| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/08/2002 12:05:01 PM · #1 |
Anyone have any idea what pictures where disqualified? I believe two pictures were disqualified already and I don't know which ones they were nor did I think any pictures were fake as I was voting so I'd be curious to see what I missed.
|
|
|
|
05/08/2002 12:30:11 PM · #2 |
I only noticed one missing. It was the picture of a blue poster. That particular photo is more of a poster than it is a photo.
Notice this paragraph in the rules:
"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." (bold added by me)
The photo consisted of the poster and nothing but the poster, and thus was in violation of the rules.
Originally posted by chariot:
Anyone have any idea what pictures where disqualified? I believe two pictures were disqualified already and I don't know which ones they were nor did I think any pictures were fake as I was voting so I'd be curious to see what I missed.
* This message has been edited by the author on 5/8/2002 12:30:48 PM.
|
|
|
|
05/08/2002 01:14:06 PM · #3 |
I think the 'absolut alienation' photo got the nix too... that's too bad because I scored it well... I wonder what the problem was with it.... ?? anyone know?
|
|
|
|
05/08/2002 01:19:50 PM · #4 |
| No, and I scored that one high too. The one I noticed missing was the beef carcus. It said something about British Beef. |
|
|
|
05/08/2002 01:23:45 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by shortredneck:
No, and I scored that one high too. The one I noticed missing was the beef carcus. It said something about British Beef.
I was curious about that one too because drew said that he wasn't going to DQ anymore photos for not meeting the challenge...
|
|
|
|
05/08/2002 01:29:30 PM · #6 |
| that sucks, the abduction photo was awesome...maybe too awesome |
|
|
|
05/08/2002 02:04:08 PM · #7 |
One of the DQ'ed was digitally edited, and the other was blatently lude and offensive in the context of the challenge -- both violations of the rules :)
You can figure out which was which... ;)
Drew |
|
|
|
05/08/2002 02:06:11 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by drewmedia:
One of the DQ'ed was digitally edited, and the other was blatently lude and offensive in the context of the challenge -- both violations of the rules :)
You can figure out which was which... ;)
Drew
I'm glad that *you* caught it... I don't spend much time looking for rule violations... If it doesn't slap me in the face, I just vote on the photo and move on... lol :)
|
|
|
|
05/08/2002 02:06:51 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by drewmedia:
One of the DQ'ed was digitally edited, and the other was blatently lude and offensive in the context of the challenge -- both violations of the rules :)
You can figure out which was which... ;)
Drew
i remember the beef one, but which one was the abduction?
|
|
|
|
05/08/2002 02:08:59 PM · #10 |
yeah, better post it so we can have an example of 'what not to do'
Originally posted by amitchell:
Originally posted by drewmedia:
[i]One of the DQ'ed was digitally edited, and the other was blatently lude and offensive in the context of the challenge -- both violations of the rules :)
You can figure out which was which... ;)
Drew
i remember the beef one, but which one was the abduction?
[/i]
|
|
|
|
05/08/2002 02:10:38 PM · #11 |
| It was the bottle with the green light around it in a circle. |
|
|
|
05/08/2002 02:15:05 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by shortredneck:
It was the bottle with the green light around it in a circle.
oh yeah--i remember that one now. i just looked at the thumbnails that night, but do remember wondering how they got they crazy lighting! thanks sandra!
|
|
|
|
05/08/2002 02:18:08 PM · #13 |
|
|
|
05/08/2002 02:21:50 PM · #14 |
| er, i meant the other one. . . |
|
|
|
05/08/2002 02:22:02 PM · #15 |
Which was the "lude and offensive" one? :)
Originally posted by drewmedia:
One of the DQ'ed was digitally edited, and the other was blatently lude and offensive in the context of the challenge -- both violations of the rules :)
You can figure out which was which... ;)
Drew
|
|
|
|
05/08/2002 02:33:22 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by joebar:
Which was the "lude and offensive" one?
The only good one.
|
|
|
|
05/08/2002 03:25:04 PM · #17 |
| can the person whose it was post a link so i can judge for myself? |
|
|
|
05/08/2002 04:30:28 PM · #18 |
Maybe we should have another submenu under learn that says "What not to do" and post all disqualifications there and then have the photographer/photoshopper explain what they did. :)
|
|
|
|
05/08/2002 04:35:59 PM · #19 |
Wait a minute! When I first looked, there were 81 photos.
I don't remember anything with a dead cow, but I did see a photo of a hand drawn poster, which I commented as probably not legal and gave it a poor score, the other that I don't see anymore is one that appeared to be a double exposure or an overlay, also illegal and also commented, but the photo was too great to score poorly.
If given the vote, I would say, leave entries in, if flagged as a DQ, I would appreciate the Site Admins contacting me for an explanation. If I proved myself illegal, remove the photo. Who really knows but the person behind the camera? |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 01:04:36 AM · #20 |
| Hmm... I saw the thumbnail of the dead cow one. I don't really get it, why was it rude and offensive? At least any moreso than the other jokey entries like that great dirt (cheap) one :). I'm a vegan, so maybe because I don't eat dead cows I don't find the sight of one any more 'offensive' than roadkill, and I used to have a friend who did achingly beautiful roadkill photos.... If you can't handle the sight of one, I hope you don't eat steak :) |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 01:11:28 AM · #21 |
what if we had a gallery of disqualified photos? kind of like chariots idea--but also because i am curious about not only the absolut ad, but i always wondered what was the deal with that buddha (or whatever) in the architechture challenge?
|
|
|
|
05/09/2002 03:21:13 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by Reuben:
I only noticed one missing. It was the picture of a blue poster. That particular photo is more of a poster than it is a photo.
Notice this paragraph in the rules:
"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." (bold added by me)
The photo consisted of the poster and nothing but the poster, and thus was in violation of the rules.
That paragraph is all to do with copyright, and not content. If the poster is your own, you obviously don't violate copyright by making a photo of it. You won't do particularly well in the challenge, as you haven't taken a picture of a product (unless you consider a "for sale" sign a product - Websters says "anything produced"), but I don't think this situation is what the passage above was about.
Regarding the cow, I guess one man's dismembered bovine is another man's pubic hair. I would hesitate to legislate taste if it were my site, but it's not.
* This message has been edited by the author on 5/9/2002 4:11:16 AM.
|
|
|
|
05/09/2002 05:11:06 AM · #23 |
| The caption was 100% British Beef. The was kind of a derogatory reference to Mad cow disease. I'm sure that would be offensive to our European members. I thought it was offensive because anytime I see a partial carcus, I think poachers. In the hunting community, that is the lowest kind of person there is. |
|
|
|
05/09/2002 05:52:48 AM · #24 |
Yes, yes. But what's this 'abduction photo' everyone is referring to?
|
|
|
|
05/09/2002 06:03:44 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by shortredneck:
The caption was 100% British Beef. The was kind of a derogatory reference to Mad cow disease. I'm sure that would be offensive to our European members. I thought it was offensive because anytime I see a partial carcus, I think poachers. In the hunting community, that is the lowest kind of person there is.
Surely that's just a kind of political commentary? Why is satire about mad cow disease 'derogatory' to anyone other than the people who set the regulations that allowed farmers to feed cows ground up carcasses in the first place? And don't they deserve it?
I personally thought the Hooters girl one had a pretty nasty subtext, but I just posted a funny comment and continued. I don't understand how the cow photo was bad enough to be disqualified... there wasn't anyone vomiting blood in it, for example. (I'm Australian, by the way, not British, so maybe I don't get it).
|
|
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: 04/16/2024 05:41:00 AM EDT.
