"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."
"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."
Ok. That makes sense. Totally blew past me ... I guess it seems different when the photos used are from a source you know. Thanks.
Yes during voting I had to double-check the rule-set. But seems legal given this rule.
Originally posted by smardaz:
I'm guessing this rule:
"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."
But isn't that the stage at which I would click "Click here if you suspect a rules violation" ?
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by tate:
Yes during voting I had to double-check the rule-set. But seems legal given this rule.
Tsk, tsk... Whether it's legal or not is irrelevant when you're voting... That's for SC to figure out :-)
Yes, absolutely. If there is every any question as to the legality of an image while in voting, please report it to SC; don't start a thread on it, LOL :)
But isn't that the stage at which I would click "Click here if you suspect a rules violation" ?
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by tate:
Yes during voting I had to double-check the rule-set. But seems legal given this rule.
Tsk, tsk... Whether it's legal or not is irrelevant when you're voting... That's for SC to figure out :-)
Yes, absolutely. If there is every any question as to the legality of an image while in voting, please report it to SC; don't start a thread on it, LOL :)
But then we wouldn't be having this conversation. :-) Plus, obviously I did wait until after voting. Didn't actually think about the rules angle until reading some comments posted in the image thread this morning.
Because of the discussion in this thread, we have decided to elaborate a bit on why this image passed muster with SC:
1. It does not violate the Terms of Use (4.2 You will not use the DPChallenge.com Service to post content or to design, manufacture, market or sell a Product that (i) infringes the rights of a third party, including, without limitation, copyrights, trademarks, patents, trade secrets, rights of privacy and publicity...) because Gyaban had given his permission for his images to be used.
2. The artwork (Gyaban's images) is clearly presented as placed, pre-existing artwork. It is important to note that this was legal only because it was pre-existing artwork presented as such, was create in an Expert challenge which allows composites, and therefore is not subject to date or editing rules. Under any other scenario, shooting an image off the monitor to circumvent date or any other rules is a DQable offense.
3. The artwork in this case was actually photographed off the monitor, so we have valid EXIF on all components of the image.
Accordingly, the image meets our criteria under the Expert ruleset and has been validated.
