would not be completely ruined by its removal. A fish like this, however, would be a DQ under the current rule:
 |
It would not have been completely ruined, but without it the voters would have voted differently(probably not a blue) Just as you stated earlier if Ken had removed the gears that the voters would vote differently. So I see no difference. It's a big part of supporting the whole story of the entry. |
|
|
|
07/22/2014 03:58:45 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by MattO:
So let me make sure I understand this.
No part of an entry can include a photograph now? |
You can include all the photographs you want as long as they're "obvious artwork." This one, for example, is legal; 
But when you take a photograph and integrate it INTO the subject in some way, you're getting into dangerous waters. It's a gray area. It's a judgment call. We haven't found a way to make it black-and-white, and probably never will. |
This isn't obvious artwork. It's obvious that it's a mirror. It's a photograph, tricking people into thinking it's a mirror. That's clearly the intention and well achieved effect. |
|
|
|
07/22/2014 03:56:53 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by MattO:
OK so then how did your fish, which wasn't being presented as artwork by the wording that you just presented pass muster? To me it's the same, I have no idea if it's real, its just as a prominent part of the entry as this is. The fish is a huge part of that presentation to me. |
It was a supporting element there. The fish does not serve as the primary impact of the the entry (the Cat in the Hat), and the entry would not be completely ruined by its removal. A fish like this, however, would be a DQ under the current rule:
|
|
|
|
07/22/2014 03:42:23 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by MattO:
So it has to be square, rectangle, or in the shape of a photo print? I'm confused as to what Ken entered that makes it not obvious that it isn't a artwork. |
No, the shape doesn't matter, only that if you're going to use artwork that prominently it should be presented AS artwork whether that's by showing the frame, billboard, cell phone, paper edge, etc. As an example, you couldn't enter a full frame photo of the earth taken from space because that's literal artwork, even though everyone fully comprehends that the photographer wasn't standing on the moon and it must be artwork of some kind. From Mike's earlier question, you can take photos like this, where the existing image is presented for what it is, but you couldn't silhouette around the actor in the supermarket to make that look like part of the capture– even if people recognize the movie scene and can deduce that it's a print. We're talking about visual appearance here, not logical deduction. Note that the Lion King or Pinocchio artwork would be exempt because it's clealry illustrative, not photorealistic.
If Ken had simply taken the same print, cutout exactly as shown, and held it up in front of his head with his hand, that would have been fine. The difference is that then the artwork is being presented for what it is: a print in front of the head. The problem arises when the artwork is presented only as its content, in this case gears, with no reference to the fact that it's artwork, and no different than an illegal composite in Advanced. Understand now? |
OK so then how did your fish, which wasn't being presented as artwork by the wording that you just presented pass muster? To me it's the same, I have no idea if it's real, its just as a prominent part of the entry as this is. The fish is a huge part of that presentation to me.
|
|
|
|
07/22/2014 03:38:26 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by MattO:
So it has to be square, rectangle, or in the shape of a photo print? I'm confused as to what Ken entered that makes it not obvious that it isn't a artwork. |
No, the shape doesn't matter, only that if you're going to use artwork that prominently it should be presented AS artwork whether that's by showing the frame, billboard, cell phone, paper edge, etc. As an example, you couldn't enter a full frame photo of the earth taken from space because that's literal artwork, even though everyone fully comprehends that the photographer wasn't standing on the moon and it must be artwork of some kind. From Mike's earlier question, you can take photos like this, where the existing image is presented for what it is, but you couldn't silhouette around the actor in the supermarket to make that look like part of the capture– even if people recognize the movie scene and can deduce that it's a print. We're talking about visual appearance here, not logical deduction. Note that the Lion King or Pinocchio artwork would be exempt because those are clearly illustrative, not photorealistic.
If Ken had simply taken the same print, cutout exactly as shown, and held it up in front of his head with his hand, that would have been fine. The difference is that then the artwork is being presented for what it is: a print in front of the head. The problem arises when the artwork is presented only as its content, in this case gears, with no reference to the fact that it's artwork, and no different than an illegal composite in Advanced. Understand now?
Message edited by author 2014-07-22 15:42:51. |
|
|
|
07/22/2014 03:19:12 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Mike:
i see the dilemma, its up to you guys to whether it circumvents an artwork or editing rule. had he taken a picture of real gears within the challenge dates i dont think its should have been dq'd. |
Had he ENTERED a picture of real gears, that would have been fine, but inserting a photo of gears (no matter who took it) that isn't actually presented as a photo is no different than pasting that same photo over the head in Photoshop, which is illegal in Advanced. |
So it has to be square, rectangle, or in the shape of a photo print? Is that the whole issue? What do you think about what he entered doesn't make it look like a photo or obvious that it is a photo? Bear just said we can enter as many photos as you want as long as they appear to be obvious artwork. I'm confused as to what Ken entered that makes it not obvious that it isn't a artwork. |
|
|
|
07/22/2014 03:16:01 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
"Do you think we ought to be allowing me to make that hypothetical entry?"
|
i see the dilemma, its up to you guys to whether it circumvents an artwork or editing rule. Ken's did. had he taken a picture of real gears within the challenge dates i dont think its should have been dq'd. |
OK, that's good. Take it one step further, though; to make this distinction of yours viable, A photographer would have to submit two originals, right? But the first part of the rules says that multiple originals have to be of the same scene, doesn't it? |
|
|
|
07/22/2014 03:14:20 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Mike:
i see the dilemma, its up to you guys to whether it circumvents an artwork or editing rule. had he taken a picture of real gears within the challenge dates i dont think its should have been dq'd. |
Had he ENTERED a picture of real gears, that would have been fine, but inserting a photo of gears (no matter who took it) that isn't actually presented as a photo is no different than pasting that same photo over the head in Photoshop, which is illegal in Advanced. |
|
|
|
07/22/2014 03:08:50 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
"Do you think we ought to be allowing me to make that hypothetical entry?"
|
i see the dilemma, its up to you guys to whether it circumvents an artwork or editing rule. Ken's did. had he taken a picture of real gears within the challenge dates i dont think its should have been dq'd. |
|
|
|
07/22/2014 03:01:07 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by MattO:
So let me make sure I understand this.
No part of an entry can include a photograph now? |
You can include all the photographs you want as long as they're "obvious artwork." This one, for example, is legal;
But when you take a photograph and integrate it INTO the subject in some way, you're getting into dangerous waters. It's a gray area. It's a judgment call. We haven't found a way to make it black-and-white, and probably never will. |
|
