DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Using commercial tv screen shots for challenges
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 26, (reverse)
AuthorThread
07/30/2018 07:27:08 PM · #1
No not here, but it could happen so I'd like to know what's legitimate.
On another site I am currently voting a Motion Blur challenge and an entry that I really like is a confessed screen shot. I haven't rated it although it appeals to me. What are the rules about this? Legal rules, DPC rules?
07/30/2018 07:29:27 PM · #2
Is the site called ScreenshotChallenge.com?
07/30/2018 09:06:45 PM · #3
DA RULEZ: "You may include existing artwork in your entry, but photo-realistic artwork such as monitor images must either be clearly presented as artwork or used only as a minor supporting element. Using photo-realistic artwork to simulate physical objects or backgrounds that provide the primary impact of an entry will be grounds for disqualification."
07/30/2018 09:32:23 PM · #4
This always confused me. People set up dioramas and then photograph them, should be a DJ, its "existing artwork" and it doesn't matter if it is your own. If a major element is something you draw or paint or sculpt,same thing, right?
07/30/2018 09:32:46 PM · #5
Originally posted by blindjustice:

This always confused me. People set up dioramas and then photograph them, should be a DQ, its "existing artwork" and it doesn't matter if it is your own. If a major element is something you draw or paint or sculpt,same thing, right?
07/30/2018 09:36:54 PM · #6
The photo was a head on shot of racing cyclists. Because it was a slow shutter speed there is plenty of blur and multi exposure effect. Is that far enough away from photo-realistic? The picture fills the frame - no photographic reference to the tv itself. Notes (on display during voting) said it was a tv shot.

This shot got 3rd place but I'm not complaining because I got 1st ;-)
07/30/2018 09:58:39 PM · #7
Originally posted by blindjustice:

People set up dioramas and then photograph them, should be a DJ, its "existing artwork" and it doesn't matter if it is your own. If a major element is something you draw or paint or sculpt,same thing, right?

The artwork rule was intended to keep people from entering a "photo of a photo" as the main feature of a photo contest. As three dimensional scenes, dioramas and sculptures have always bee exempt since there's still "photography" involved in the lighting, exposure, and camera angles.
07/30/2018 10:03:22 PM · #8
Originally posted by jomari:

The photo was a head on shot of racing cyclists. Because it was a slow shutter speed there is plenty of blur and multi exposure effect. Is that far enough away from photo-realistic?

Unfortunately, that's a judgement call. If artwork is used in such a way that it appears to be a real "thing" in the scene and serves as the primary impact of the image without any visual cues that it's an existing image, I will consistently vote DQ. Other SC members may be more lenient.
07/30/2018 10:09:02 PM · #9
Originally posted by scalvert:

. . .
The artwork rule was intended to keep people from entering a "photo of a photo" as the main feature of a photo contest. As three dimensional scenes, dioramas and sculptures have always bee exempt since there's still "photography" involved in the lighting, exposure, and camera angles.


So I'm guessing a photo of the weatherman on TV predicting a storm someplace will not fly?
07/30/2018 10:15:04 PM · #10
Originally posted by nam:

Originally posted by scalvert:

. . .
The artwork rule was intended to keep people from entering a "photo of a photo" as the main feature of a photo contest. As three dimensional scenes, dioramas and sculptures have always bee exempt since there's still "photography" involved in the lighting, exposure, and camera angles.


So I'm guessing a photo of the weatherman on TV predicting a storm someplace will not fly?


Not if that's your entire entry.

But if your cat was watching TV and the weatherman was on predicting a storm someplace, that would work.
07/30/2018 10:15:41 PM · #11
That's where "clearly presented as artwork" comes in. If you can see that it's a weatherman on TV, no problem. If you crop out the TV entirely so it looks like you personally took a shot of a model in a storm, that's a DQ.
07/30/2018 10:26:37 PM · #12
Originally posted by scalvert:

That's where "clearly presented as artwork" comes in. If you can see that it's a weatherman on TV, no problem. If you crop out the TV entirely so it looks like you personally took a shot of a model in a storm, that's a DQ.


Hummmmmm . . . with the forecast we have, I may be happy to leave in the TV :)

Just being a little silly, but seriously, thanks to you and Johanna for helping clarify.
07/30/2018 11:21:13 PM · #13
Ha! I'm just glad to know I'm not the only one who randomly takes pictures of the Tour de France on my TV. I did it one year because the broadcast was really crappy and the digitization was awesome. I don't think I entered any challenges, though.
07/30/2018 11:38:38 PM · #14
I've never been a fan of photos of other peoples artwork in all forms, I generally vote down photos of statues that are the main subject of the photo for this reason. I would vote down graffiti as well if it was the main subject. Using it as a prop or backdrop is a different story, I won't vote down for that.
07/30/2018 11:56:05 PM · #15
Originally posted by sjhuls:

I've never been a fan of photos of other peoples artwork in all forms, I generally vote down photos of statues that are the main subject of the photo for this reason. I would vote down graffiti as well if it was the main subject. Using it as a prop or backdrop is a different story, I won't vote down for that.

I totally agree.
07/31/2018 02:09:25 AM · #16
Originally posted by sjhuls:

I've never been a fan of photos of other peoples artwork in all forms, I generally vote down photos of statues that are the main subject of the photo for this reason. I would vote down graffiti as well if it was the main subject. Using it as a prop or backdrop is a different story, I won't vote down for that.

What's the difference between a photo of a statue - where the lighting, perspective, depth of field and processing choices are made by the photographer - and a photo of an apple or a flower or a vase or any other still life type portrait? Asking for a friend. ;-)
07/31/2018 02:50:56 AM · #17
Originally posted by sjhuls:

I've never been a fan of photos of other peoples artwork in all forms, I generally vote down photos of statues that are the main subject of the photo for this reason. I would vote down graffiti as well if it was the main subject. Using it as a prop or backdrop is a different story, I won't vote down for that.


So really, this is the "voter" regulating how much validity the shot of "someone else's artwork" has. Almost no need for the rule, except for "trickery." Passing off someone else's, or your own older photo, as one shot by you for the challenge at hand.
07/31/2018 04:37:24 AM · #18
Originally posted by blindjustice:

Originally posted by sjhuls:

I've never been a fan of photos of other peoples artwork in all forms, I generally vote down photos of statues that are the main subject of the photo for this reason. I would vote down graffiti as well if it was the main subject. Using it as a prop or backdrop is a different story, I won't vote down for that.

So really, this is the "voter" regulating how much validity the shot of "someone else's artwork" has.

Voters collectively regulating in regards to the final outcome.

Originally posted by blindjustice:

Almost no need for the rule, except for "trickery." Passing off someone else's, or your own older photo, as one shot by you for the challenge at hand.

I'm pretty sure that's what the rule currently is, is it not?
07/31/2018 11:00:44 AM · #19
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by sjhuls:

I've never been a fan of photos of other peoples artwork in all forms, I generally vote down photos of statues that are the main subject of the photo for this reason. I would vote down graffiti as well if it was the main subject. Using it as a prop or backdrop is a different story, I won't vote down for that.

What's the difference between a photo of a statue - where the lighting, perspective, depth of field and processing choices are made by the photographer - and a photo of an apple or a flower or a vase or any other still life type portrait? Asking for a friend. ;-)


tell your friend ;) that the main difference for me is the subject. An apple isn't someones elses work unless you want to bring God into the equation, then everything is pretty much off limits.
07/31/2018 11:33:05 AM · #20
This may explain the popularity of landscape photography among photographers. Geologic formations & clouds & trees have strong sculptural qualities. And nothing beats the sun, or moon, for lighting. And there is no stigma of using someone else's work for your subject.

What's the critical difference between a sculpture & any other product of the mind/imagination of a human? I really don't get it, & I don't vote them down. For that reason. When I vote.

[eta] I, too, take pictures of TDF on my TV. TV screen technology makes it fun. And I love it when the video falls apart into little squares. Disappointed it didn't do that this year.

Message edited by author 2018-07-31 11:40:58.
07/31/2018 11:43:35 AM · #21
Statues have always been a bit dinged here, which I can see, it is someone's else art work. How ever much it is incorporated into a scene.

But then again, we have no issue with pots, vases, glasses, bridges or buildings, so it is weird that we have this mindset.

Do you think it is because it is more relatable as human artistry and the effort of the art/human work that it is this way, where as we see a hand turned clay pot and shoot it, we do not put as much human relevance into it as a sculpture?

Or do I need more coffee to make sense of what I just wrote?
07/31/2018 11:49:41 AM · #22
True bridges, staircases, buildings are a form of artwork. I don't really know what it is about a statue. I guess it's just that photographs of a statue never really transforms it in any way, it just is what it is. I'm sure there are rare instances where this isn't the case, and I wouldn't vote down an image like that. Photographs of stairways, bridges, and buildings (the ones I like anyway) are usually transformed in some way to make it into something else entirely like an abstract painting.
07/31/2018 12:05:27 PM · #23
Originally posted by pixelpig:



[eta] I, too, take pictures of TDF on my TV. TV screen technology makes it fun. And I love it when the video falls apart into little squares. Disappointed it didn't do that this year.


Ha! Yes! This!! And bummed that we just got wee bits of blur this year, not the cool pixelization we usually get!
07/31/2018 12:54:56 PM · #24
Originally posted by sjhuls:

I don't really know what it is about a statue. I guess it's just that photographs of a statue never really transforms it in any way, it just is what it is. I'm sure there are rare instances where this isn't the case, and I wouldn't vote down an image like that.


' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/38/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_7318.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/38/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_7318.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/2000-2999/2333/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1186080.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/2000-2999/2333/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1186080.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Same statue, two very different looks. Granted one is a double exposure, but I still see them as my art.

Edit: and both scored way above my average.

Message edited by author 2018-07-31 12:58:54.
07/31/2018 01:31:27 PM · #25
more coffee is always good.

lately I find an urgency to purge all my THINGS, not that I have made any significant progress. but I do know the very few items I will keep: all of them simple, either handmade or very old (usually the same thing). For me there is no clear line between the pleasure of them and of so called works of art.

we should always go one step beyond the drawing of lines.

Originally posted by JulietNN:

Statues have always been a bit dinged here, which I can see, it is someone's else art work. How ever much it is incorporated into a scene.

But then again, we have no issue with pots, vases, glasses, bridges or buildings, so it is weird that we have this mindset.

Do you think it is because it is more relatable as human artistry and the effort of the art/human work that it is this way, where as we see a hand turned clay pot and shoot it, we do not put as much human relevance into it as a sculpture?

Or do I need more coffee to make sense of what I just wrote?
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 10/31/2020 01:40:48 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 10/31/2020 01:40:48 AM EDT.