|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/12/2009 07:00:20 PM · #1 |
There has been some recent confusion over the artwork rule, both in public and among the SC, so we'll offer a potential solution and put it up for discussion. A little background: the original artwork rule was intended to prevent people from literally entering a photo of a photo with nothing else to judge. As long as SOMETHING was real in the new photo, it was legal. This had some unforeseen consequences... a straight shot of anything printed (a macro of money or graffiti, for example) became off-limits while even trivial real objects could be used to dodge the rule (like a fruit fly on a print of a spectacular landscape). The current rule was intended to remedy those problems, but the wording apparently introduced confusion.
Here's the basic idea: DPC is like a talent show... we put our efforts up on the stage for others to judge, and the use of existing work is similarly restricted. Using existing artwork as the essence of your entry is not allowed, just as lip syncing would be taboo for a talent show. The judges expect a live performance to rate your skill, and it makes no difference if the pre-recorded music was your own or recorded specifically for the show. Using OBVIOUS artwork is OK, just as singing a cover of a Beatles song would be OK for a talent show. Pretty much everyone knows it's a Beatles song, and they can focus on your singing ability and presentation. Using artwork as part of your entry is also OK, just as including a familiar background riff or short vocal refrain would be OK for an otherwise original song. The existing work only plays a supporting role for your own composition. However, if removing the artwork would basically eliminate your entry AND it looks like a real scene, then that's like changing just a background riff or short vocal refrain on the existing song and trying to pass the whole thing off as a live performance.
Here's one possible approach to the rule: "You may include images that are clearly recognizable as existing artwork when photographing your entry. Images that could be mistaken for real objects in the scene may also be included, but must not be so prominent that voters are basically judging a photo of a photo."
Some examples for discussion (note that many of these were entered under the original rule, so their status may not be relevant today):
         
Unfortunately some subjectivity will be inevitable, but hopefully we can find a common sense solution that people will understand. Whenever possible we'd rather let the voters decide what's appropriate for a challenge entry, so obvious artwork is left for them to rate. If the existing photorealistic artwork isn't readily apparent, then the entry shouldn't look like it's mostly the scene depicted in the artwork. Discuss! |
|
|
|
07/12/2009 07:06:22 PM · #2 |
| Profound and interesting! This is a really interesting topic. I applaud the SC for the thinking and consideration of this topic. Much appreciated. I look forward to the discussion. |
|
|
|
07/12/2009 08:31:25 PM · #3 |
I would consider this one legitimate.
The existing artwork is not trying to fool anyone and is used with the real person in a creative manner.
This example should not be ok, IMO
When I voted on this one, I actually thought it was the genuine scene occurring behind the glass, and was surprised to learn it was a propped up print.
As this one stands, I would say illegal.
If the photographer had backed off some and had the grafitti as only one element of a photo of the scene, I would say it was ok.
This one is a tough call and rides the line for me.
The photo is composed to give us the illusion of a flying carpet. We only know it is not real because we don't actually have flying carpets. As far as actual technique, it violates the rule in the same way the above referenced feast shot does.
What about a background printed on a large sheet of paper and just serving as the backdrop for a tabletop scene, like this:
I feel the ultimate point of the rules is to make sure the entries remain photography and do not cross the line into being digital creations.
Message edited by author 2009-07-12 20:31:50. |
|
|
|
07/12/2009 08:47:04 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Here's one possible approach to the rule: "You may include images that are clearly recognizable as existing artwork when photographing your entry. Images that could be mistaken for real objects in the scene may also be included, but must not be so prominent that voters are basically judging a photo of a photo." |
Well thought out and posed.
One thing that should as always be taken into consideration......*IF* you tread the line, you stand to be called on it and you may not like the result.
That should always be kept in mind, IMNSHO.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2009 09:01:32 PM · #5 |
As you might guess, I support a completely stripped-down version of this rule, solely to prevent time-shifting and illegal editing. I don't think we need more than:
You may include existing artwork in your submission, as long as your submission does not consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph
The whole point of photography is to "create impressions" or "illusions" -- this business making it illegal to do the job "too well" is illogical. If people are "fooled" then so be it -- there is no real harm done. If you are amazed or disappointed or outraged by how an image was created, you are free to say so afterwards -- but if the image was created by a legal technique it should be legal, whether or not the voters can "tell" exactly how it was created in a 3-second glance.
"Supporting," "appearing," "predominately" -- as long as a DQ is based on a subjective analysis this rule will be flawed, because there is no bright line where submitter can know "this is legal but that isn't."
Opinions about whether some effect is "too much" or not should be left to the voters, and SC should be limited to judging whether something either IS or ISN'T, period.
Otherwise, just make the rule "You may include any artwork except a pre-existing photograph in your composition" and eliminate the whole issue.
Message edited by author 2009-07-12 21:03:00. |
|
|
|
07/12/2009 09:15:13 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
As you might guess, I support a completely stripped-down version of this rule, solely to prevent time-shifting and illegal editing. I don't think we need more than:
You may include existing artwork in your submission, as long as your submission does not consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph
The whole point of photography is to "create impressions" or "illusions" -- this business making it illegal to do the job "too well" is illogical. If people are "fooled" then so be it -- there is no real harm done. If you are amazed or disappointed or outraged by how an image was created, you are free to say so afterwards -- but if the image was created by a legal technique it should be legal, whether or not the voters can "tell" exactly how it was created in a 3-second glance.
"Supporting," "appearing," "predominately" -- as long as a DQ is based on a subjective analysis this rule will be flawed, because there is no bright line where submitter can know "this is legal but that isn't."
Opinions about whether some effect is "too much" or not should be left to the voters, and SC should be limited to judging whether something either IS or ISN'T, period.
Otherwise, just make the rule "You may include any artwork except a pre-existing photograph in your composition" and eliminate the whole issue. |
But then people could enter photos that were 98% a previous photo. I'd hate to think that I'm doing all the work setting up the lighting, the background, the composition, just to have someone print out a spectacular shot of a sunset over a meadow, hold it up in their backyard and put their pet bunny in front of it. People would be judging the shot on the spectacular photo, not the stupid rabbit.
The challenge should be to create a new photo, not to modify an existing one. |
|
|
|
07/12/2009 09:20:19 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
I feel the ultimate point of the rules is to make sure the entries remain photography and do not cross the line into being digital creations. |
Oh, you're one of those believers in the line.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2009 09:21:22 PM · #8 |
My thoughts:
Not ok. This is clearly a photo of a photo with an overlay. The main subject is the photo. The secondary subject is a photo of writing.
Not ok. This is clearly a photo of a photo. Other photographic techniques could be used to achieve the desired effect, with the right amount of creativity.
Ok. The photo (magazine) is a prop used to enhance the subject. Clearly, there is a person sitting there as the model. If that person was wearing a mask, would that be considered artwork? I doubt it. So, this is ok.
Ok. The main subject is the child on the carpet. The photo of the landscape is clearly a prop used to enhance the subject. Furthermore, the creative technique allows for a photo that could not realistically be accomplished.
Not ok. This is clearly a closeup of a dollar bill with no other subject or direction of the photo.
Not ok. This is admittedly a photo of another photo and is intended as the main subject.
Not ok. This is a photo of another photo.
Not ok. This is clearly a photo of a TV screen.
Not ok. The graffiti is the main and only subject.
Not ok. Although borderline. It is not clear if the glass is accenting the background or if the background is accenting the glass. What sets this to not ok (versus Arabain Flights) is this photo could be accomplished without the need of a background photo.
So, essentially, my opinions fall as:
The use of the artwork is ok when clearly used as a prop to accentuate the main subject which is not artwork in itself. Use of artwork in lieu of what would normally be possible is not ok.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2009 09:24:04 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
As you might guess, I support a completely stripped-down version of this rule, solely to prevent time-shifting and illegal editing. I don't think we need more than:
You may include existing artwork in your submission, as long as your submission does not consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph |
But then people could enter photos that were 98% a previous photo. I'd hate to think that I'm doing all the work setting up the lighting, the background, the composition, just to have someone print out a spectacular shot of a sunset over a meadow, hold it up in their backyard and put their pet bunny in front of it. People would be judging the shot on the spectacular photo, not the stupid rabbit. |
For reference, this entry was scoring over 7.2 (easily the blue ribbon) when it was disqualified, yet the only "real" part was the barely-visible fingers in the corner. Take a look at the comments.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2009 09:29:00 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
As you might guess, I support a completely stripped-down version of this rule, solely to prevent time-shifting and illegal editing. I don't think we need more than:
You may include existing artwork in your submission, as long as your submission does not consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph
The whole point of photography is to "create impressions" or "illusions" -- this business making it illegal to do the job "too well" is illogical. If people are "fooled" then so be it -- there is no real harm done. If you are amazed or disappointed or outraged by how an image was created, you are free to say so afterwards -- but if the image was created by a legal technique it should be legal, whether or not the voters can "tell" exactly how it was created in a 3-second glance.
"Supporting," "appearing," "predominately" -- as long as a DQ is based on a subjective analysis this rule will be flawed, because there is no bright line where submitter can know "this is legal but that isn't."
Opinions about whether some effect is "too much" or not should be left to the voters, and SC should be limited to judging whether something either IS or ISN'T, period.
Otherwise, just make the rule "You may include any artwork except a pre-existing photograph in your composition" and eliminate the whole issue. |
But then people could enter photos that were 98% a previous photo. I'd hate to think that I'm doing all the work setting up the lighting, the background, the composition, just to have someone print out a spectacular shot of a sunset over a meadow, hold it up in their backyard and put their pet bunny in front of it. People would be judging the shot on the spectacular photo, not the stupid rabbit.
The challenge should be to create a new photo, not to modify an existing one. |
So what if they do enter a photo that is 98% a previous photo? If the photographer is simply trying to create something new in doing so (bringing in some other element, to a greater or lesser degree), then the only relevant judgment that can be made is whether the photographer pulled it off effectively or not - the voters would vote according to whether they believed the shot was successful (according to whatever "successful" means to them). To say that including a photo in your image, full stop, is *illegal* and should be *disqualified* is another thing entirely. What did the photographer *do* with it, that's what would be of most concern to me.
Please don't assume that anyone who attempts such shots is not taking just as much time as anyone else is to craft their final result. It's an unfair presumption. Speaking for myself, I took all week to decide how to go about getting the final result I envisioned, and how to do it legally, not to mention taking the time in the actual setup and reshooting to get it just the way I wanted. How does what materials you choose to include in the image and use to achieve the final result somehow determine how much effort one made to make the capture (and by extension how legitimate that effort is)? |
|
|
|
07/12/2009 09:31:39 PM · #11 |
One time i sugested to a friend (who is a great drawer) to take photos of some draws of his own, using it to create a story or a scene with him and his art. Would that be prohibited in a challenge?
Sorry if i wasn't clear. |
|
|
|
07/12/2009 09:33:01 PM · #12 |
 Scalvert has presented a rule change for discussion that reads:
"You may include images that are clearly recognizable as existing artwork when photographing your entry. Images that could be mistaken for real objects in the scene may also be included, but must not be so prominent that voters are basically judging a photo of a photo."
 GeneralE presents a rule change as follows:
You may include existing artwork in your submission, as long as your submission does not consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph
Scalvert's wording still requires subjective decisions.
GeneralE's wording does not.
Although I would go even further and spell it out thusly:
“Existing artwork may be included as long as your submission does not consist entirely of pre-existing artwork.”
I don’t think there is any wiggle-room in that. Do you?
|
|
|
|
07/12/2009 09:34:43 PM · #13 |
Ok, I thought I was clear on everything, but there have been a couple of surprises... No taking pictures of graffiti? It's such a fascinating subject... especially where you find some of the graffiti... Haven't there been pictures of train cars with graffiti, and would that invalidate those types of entries? Because really, the photo is about the artwork, and yet the artwork and the placement of said artwork is such a part of a commentary on the world as we know it...
Also, a dollar bill. I wouldn't have considered that artwork. What if I wanted to roll the dollar bill and take a picture of it? It's still a picture of the artwork, but it's crossed into the 3D area which sounds like it's ok... (statues, etc).
Otherwise, everything else seems self-explanatory, and I agree with PGerst's take on all the photos, with the exception of one: the photo of the old photo. The challenge was to take a picture of something 100 years old. The photo was the 100 year old object--I doubt that anyone was fooled into thinking it was a real scene. The funny thing was, I wasn't voting on the quality of the 100 year old photo, I was voting on the idea and the text over it. What else could you do with something flat? |
|
|
|
07/12/2009 09:37:13 PM · #14 |
I'm afraid I have to throw my support behind GeneralE's representation. I personally feel that (although perhaps better than the current wording) Scalvert's revision is still too subjective. I have to admit, I like  sfalice's best. Let the voters decide.
Just my uninvited 2 cents... :-)
PS: I am also assuming that Scalvert's revisions are more indicative of the general consensus of the SC, while GeneralE's seems to be a more personal viewpoint. I don't know that that is the case, but based on the discussions, that is the conclusion that I have drawn. I apologize for offending anyone if that is not the case. I respect all of the parties involved here.
Kudos to all for taking on the issue... I truly believe the rules need to be reviewed and revised. However, the current interpretations leave certain types of artwork (e.g. sculpture, graffiti, etc.) out in the cold. I think a definition with regard to 2D & 3D artwork might help alleviate this issue (although I'm still not sure how that will affect graffiti).
Good luck to you and thanks again for tackling this issue. It won't be easy, but the best things never are... ;-)
Message edited by author 2009-07-12 21:43:54. |
|
|
|
07/12/2009 09:46:21 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
As you might guess, I support a completely stripped-down version of this rule, solely to prevent time-shifting and illegal editing. I don't think we need more than:
You may include existing artwork in your submission, as long as your submission does not consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph |
But then people could enter photos that were 98% a previous photo. I'd hate to think that I'm doing all the work setting up the lighting, the background, the composition, just to have someone print out a spectacular shot of a sunset over a meadow, hold it up in their backyard and put their pet bunny in front of it. People would be judging the shot on the spectacular photo, not the stupid rabbit. |
For reference, this entry was scoring over 7.2 (easily the blue ribbon) when it was disqualified, yet the only "real" part was the barely-visible fingers in the corner. Take a look at the comments.
|
I'm sorry, but with GeneralE's and sfalice's wording, this photo would have won a blue ribbon. If I knew that photos like these were winning ribbons, I'd have no interest in this site.
The photo for the challenge should be new. That's why they have the date rule. I could find a whole bunch of creative ways of using my old photographs that could ribbon in some of these challenges, but that's not the spirit of the challenge.
The photo for the challenge should be a new photograph. It can be supported with existing artwork, as long as it's not the main theme of the photograph. period. |
|
|
|
07/12/2009 09:47:12 PM · #16 |
So, I'm cruisin' the net and find an incredible picture. This is the most stunning, perfect picture ever created. It also happens to fit the challenge PERFECTLY and, even better, there is a notice on the page by the original photog that says, "Please, use this picture, print it out, download it, sell it, do whatever you want to do with it. I want to share"
So, I print it out, or better yet, download it, get something about the size of my pinkie fingernail (a tack, piece of a toothpick, blade of grass) and put it in the lower left hand corner. Then, I snap and enter.
With the General's definition, this is allowed. :(
Honestly, I WISH GE's definition would work, but if that is what we went with, there WOULD be a 7+ score on a picture of a picture.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2009 09:56:52 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Oh, you're one of those believers in the line. |
A fuzzy line perhaps, but the box is completely an illusion.
And, this IS a photography site. |
|
|
|
07/12/2009 09:57:39 PM · #18 |
This is primarily where my comments are coming from. In the case you are describing (I agree with you) the photo is clearly the main subject even with a toothpick in it. But, if it was used as a prop for another scene, then it would be ok.
Originally posted by karmat:
So, I'm cruisin' the net and find an incredible picture. This is the most stunning, perfect picture ever created. It also happens to fit the challenge PERFECTLY and, even better, there is a notice on the page by the original photog that says, "Please, use this picture, print it out, download it, sell it, do whatever you want to do with it. I want to share"
So, I print it out, or better yet, download it, get something about the size of my pinkie fingernail (a tack, piece of a toothpick, blade of grass) and put it in the lower left hand corner. Then, I snap and enter.
With the General's definition, this is allowed. :(
Honestly, I WISH GE's definition would work, but if that is what we went with, there WOULD be a 7+ score on a picture of a picture. |
|
|
|
|
07/12/2009 10:02:37 PM · #19 |
Like vawendy, I'm very surprised that people are saying that photos of graffiti should be illegal. How does that fool the viewer? I think it is incredibly obvious that it's graffiti, most likely on a wall, and most likely not done by the photographer. It could definitely be made "the photographer's own" by adding another element or different lighting or something, but are you really going to go that far into censoring the content of a photograph?
One idea I had for the rule was to say something about how if you do include another photograph* in your photograph, it must be taken by you during the challenge dates and edited under the appropriate ruleset. In that case, both photographs would need to be submitted for validation.
*I said "photograph," not "artwork," because "artwork" is much too broad. Is architecture an artwork? Is a piece of clothing an artwork? Is an arrangement of flowers an artwork? Defining it would make the rules sound more like a convoluted legal document. |
|
|
|
07/12/2009 10:04:18 PM · #20 |
| someone was joking quite a bit earlier, saying that the artwork should be no more than 1/4 of the photograph. I'm beginning to think that it's not a bad idea. the flying carpet would be valid, the wine glass would be invalid, the money would be invalid, graffiti could be valid as long as it was a small portion. If the artwork is less than 1/4, it would be hard for it to be the main subject (although, someone could probably find a way...) |
|
|
|
07/12/2009 10:06:49 PM · #21 |
There are people on this site who will run out to the end of the smallest branch and jump up and down to see if it will hold. If it does, they win. If it doesn’t, they pick themselves up off the ground and find another branch to tromp on.
There are other people who read the rules carefully and interpret the rules to the best of their ability. They don’t want to make a mistake; take a fall. They want to understand the rules without trial and error.
I personally don’t care what this or any other rule specifies; I do care enormously that all participants can understand the rule and abide by it without guesswork.
I'm not sure Scalvert's presentation fits this description. I do however, appreciate the time he and others have taken to formulate the wording. It's a tough one.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2009 10:08:53 PM · #22 |
I guess my main argument is that when a printed photograph (taken by the photographer) is used as a backdrop for a new scene. It's used as a prop - and has no ownership issues. Photographers have been using this little trick for decades in the dark room. Why shouldn't we be able to do the same in the digital world?
I know I'm beating the dead horse and I apologize, but I couldn't stop myself from saying it. |
|
|
|
07/12/2009 10:11:25 PM · #23 |
What Karma & Wendy said. Objectivity would be great, but submitting a photo of a photo with something minor added is not what this site is about IMO. I know the rest of the SC is probably warming up their "toldja' so" speech, but I'm fairly shocked to see some of the interpretations posted so far. I thought this would be simple: if it's obviously artwork, let the voters deal with it. If not, decide if the artwork is SO prominent that the voters are basically voting on that (if you took out the art, what would be left). On that basis, I saw them this way:
Obviously a print with writing on it. Nobody will be fooled into thinking these are live models with type floating in the air. VALID
Obviously artwork. It's readily apparent from the torn paper that we're looking at a print with a hole in it, and the voters can rate the photographed concept accordingly. VALID
Obviously a magazine, and the voters can judge the overall composition. VALID.
The artwork background is photorealistic here, so what are the voters rating? It's a girl on a flying carpet. Take away the art and it's still a girl on a flying carpet (albeit over blank white sky). VALID
Obviously artwork. It's not even photorealistic- it's an illustration. VALID
Not obviously artwork. It's a dramatic sky with lightning, but take away the art, and it's just a hand. DQ
Not obviously artwork. Take away the art and you have nothing at all. DQ
Not obviously artwork and nothing else in the frame (same as above). DQ
Obviously artwork. It's clearly graffiti painted on a wall, not photorealistic at all. VALID (Point to ponder: a photo of a picture of graffiti would also be artwork. Hmm...)
Not obviously artwork. Take away the art and it's just a glass. DQ.
Here's a tougher one:
 You could say it's obviously artwork since the real moon isn't shaped like a pear, but it IS photorealistic and removing the artwork would leave only a hand with the bulb base. Tough call, and something I would avoid under current rules. Would a photo like this be appropriate as creative photography or merely a sneaky way to get around the rules against composites? Something to ponder.
Message edited by author 2009-07-12 22:20:03. |
|
|
|
07/12/2009 10:11:51 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by SJCarter:
I guess my main argument is that when a printed photograph (taken by the photographer) is used as a backdrop for a new scene. It's used as a prop - and has no ownership issues. Photographers have been using this little trick for decades in the dark room. Why shouldn't we be able to do the same in the digital world?
I know I'm beating the dead horse and I apologize, but I couldn't stop myself from saying it. |
So, in the scenario I presented above, would you say the incredible, wonderful, awesomely perfect picture is the backdrop of the shot of the tip of the toothpick that isn't obviously visible? |
|
|
|
07/12/2009 10:23:29 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by SJCarter:
I guess my main argument is that when a printed photograph (taken by the photographer) is used as a backdrop for a new scene. It's used as a prop - and has no ownership issues. Photographers have been using this little trick for decades in the dark room. Why shouldn't we be able to do the same in the digital world?
I know I'm beating the dead horse and I apologize, but I couldn't stop myself from saying it. |
So, in the scenario I presented above, would you say the incredible, wonderful, awesomely perfect picture is the backdrop of the shot of the tip of the toothpick that isn't obviously visible? |
Even if it's larger than a toothpick, it could cause some issues. If I buy a national geographic poster of a wonderful swamp with lily pads, and put my own frog on it, I'm still being judged on the wonderful background, because I've purposely tried to fool the people into thinking I photographed the complete scene. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 08:50:56 AM  |
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: 04/24/2024 08:50:56 AM EDT.
|
