| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/13/2005 11:10:07 PM · #1 |
Willtorecord, all you need to do to find out what his other pic was DQ'd for is to click on his profile. Pictures highlighted in pink are DQ'd images. Generally speaking you can find information about the DQ reason by viewing that picture. Ron's "shoes" entry was dq'd, it would appear, for a timing reason.
I would like to know if Ansel Adams estate was contacted for permission to use his pic in the Ansel Adams challenge.
If it was given for that challenge, Ron Beams actions are NOT beyond reason due to precedent set BY DPC. To state that Ansel Adams would turn over in his grave because of his image being displayed in 640x480 on people's computer screens is ludicrous. There must be digital versions of AA's work all over the place on the net. Most of it is likely sanctioned by his estate.
If permission was NOT given for that challenge, but DPC entered it for the purpose of education without the intent to benefit from it financially OR IN REPUTATION (highlighted by the fact that before any decisive action was taken on the image, claims to have taken that picture were relinquished), AGAIN, Ron Beam acted only within the precedent set BY DPC.
Hence, Ron really only made a mis-step in not informing the DPC council.
Regarding disciplining Ron, I think that matter is between SC and Ron. Neither of those parties is under ANY obligation to do only what others feel is right.
Further, this is the last time that I will restate that because of the intensity of feelings by many of the members on this site, it would be sensible to include in writing some reference in an appropriate section to this type of action and the correct steps required in doing it properly or the basic reasons why this will not be done. |
|
|
|
09/13/2005 08:28:07 PM · #2 |
I agree, but they certainly aren't to be taken seriously. More like farce.
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I don't know - I find it kind of fun to follow these...
He-he.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by riot:
Maybe the contests can be considered entertainment, the forums certainly can't ;) |
The forums are frequently ridiculous, bordering on the absurd. |
|
|
|
|
|
09/13/2005 07:14:15 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by riot:
... Well i'm sorry, but i for one got most of my photographic education from here, and i bet a lot of people here will second the idea that dpc is primarily an education site and an entertainment site second. ... |
ok :-) ...I'll second that motion...
|
|
|
|
09/13/2005 07:06:52 PM · #4 |
While the debate of Fair Use law is quite interesting, it's also off-topic for this thread.
I'm going to start a new thread for that discussion, please feel free to continue there.
-Terry
Message edited by author 2005-09-13 19:09:51.
|
|
|
|
09/13/2005 06:09:03 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Titia:
Ron the point you were trying to make by entering this 'art' photo and revealing your purpose the way you did, is exactly the point why I recently decided NOT to enter any more challenges. Clapping my hands for your braveness Sir.
Most responses in this thread are exactly as I thought they would be. Even now most of them are not getting your point at all.
In the short time I participated in the challenges and reading the threads in the forums, I found that most of the voters didn't even bother to imagine what people were trying to tell, but merely were forcing their own way of looking at things on them and were trying to change the submitted photos into theirs. I found a lot of arrogance, narrow minds, agressiveness and a poor quality of empathy in what was said in a lot of 'current challenge' threads. And with each new challenge, the same arguments repeated themselves.
These challenges are deadly races for all who are at least trying to be creative and having a view of their own. Those skills are not tolerated by the mass. As I said before in some other thread: most of the highly rated/winning photos are technically very good/superb photos, but that's all they are. Only very few made me say WOW.
And if you get slapped for speaking up and giving them a cookie of their own, then you should consider if this is the place you really want to belong to.
You got a 10 in my book Ron.
Titia |
Correcto !!
But after I read some entries, I'd like to know for what he was disqualified before? |
|
|
|
09/13/2005 06:06:13 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by tejinder:
There were two monk standing on the bridge.
One said, "I wish I were fish. They look so happy".
The other one replies," How do you know they are happy? You are not them!".
The first one replied, "Right. But how do you know that I dont know if they were happy ... you are not me!"
Moral of story : Opinion is just Opinion ...mine or yours.Period.
{Sorry for my grammer and spellings. English is not my native language} |
Correcto !!
But after I read some entries, I'd like to know for what he was disqualified before? |
|
|
|
09/13/2005 05:56:36 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Willtorecord:
I also feel here many have got 10 to 20 different signing name used to give 10s to their own photographs so anyway what you did was fare !!!
|
 |
|
|
|
09/13/2005 05:50:42 PM · #8 |
Dear Ron,
I have just expressed my view, but these I want to add
Three things :
1. By now you must have the 'most viewd profile'
2.Your thread is going to be the longest, and also the longest 'chart topper' !!!!
Why don't you start a new thread, and I hope you are reading and relishing every post !!!!
3. I have noticed that you have always made detailed comments and honest ones too. So you can do this I suppose.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
For just now I have received one word comments like 'lame', 'boaring' etc. I also feel here many have got 10 to 20 different signing name used to give 10s to their own photographs so anyway what you did was fare !!!
So congrats again !!! |
|
|
|
09/13/2005 05:44:57 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
Why are you (the DPC in general & riot) so against protecting photographer's intellectual rights? You can still have the same discussions without grabbing their photos with a simle link. |
You'd rather I steal their bandwidth and cost them actual cash out-of-pocket?
I'm not insensitive to IP rights, but I see no reason to not follow US copyright law in this matter, which has well-established precedents regarding fair-use of copyrighted materials. I only support activities which fall within the allowed boundaries of that law.
If you feel the law is immoral, you must write to your Representative and suggest changes. |
|
|
|
09/13/2005 05:41:57 PM · #10 |
Wow man, this was just great. A real interesting story and an experiment with the minds of the reader/viewer .
While this can justly arouse the anger of many (who'd feel cheated, and worse still, feeling like the gunipigs of your 'experiment'), it must also be appreciated for its sheer ingenuity !
At least the 'culprit' has turned himself into a confessing scientist who was just searching the results of his little test !
And as wise men say, everything will be pardoned if you just confess.
Amen!
|
|
|
|
09/13/2005 04:07:04 PM · #11 |
| the past few days have been crzay. |
|
|
|
09/13/2005 04:00:18 PM · #12 |
These forums used to be a lot more educational and imformative than what we see here currently.
|
|
|
|
09/13/2005 03:33:21 PM · #13 |
I don't know - I find it kind of fun to follow these...
He-he.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by riot:
Maybe the contests can be considered entertainment, the forums certainly can't ;) |
The forums are frequently ridiculous, bordering on the absurd. |
Message edited by author 2005-09-13 15:33:51.
|
|
|
|
09/13/2005 03:19:04 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by riot:
You're joking right? Are you saying dpchallenge, ESPECIALLY the forums, aren't primarily educational? Well i'm sorry, but i for one got most of my photographic education from here, and i bet a lot of people here will second the idea that dpc is primarily an education site and an entertainment site second. Maybe the contests can be considered entertainment, the forums certainly can't ;) |
You can't just call anything that you learn from educational. Just about everything in life is educational. I'd sure the various goverments around the world wouldn't consider it educational if you tried to write off the membership dues as educationaly expenses. Truely educational establishments have structure & more importantly accountability. I've seen alot of bad advice given on these forums and often times no one is called out on it.
Why are you (the DPC in general & riot) so against protecting photographer's intellectual rights? You can still have the same discussions without grabbing their photos with a simle link.
|
|
|
|
09/13/2005 03:13:05 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by riot:
Maybe the contests can be considered entertainment, the forums certainly can't ;) |
The forums are frequently ridiculous, bordering on the absurd.
|
|
|
|
09/13/2005 03:08:06 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
Originally posted by riot:
What you just said is absurd. All that's been talked about IS the difference between "can" and "should". Nobody was for a second suggesting using an image against someone's wishes - what was being discussed was showing an image to demonstrate a point, with full accreditation to the photographer, as opposed to claiming an old master's photograph for one's own. |
Several times a week I see images posted here by persons other than the actual photographer. Ansel Adams' images are often posted and I really don't think he granted permission (nor his estate) since he died in the early eighties. We (the DPC) have no right to use images without permission. And the arguement that its for education just doesn't fly. This is an entertainment site not an instution of higher learning. You would think that photographer would be standing up for photographer's rights. |
You're joking right? Are you saying dpchallenge, ESPECIALLY the forums, aren't primarily educational? Well i'm sorry, but i for one got most of my photographic education from here, and i bet a lot of people here will second the idea that dpc is primarily an education site and an entertainment site second. Maybe the contests can be considered entertainment, the forums certainly can't ;)
|
|
|
|
09/13/2005 02:15:25 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by hbunch7187:
So you would be upset if I posted your photo in the forums and said "OMG! look at this photo I found by hyperfocal, it's an amazing photo and I wanted to share it. I've added it to my favorites list and feel that it's the best photo in the world." |
No, personally I wouldn't have a problem with that, that is a totally different issue. I joined the DPC I'm here and can respond to any misuse. I would however get very upset if you grabed an image from my website and posted it here without permission. There are many photographers both live & dead that never heard of the DPC whose images are being used here without permission or quality control. I don't know if you've ever read the biographies of some of the greats, but many really cared about presentation of their work.
The correct way to discuss an image is to provide a link to a site (approved by the artist) that contains the image, and not grab it to post here. Its just basic respect. |
|
|
|
09/13/2005 02:10:48 PM · #18 |
Around and around we go.
//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=post&FORUM_THREAD_ID=271648 |
|
|
|
09/13/2005 02:04:54 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by riot:
What you just said is absurd. All that's been talked about IS the difference between "can" and "should". Nobody was for a second suggesting using an image against someone's wishes - what was being discussed was showing an image to demonstrate a point, with full accreditation to the photographer, as opposed to claiming an old master's photograph for one's own. |
Several times a week I see images posted here by persons other than the actual photographer. Ansel Adams' images are often posted and I really don't think he granted permission (nor his estate) since he died in the early eighties. We (the DPC) have no right to use images without permission. And the arguement that its for education just doesn't fly. This is an entertainment site not an instution of higher learning. You would think that photographer would be standing up for photographer's rights.
|
|
|
|
09/13/2005 01:59:00 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Exactly -- the misrepresentation is the "problem" here. Merely posting someone else's photo (e.g. in a forum) for the purpose of discussing it is not illegal (or morally wrong, by me); attempting to claim the work as your own is. |
Its really sad when someone representing this site by being a member of the SC isn't worried about using another photographers images without permission. This blindness to the difference between "because I can" and "should I" is really disurbing. |
i can't believe you are still going on about this, dude. there is nothing wrong with referencing someone else's image in a forum discussion. there would be absolutely no way to conduct conversations about images if you had to get permission to discuss them in advance. basically, if you don't want your imagery discussed, don't publish it. as discussing photography is among the chief purposes of the site, it is really sad that you want to prevent being able to do that... |
|
|
|
09/13/2005 01:58:37 PM · #21 |
Come on eveyone......lets make up.......and start singing
We are the world...........we are the children
|
|
|
|
09/13/2005 01:57:26 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Exactly -- the misrepresentation is the "problem" here. Merely posting someone else's photo (e.g. in a forum) for the purpose of discussing it is not illegal (or morally wrong, by me); attempting to claim the work as your own is. |
Its really sad when someone representing this site by being a member of the SC isn't worried about using another photographers images without permission. This blindness to the difference between "because I can" and "should I" is really disurbing. |
So you would be upset if I posted your photo in the forums and said "OMG! look at this photo I found by hyperfocal, it's an amazing photo and I wanted to share it. I've added it to my favorites list and feel that it's the best photo in the world."
There's nothing wrong with that.
HOWEVER...If I posted your photo and said "hey look here at this photo I took...isn't it the best photo...." Then we'd have a problem. |
|
|
|
09/13/2005 01:56:31 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Exactly -- the misrepresentation is the "problem" here. Merely posting someone else's photo (e.g. in a forum) for the purpose of discussing it is not illegal (or morally wrong, by me); attempting to claim the work as your own is. |
Its really sad when someone representing this site by being a member of the SC isn't worried about using another photographers images without permission. This blindness to the difference between "because I can" and "should I" is really disurbing. |
What you just said is absurd. All that's been talked about IS the difference between "can" and "should". Nobody was for a second suggesting using an image against someone's wishes - what was being discussed was showing an image to demonstrate a point, with full accreditation to the photographer, as opposed to claiming an old master's photograph for one's own.
|
|
|
|
09/13/2005 01:53:07 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Exactly -- the misrepresentation is the "problem" here. Merely posting someone else's photo (e.g. in a forum) for the purpose of discussing it is not illegal (or morally wrong, by me); attempting to claim the work as your own is. |
Its really sad when someone representing this site by being a member of the SC isn't worried about using another photographers images without permission. This blindness to the difference between "because I can" and "should I" is really disurbing. |
|
|
|
09/13/2005 01:03:18 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by skiprow:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Hey...on the other hand: |
you missed this from earlier in the thread...
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by colyla:
Originally posted by micknewton:
nazi |
ROFL! Okay...forum over! |
We don't allow thread hijacking, which is what this is (an attempt at). I can only guess about other SC members, but I myself am in no mood to appreciate "humorous" attempts by users to administer the site. |
|
More importantly ;) you missed:
Originally posted by micknewton:
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by colyla:
Originally posted by micknewton:
nazi |
ROFL! Okay...forum over! |
Pssht, that's not even how it works. He has to actually call someone a nazi, the SC has to step in, hide some posts and remind everyone to refrain from personal attacks. At least three people need to start new threads about censorship and lack of freedom of speech, two of which will be locked by SC, after which, at least two more threads will be started about the secret SC society and how biased we are. Then 6 people will post about beating a dead horse and by that time, everyone will have forgotten about this thread so it will be over. |
Guess I forgot about Quirk's exception:
"Intentional invocation of this so-called "Nazi Clause" is ineffectual." |
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 04:40:07 PM EDT.
