| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/08/2002 10:38:04 PM · #1 |
Pasted from "The Rules"
Your submission must follow the criteria for the challenge topic. The photo must be able to stand for itself in this interpretation -- that is, your title cannot save a picture that does not fit the topic. Your fellow photographers may recommend your submission for disqualification if they determine it does not meet the challenge criteria.
A photograph may only be used in one challenge, even if it is cropped or altered differently to fit another challenge. Duplicate photos will be disqualified.
A person may only hold one DPChallenge account and may submit only one photograph per challenge. He will not be able to vote on his own image.
Copyrights
The photograph must be submitted by the original photographer, and that photographer must hold the copyright to any and all submissions to DPChallenge.
Photographs including paintings, sculptures, photographs, and other art work must not infringe any copyrights. Moreover, the artwork must not constitute the entirety of the subject of your photograph.
Any infraction of these rules will result in disqualification from the current challenge and may result in a loss of account and forfeit of any titles or winnings.
COUNT THE ENTRIES THAT DO NOT FOLLOW THESE RULES. THERE ARE NO LESS THAN 22 REMAINING WHICH ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT STAND ON THEIR OWN WITHOUT THEIR TITLE. IN ADDITION, THERE IS ONE MEMBER WHO, BY HIS OWN ADMISSION, HOLDS MORE THAN ONE ACCOUNT. THERE ARE TWO OTHERS WHICH MAKE USE OF OTHER PHOTOGRAPHERS WORK, MOST LIKELY WITHOUT PERMISSION. IS THIS BEING INVESTIGATED? EITHER CUT SOME SLACK FOR EVERYBODY AND CHANGE THE RULES OR ENFORCE THEM EQUALLY.
* This message has been edited by the author on 5/8/2002 10:50:17 PM.
* This message has been edited by the author on 5/8/2002 10:56:06 PM. |
|
|
|
05/08/2002 10:48:41 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
05/08/2002 10:50:11 PM · #3 |
| Have you recommended them for DQ? |
|
|
|
05/08/2002 10:51:16 PM · #4 |
|
|
|
05/08/2002 10:52:16 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Have you recommended them for DQ?
absolutely
|
|
|
|
05/08/2002 10:57:01 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by karmat:
[i]Have you recommended them for DQ?
absolutely
[/i]
So would that be a picture of "Absolut Disqualification" ?
Just kidding, I can tell you're peeved about this. Hope it is resolved to your satisfaction. Late here. Gotta go to bed.
|
|
|
|
05/08/2002 10:58:29 PM · #7 |
| ha ha Me too, Good Night. |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 03:50:40 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Pasted from "The Rules"
Your submission must follow the criteria for the challenge topic. The photo must be able to stand for itself in this interpretation -- that is, your title cannot save a picture that does not fit the topic. Your fellow photographers may recommend your submission for disqualification if they determine it does not meet the challenge criteria.
In a thread regarding this challenge, here, Drew wrote: "All submission rules are still intact for this challenge -- that means no copy. I agree with jmsetzler ... I'd use the picture title to display my ad title.
Drew"
Personally, I took this to mean that, while you couldn't add copy after the fact, you could use the title to add some text support to your product shot. Just my stinkin' opinion. As to the disqualification recommendations for not meeting the challenge, I think D & L have decided that, except for very obvious cases (?), pics will suffer from low scores rather than disqualification if they don't fit.
A photograph may only be used in one challenge, even if it is cropped or altered differently to fit another challenge. Duplicate photos will be disqualified.
I would take this to mean that you can't resubmit your own previously submitted photo to another challenge. With the time restriction, this would be against the rules in most challenges, anyway, but I don't think it applies to the submissions that used a bunch of people's past entries.
A person may only hold one DPChallenge account and may submit only one photograph per challenge. He will not be able to vote on his own image.
Pretty sure the intent of this one is to keep people from creating multiple accounts for purposes of submitting multiple entries and/or multiple votes in a challenge. I agree that making another login in order to defend an existing submission was ill-considered, but as long as the person hasn't submitted extra images or cast multiple votes I think disqualifying them would be a bit harsh.
Copyrights
The photograph must be submitted by the original photographer, and that photographer must hold the copyright to any and all submissions to DPChallenge.
Photographs including paintings, sculptures, photographs, and other art work must not infringe any copyrights. Moreover, the artwork must not constitute the entirety of the subject of your photograph.
I guess this is a little more in line with the images that used other people's submissions as background or texture for their images. Actually, this wouldn't be a violation of copyright as I understand it, as the resutling image is entirely different from any of the images used, and not really against the site rules since the images used do not constitute the entirety of the subject of the photograph. I'm normally pretty sensitive to the use of OPA (other people's art) in photography competitions, but I personally don't think the authors of the images in question have done anything wrong. It might have been nice to ask everyone for permission, but probably not necessary from a legal or site rules standpoint. Would have tipped their hands a bit, too. I am kind of pissed nobody thought any of my images were worth using...
COUNT THE ENTRIES THAT DO NOT FOLLOW THESE RULES. THERE ARE NO LESS THAN 22 REMAINING WHICH ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT STAND ON THEIR OWN WITHOUT THEIR TITLE.
This is possibly grounds for a low score, but maybe not even that in light of Drew's forum post quoted above.
IN ADDITION, THERE IS ONE MEMBER WHO, BY HIS OWN ADMISSION, HOLDS MORE THAN ONE ACCOUNT.
Most likely only used it for a couple of ill-advised forum posts, and has already been spanked there.
THERE ARE TWO OTHERS WHICH MAKE USE OF OTHER PHOTOGRAPHERS WORK, MOST LIKELY WITHOUT PERMISSION. IS THIS BEING INVESTIGATED? EITHER CUT SOME SLACK FOR EVERYBODY AND CHANGE THE RULES OR ENFORCE THEM EQUALLY.
See above.
Just my opinion, again, but I think you're reading a little more into the rules than what's really there. I think Drew and Langdon are making a lot of progress in defining the rules and the procedures used when rules are bent/broken. Of course, the more pics that are DQed, the better my chances of breaking into the Top 10...
* This message has been edited by the author on 5/9/2002 3:52:07 AM.
* This message has been edited by the author on 5/9/2002 3:54:31 AM.
* This message has been edited by the author on 5/9/2002 3:56:28 AM.
|
|
|
|
05/09/2002 05:10:26 AM · #9 |
You are saying I----I----- am reading more into the rules! HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT! You are the one giving YOUR interpritation. The rules are pretty clear. They do not require individual interpritation. They are plain and simple English. If YOU can read em like YOU want, why can't I read the rule of NO ART to mean OTHER PEOPLE'S ART and that MY own personal art is alright.
Let me put it another way. Have one of YOUR entries disqualified. Have one of YOUR entries be included in SOMEONE ELSES photo without your permission. Lets see how you interpret then!
* This message has been edited by the author on 5/9/2002 5:19:33 AM. |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 06:31:25 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
You are saying I----I----- am reading more into the rules! HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT! You are the one giving YOUR interpritation. The rules are pretty clear. They do not require individual interpritation. They are plain and simple English. If YOU can read em like YOU want, why can't I read the rule of NO ART to mean OTHER PEOPLE'S ART and that MY own personal art is alright.
David,
I'm assuming from this that you took the poster pic that was disqalified, please disregard if I am incorrect.
The problem with that photo is that the poster was the entirety of the photograph and not an element of it. In the Absolut dpchalllenge and the Digital Film photos, the artwork was a piece of the image. |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 07:29:16 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by clubjuggle:
Originally posted by David Ey:
[i]You are saying I----I----- am reading more into the rules! HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT! You are the one giving YOUR interpritation. The rules are pretty clear. They do not require individual interpritation. They are plain and simple English. If YOU can read em like YOU want, why can't I read the rule of NO ART to mean OTHER PEOPLE'S ART and that MY own personal art is alright.
In the Absolut dpchalllenge , the artwork was a piece of the image.[/i]
Thats right, A PIECE OF MY IMAGE!
|
|
|
|
05/09/2002 07:31:02 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Pasted from "The Rules"
I think you'll find in the discussions prior to this challenge that the issues of copyright was waved for the advertising challenge specifically and also the issue of needing advertising copy was addressed by saying that the title could specifically 'carry' the photograph for this one challenge.
Least that's what I remember from the discussion.
* This message has been edited by the author on 5/9/2002 7:33:38 AM.
|
|
|
|
05/09/2002 07:40:22 AM · #13 |
No need to SHOUT, David. I can emphathize with you, as I've had a pic disqualified (though it was later reinstated), and I think it's a shame your submission was disqualified. I did mention in another thread, and before I knew it was your image, that I thought it shouldn't have been. As for interpretations of the rules, unless your name is Drew or Langdon, your interpretation and mine are just farts in the wind. A lot of the rules here are pretty much boilerplate at various photo sharing and contest sites, and my interpretation was based on situations I've seen occur there mixed with what I've read in the forums here. Since the images you disagree with are still here, I assume the management either concurs with me or is, as yet, undecided. Though I'm no lawyer (nearly as irritating, though, eh?)I am pretty sure that copyright law was not violated in this challenge, although I would call it a breach of etiquette.
|
|
|
|
05/09/2002 08:24:27 AM · #14 |
I think Drew and Langdon are doing a super job with the rules. Considering that the site is only..what..4 months old... these guys have shown a tremendous amount of reason and willingness to shape the site into what the photographers want..within their capabilities.
I don't like seeing any photograph disqualified but thats because I think a large part of photography is using images (orignal or previously made) and reforming them anyway you see fit.
I really liked the Absolut Ad with the rings or whatever but I don't read enough/ see enough advertising now a days to know what is a rip off of any ads. I don't read magazines much anymore, I don't watch commercial TV much, I don't get newspapers. I get all my news and information I want on the internet which I have ads turned off in the options ( all those gifs, java.etc).
Most of my advertising knowledge is left over from 20 years ago.
The dead cow ad was sorta interesting although not photographed well enough for my taste. I had a Mad Cow Milk ad I was going to do but I thought it would offend some of the english/european folks here who have had a real problem on their hands so I pulled it.
The hand drawing ad was clever too.
|
|
|
|
05/09/2002 08:28:35 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by irae:
As for interpretations of the rules, unless your name is Drew or Langdon, your interpretation and mine are just farts in the wind.
See, now that was an uninformed statement. The photograph would NEVER have been disqualified in the first place, had 2 users not recommended it for disqualification.
* This message has been edited by the author on 5/9/2002 8:28:53 AM.
|
|
|
|
05/09/2002 08:51:41 AM · #16 |
I stand corrected. Just out of curiosity, would you ever overrule a call for an image to be disqualified if you disagreed with the request? If it's us and only us causing all these pics to be disqualified, I suggest we cut it out.
|
|
|
|
05/09/2002 08:56:44 AM · #17 |
David,
I've already tried explaining in great detail to you in reply to your e-mail why the photo was a violation of the rules. The problem here is that you are paying attention to the wrong portion of the rules. There is no problem with your entry violating copyright rules. In fact, I will _always_ assume that a user has gotten the rights to take a picture of whatever artwork.
The clause that your picture violated was "Moreover, the artwork must not constitute the entirety of the subject of your photograph." Your photo was entirely of the poster -- you could have scanned the actual poster, and it would have had no less photographic value.
The clause was added to the rules to keep people from taking documentary-style or even scanner-style photos of paintings, sculptures, photos, drawings, etc. It does not matter at all whose artwork it is.
Perhaps the problem is that the clause is physically under the copyrights section. I was writing the section about art, and I figured it would just go with that.
As for your other complaints, jmsetzler is right about the title issue. This was discussed in the forums throughout the week.
And multiple accounts -- that user definitely violated the rules and has his/her account suspended for 10 days.
Drew |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 09:01:31 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by irae:
I stand corrected. Just out of curiosity, would you ever overrule a call for an image to be disqualified if you disagreed with the request?
Certainly. We receive maybe 15 or more disqualification requests that sit undisqualified through the week. We won't even consider one for DQ without more than one request.
Also, it should be noted that our disqualification review is completely anonymous -- that is, even administrators do not see the name or username of the submitting photographer until _after_ the photo has been disqualified.
Drew |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 09:14:39 AM · #19 |
So, the rules include all of the things as discussed in the forums, interpreted any way anyone wants and we, as contestants, are required to read the forums, interpret them any way we wish, add our comments, which will then become a part of the rules, subject to each one's individual interpretation and then submit a photo, If you can still remember why you are at the website in the first place ?
Also, copyrights are invalid here and any photo may be used in whole or in part in anyone else's photo? Is this correct? Or is it NOW correct because it has been stated in the almighty "FORUMS" ?
by the way, I think the photos I have complained about are EXCELLENT, they just did not follow the rules.
* This message has been edited by the author on 5/9/2002 9:16:52 AM.
* This message has been edited by the author on 5/9/2002 9:18:24 AM. |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 09:25:20 AM · #20 |
Actually, what I'm thinking is that if there are questions about rules or challenge topics, we shouldn't even reply to them. We should just let everyone sit and wait -- because we're crucified if we answer and crucified if we don't. Even better.... maybe we shouldn't have rules OR challenge topics at all! Everyone just does whatever they want with the site, and we'll all have a big party.
Drew |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 09:35:45 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by drewmedia:
Actually, what I'm thinking is that if there are questions about rules or challenge topics, we shouldn't even reply to them. We should just let everyone sit and wait -- because we're crucified if we answer and crucified if we don't. Even better.... maybe we shouldn't have rules OR challenge topics at all! Everyone just does whatever they want with the site, and we'll all have a big party.
Drew
Hehe... an online community is hard enough to admin, but cater to artistic temperaments, and you'd better have a nice padded cell to operate out of :). Can you imagine what life is like for the average Hollywood producer?
If you're getting this much discussion and argument, it just means that what you created is developing a life of its own. Roll with it :) It's very exciting. |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 09:36:29 AM · #22 |
Drew, Magnetic has jelly beans. Would that make you feel better?
|
|
|
|
05/09/2002 09:41:07 AM · #23 |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 09:49:44 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by drewmedia:
Originally posted by irae:
[i]I stand corrected. Just out of curiosity, would you ever overrule a call for an image to be disqualified if you disagreed with the request?
Certainly. We receive maybe 15 or more disqualification requests that sit undisqualified through the week. We won't even consider one for DQ without more than one request.
Also, it should be noted that our disqualification review is completely anonymous -- that is, even administrators do not see the name or username of the submitting photographer until _after_ the photo has been disqualified.
Drew[/i]
I've been sitting here reading these threads for days, and trying to keep quiet, but must now interject a couple of my own thoughts about this disqualification issue. I wouldn't want to have to be in Drew's shoes when the DQ requests start arriving. They evidently handle the situations with restraint.
But, when a DQ does happen, and proven unfairly so, shouldn't there be a disclaimer posted? Something to show the photo did follow the rules?
|
|
|
|
05/09/2002 09:57:11 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by sandip:
But, when a DQ does happen, and proven unfairly so, shouldn't there be a disclaimer posted? Something to show the photo did follow the rules?
There always is a reason given for disqualification. The user in question ALWAYS is aware of why their photograph was removed. Although sometimes people disagree.
|
|
