Literal representation of existing artwork, what does this mean - and where do you draw the line? I've been browsing through some past shots and come across a few DQs of people taking shots of original artwork.
For example -
So why is this - legal?
It's an excellent and extremely competent photo of a piece of art in Kingston-Upon-Thames. It is, however, an existing piece of artwork. Where is the cut off point between a photo of art and a literal representation of a piece of art?
This is completely out of interest and not meant to victimise anyone, I believe the photo to be a worthy winner and I wish I'd thought to take a picture of the same thing :-p.
You May: - include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph in order to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph.
The key is the italicized portion. What we DQ for is entries that both:
1.) Attempt to fool the voter into thinking that the artwork is an as-captured scene
2.) Consist entirely, or almost entirely, of said artwork
The three things we are trying to avoid are:
- Folks photographing someone else's photo and entering it as their own
- Folks photographing their own photo to get 'round the date rules, or
- Folks photographing an edited version of one of their own photos to get 'round the editing rules.
Otherwise, photographing artwork is OK, whether it's 2D or 3D, yours or someone else's. We don't want to rule out such things as macros of dollar bills, which were DQ'd in the past because of the old, more broad artwork rule.
The new, narrower artwork rule is much more inclusive, and is *far* easier to adjudicate (less grey area) than the old rule.
Literal representation of existing artwork, what does this mean - and where do you draw the line? I've been browsing through some past shots and come across a few DQs of people taking shots of original artwork.
For example -
This image was DQd under an earlier version of the rules, and the clause under which it was DQ'd has changed considerably. I'm pretty sure it would not be DQ'd under this current version:
Originally posted by The Current Basic Rules:
You May: • include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph in order to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph.
Probably the most significsnt reason is that the 2005 image you linked above was disqualified under a rule that no longer exists in the current rules.
Secondarily, though, representing 3-dimensional artwork in a 2-dimensional medium inherently requires decisions by the photographer, and as such was virtually never considered 'literal' even under the old rule.
