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

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Announcements >> "Rat's-Eye Perspective" Results Recalculated
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 41, (reverse)
AuthorThread
09/05/2019 11:35:23 AM · #1
The former 5th-place image in "Rats-Eye Perspective" has been DQ'd for a violation of the so-called "artwork rule": A photograph of a rat was printed, cut out, and placed in the scene to stage it for the final image. Because it was not obvious that the rat was artwork, this is in violation.

Originally posted by common rules:

You MAY include existing artwork in your entry, but photo-realistic artwork such as printed photos, monitor images or realistic illustrations 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.

Congrats to our new Honorable Mention.

Message edited by author 2019-09-05 11:36:15.
09/05/2019 11:38:45 AM · #2
Oops!
That's the first DQ in a long time for that rule I think! I actually did recognize it as artwork, and it didn't even dawn on me that the image might violate that rule. Upon reflection it sure does seem to violate the spirit of the rule.
09/05/2019 11:59:29 AM · #3
Out of curiosity, how is this any different than using a prop that could equally deceive the observer?
09/05/2019 12:01:21 PM · #4
I always hate to see a DQ for anyone... I know it's a tough decision for Site Council and they struggle over them.

However, I have done this three times before and it was validated at least twice even with people thinking the photo was real.

Please see my entries for Political Slogan ("A chicken in every pot") ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/2000-2999/2377/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1190351.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/2000-2999/2377/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1190351.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

and for Global Warming ("On the Front Burner") ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/2000-2999/2724/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1226236.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/2000-2999/2724/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1226236.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

and this which was also validated and clearly a cutout (it was clear in the two photos sent with the validation in Extended editing) ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/1000-1999/1708/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1053693.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/1000-1999/1708/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1053693.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Please reconsider this DQ. I assumed the process was legal after being validated for the exact same thing before several times before.

Any one who reads the notes on "A Chicken in Every Pot" would assume that this is legal. The chicken was clearly a photograph in the original I provided to SC for the validation, yet folks thought it was real (although I never thought anyone would think I would put a live chicken on a lit burner).

And on "On the Front Burner", I used "photo-realistic artwork [Earth] to simulate physical objects or backgrounds that provide the primary impact of an entry" which was the given reason for this DQ.

I think it should be reinstated and a discussion made about it to make sure it doesn't happen again. Letting it go by at least three times before and then DQing the fourth of mine seems to be a bit unfair. There was no warning given on the first three indicate that there was anything wrong with my entries.

What says you?



09/05/2019 12:02:44 PM · #5
Sorry Lydia. I feel your pain :( You make a good point.

Message edited by author 2019-09-05 12:06:04.
09/05/2019 12:15:56 PM · #6
Lydia, TWO of your examples were done under the Extended ruleset, and were legal there. The "Chicken in the Pot" image squeaked by because it was obviously not a real chicken.
09/05/2019 02:45:47 PM · #7
Sorry we disagree on this, Lydia. We have done our best to make the editing rules as black and white as possible, but it is a bit more challenging with the rule involving using photo-realistic art. In this case, the majority felt your use of the photograph of the rat to simulate a live rat in the scene provided the primary impact.
09/05/2019 03:29:26 PM · #8
If Lydia had bought a Halloween prop and used that instead, what's the difference?
Asking because I have loads of props at home and don't understand how they're different (in this specific case).

My guess is the rule is trying to prevent "the photo of a photo". Simply looking for clarification.

Message edited by author 2019-09-05 15:30:55.
09/05/2019 03:30:35 PM · #9
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Lydia, TWO of your examples were done under the Extended ruleset, and were legal there. The "Chicken in the Pot" image squeaked by because it was obviously not a real chicken.


Thanks for your reply, Bear.

Extended ruleset just says that it includes all of the other rulesets and doesn't mention any use of photo-realistic artwork at all. So, I don't think it makes any difference under which ruleset the entry was entered (other than we are allowed more than one image in a composite). The chicken in the pot was not obviously a fake chicken or the comments would not reflect disbelief that I would cook a live chicken. Ha!

If my chicken "squeaked by" (love your rat pun)... I think I (and everyone else) should have been warned of that. Instead, Site Council's validating it with no comment set a precedent for everyone to do the same in the future, which I have now done.

Originally posted by markwiley:

... In this case, the majority felt your use of the photograph of the rat to simulate a live rat in the scene provided the primary impact.


The rules have not changed since my other entries using paper cutouts that were validated.

My use of the chicken in the pot to simulate a live chicken in the scene "provided the primary impact" just as you say the rat did.

My use of the world photo in the pot to simulate the real world in the scene "provided the primary impact" just as you say the rat did.

My use of the cut out of the dancers to simulate real dancers in the scene "provided the primary impact" just as you say the rat did.

How can these three be okay and the rat not?

09/05/2019 03:44:36 PM · #10
include existing artwork in your entry, but photo-realistic artwork such as printed photos, monitor images or realistic illustrations 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.

I would have thought the chicken would have been DQd. But it was pretty obvious that it was artwork, but wasn't displayed as artwork. I think you lucked out on that one.

If we could grab artwork use it for real objects, that would create a big mess. I think I remember someone using a poster of the new york skyline for part of a photo in a challenge?

Also, it gets into a dangerous area, because I assume Lydia found a free use photo. But it would be a real mess if someone just grabbed a photo off the net and use it. DPC could get a lousy reputation. (sorry Lydia!)

Message edited by author 2019-09-05 15:54:45.
09/05/2019 03:59:25 PM · #11
Originally posted by vawendy:

Also, it gets into a dangerous area, because I assume Lydia found a free use photo. But it would be a real mess if someone just grabbed a photo off the net and use it. DPC could get a lousy reputation.

That's a fair point.
I was thinking of a case where someone has a prop, not to size, and simply takes a photo and enlarges/shrinks it to avoid doing perspective tricks instead.
09/05/2019 04:06:02 PM · #12
Originally posted by Venser:

Originally posted by vawendy:

Also, it gets into a dangerous area, because I assume Lydia found a free use photo. But it would be a real mess if someone just grabbed a photo off the net and use it. DPC could get a lousy reputation.

That's a fair point.
I was thinking of a case where someone has a prop, not to size, and simply takes a photo and enlarges/shrinks it to avoid doing perspective tricks instead.


A prop is fair game because you're actually doing the photo, I would guess. With a photo of a photo, the original photo has nothing to do with you. You didn't decide on the angle, the lighting, the DOF, etc. It's not your work.
09/05/2019 04:41:20 PM · #13
Originally posted by vawendy:

...
I would have thought the chicken would have been DQd. But it was pretty obvious that it was artwork, but wasn't displayed as artwork. I think you lucked out on that one.


Perhaps so, Wendy!

But, it WASN'T DQ'd. So, it set a precedent (for me, at the very least).

I did EXACTLY the same thing this time as the other times.

If I hadn't done it times before and had it validated, then this would be an entirely different case and I would not question the DQ.

But, since it was legal several times in the past, it should be legal now.

09/05/2019 04:46:38 PM · #14
Originally posted by Lydia:

Originally posted by vawendy:

...
I would have thought the chicken would have been DQd. But it was pretty obvious that it was artwork, but wasn't displayed as artwork. I think you lucked out on that one.


Perhaps so, Wendy!

But, it WASN'T DQ'd. So, it set a precedent (for me, at the very least).

I did EXACTLY the same thing this time as the other times.

If I hadn't done it times before and had it validated, then this would be an entirely different case and I would not question the DQ.

But, since it was legal several times in the past, it should be legal now.


Naw -- I understand why you thought it was legal, I would have to. But there is always a line drawn somewhere. The closer you tiptoe towards it, the easier it is to accidentally miss it. I've had that happen, too.
09/05/2019 05:02:22 PM · #15
Originally posted by vawendy:

Originally posted by Lydia:

Originally posted by vawendy:

...
I would have thought the chicken would have been DQd. But it was pretty obvious that it was artwork, but wasn't displayed as artwork. I think you lucked out on that one.


Perhaps so, Wendy!

But, it WASN'T DQ'd. So, it set a precedent (for me, at the very least).

I did EXACTLY the same thing this time as the other times.

If I hadn't done it times before and had it validated, then this would be an entirely different case and I would not question the DQ.

But, since it was legal several times in the past, it should be legal now.


Naw -- I understand why you thought it was legal, I would have to. But there is always a line drawn somewhere. The closer you tiptoe towards it, the easier it is to accidentally miss it. I've had that happen, too.


If that is the case, then the other times that I "tiptoed", I should have been told that the line was near... and why.

But, validating the others and not this one without a prior "qualification" on the prior rulings is not right.

I did exactly the same thing each time. If I was near the "line", I should have been told that my entry was being validated, BUT...

As it was, I didn't know I was "tiptoeing" toward a line. I was told it was legal.

So, I thought it was legal. Weird, right?

:D
09/05/2019 05:39:02 PM · #16
4 times before.This one was DQed.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/958/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_742750.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/958/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_742750.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
09/05/2019 06:07:30 PM · #17
Originally posted by RKT:

4 times before.This one was DQed.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/958/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_742750.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/958/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_742750.jpg', '/') + 1) . '


That was a different situation altogether.

That was a real glass in front of a monitor screen showing a photo I took during the challenge period.

We've discussed that one, ad nauseum. Ha!

It was determined that the artwork could not take up so much space in the frame.



Message edited by author 2019-09-05 18:10:47.
09/05/2019 06:17:16 PM · #18
Originally posted by Lydia:

That was a different situation altogether.

That was a real glass in front of a monitor screen showing a photo I took during the challenge period.

We've discussed that one, ad nauseum. Ha!

How is a real glass in front of an artwork scene conceptually different from an artwork rat in front of a real scene?

PLEASE bear in mind that we're MUCH more lenient in interpreting this stuff for Extended editing, BUT... If you downloaded the rat from the net and printed it and used it for a prop in extended editing, instead of shooting the rat yourself and compositing that image into the final result, that would have been sketchy as heck. That would be like declaring open season in Extended Editing for using work-not-shot-by-oneself in any way one wished. The end result of this argument, if it ever came to that, would be tightening up the Extended enforcement, not loosening the Standard enforcement.

Now, we have willingly played along with the loose-rein theory in Extended Editing because... well, because... It's EXTENDED! We cut slack! We don't want to look like jackasses. But arguments like this leave a very sour taste all around. We believe you went too far under Standard Editing. Please live with it. It's not the end of the world or anything :-(
09/05/2019 07:22:04 PM · #19
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

[quote=Lydia]That was a different situation altogether.

That was a real glass in front of a monitor screen showing a photo I took during the challenge period.

We've discussed that one, ad nauseum. Ha!

How is a real glass in front of an artwork scene conceptually different from an artwork rat in front of a real scene?


SC said that that wine glass image was DQ'd because the artwork took up too much percentage of the scene. There was a debate afterward about how much was too much and I think it ended on a quarter of the image was acceptable.

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

PLEASE bear in mind that we're MUCH more lenient in interpreting this stuff for Extended editing, BUT... If you downloaded the rat from the net and printed it and used it for a prop in extended editing, instead of shooting the rat yourself and compositing that image into the final result, that would have been sketchy as heck. That would be like declaring open season in Extended Editing for using work-not-shot-by-oneself in any way one wished. The end result of this argument, if it ever came to that, would be tightening up the Extended enforcement, not loosening the Standard enforcement.


SC thought I went into outer space and shot the image of the world in my Global Warming shot? Really?

I printed an image, cut it out, and propped it up in the scene... in the world scene, the chicken scene, and the rat scene. The exact same way. Two were validated. One was disqualified.



Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Now, we have willingly played along with the loose-rein theory in Extended Editing because... well, because... It's EXTENDED! We cut slack! We don't want to look like jackasses. But arguments like this leave a very sour taste all around. We believe you went too far under Standard Editing. Please live with it. It's not the end of the world or anything :-(


I have been quite civil in my discussion of this. I'm sorry you have a sour taste. But, I simply do not see how SC can validate my other images made in the same way and not validate this one. I understand if SC had warned me prior... that the "line" was approaching and that future entries done in the same manner might not be validated. But, that warning never happened. It was just a clear validation of the images done in the same way the rat image was done.

Due to my respect for the office of Site Council Member, I will accept Site Council's random ruling on this image.

I will learn from their mistake in not making it clear that there is a "line" that I was approaching in the earlier images done in the exact same way... that they validated.

Message edited by author 2019-09-05 19:26:12.
09/05/2019 07:32:49 PM · #20
when I saw your photo, I thought you had killed another mouse. I thought the lighting was weird, but I thought it was real. I didn't think any of your other examples were real (except the other DQ. I thought that was real, too).
09/05/2019 07:33:29 PM · #21
Originally posted by Lydia:

SC thought I went into outer space and shot the image of the world in my Global Warming shot? Really?

Of course not! It was OBVIOUSLY artwork, thus it became "legal"...
09/05/2019 08:30:58 PM · #22
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Lydia:

SC thought I went into outer space and shot the image of the world in my Global Warming shot? Really?


Of course not! It was OBVIOUSLY artwork, thus it became "legal"...


Originally posted by Bear_Music:



You MAY include existing artwork in your entry, but ... Using photo-realistic artwork to simulate physical objects or backgrounds that provide the primary impact of an entry will be grounds for disqualification.


... If you downloaded the rat from the net and printed it and used it for a prop... that would have been sketchy as heck.


Downloading a photo of the Earth or a chicken, printing them, and using them for props is okay, but a photo of a rat used in the same way isn't?

What in the WORLD?!?

I'm so lost on your logic.

And now I have a sour taste in my mouth.

Originally posted by posthumous:

when I saw your photo, I thought you had killed another mouse.


I don't recall killing any mouse. Please remind me, Don.

(I did find a dead one in the bottom of our pool.)

09/05/2019 09:07:36 PM · #23
for my understanding, in here the question is about:

1. Rat's photograph was from internet and some one else took it and it was a print out and used as prop is that the issue? because we have original raw/jpg missing and this is not extended editing, is that so?
2. if the same Rat's photograph have taken by her and print out and use it as a prop and she provided both for validation would have been fine?

09/05/2019 09:13:51 PM · #24
Lydia, when you create an image in Extended Editing it is expected that all the components of the image will have been created by you. The exception, of course, is the artwork rule: if you use OBVIOUS artwork etc etc there are exemptions. Gyaban was once DQd for importing a flame image and using it in his eyeballs, for example. Had he photographed the flame and used it, that would have been kosher. If you use "artwork" in Extended Editing, you need to be darned sure either that YOU created it (in which case you can provide us with an original and anything goes) OR that it is used in such a way that it is obviously artwork.

Extended Editing is a wide world of compositing techniques, that's what it is FOR.

In Standard Editing, on the other hand, the goal is to make "real" photos, not composited, multi-image photos. In this ruleset, one aspect of the "artwork" rule is that it was specifically created to keep people from getting around the other rules; for example, so that people couldn't use an image of a flower they had taken in 2018 in a 2019 submission simply by printing it out and propping it up in the scene UNLESS it was perfectly obvious it wasn't a "real" flower in a "real" scene. Ditto for finding images on the net, printing them out, inserting them in "real" scenes and fooling us into thinking they are real. That's what Extended Editing is for.

We don't think this is that difficult to understand. For us, the proof is in the fact that we practically never have "artwork" violations anymore, so we figure people pretty much "get" it. Are there gray areas? Absolutely. The "artwork rule" is one of the few gray areas left, actually, and we have not yet found a better way to frame it to allow creative license within a stricter framework.

09/05/2019 09:15:34 PM · #25
Originally posted by pgirish007:

for my understanding, in here the question is about:

1. Rat's photograph was from internet and some one else took it and it was a print out and used as prop is that the issue? because we have original raw/jpg missing and this is not extended editing, is that so?
2. if the same Rat's photograph have taken by her and print out and use it as a prop and she provided both for validation would have been fine?

No. Whether she created the image or not is irrelevant in Standard Editing: Even if she HAD shot the rat herself, inserting a print of it into the scene in such a way that we couldn't tell it was artwork would not be legal.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/18/2019 06:15:47 PM

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 © 2001-2019 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: 09/18/2019 06:15:47 PM EDT.