well, this was my submission to the window view challenge. I just wanted to throw in some humor.
Then I get this in my email :)
We regret to inform you that your submission to the Window View challenge ("A Rare View") has been disqualified for the following reason:
>From the rules: Literal photographic representations of the entirety of existing works of art (including your own) are not considered acceptable submissions
Never in my wildest imagination would I have considered windows a work of art. Obviously some people have a higher opinion of XP than I do.
Anyway, I could pretty much care less, and just found it pretty funny.
EDIT: I suppose you can't link to a picture still in a challenge...
I'd like to see the picture and see for myself why it was dq'd. If its because it shows the microsoft 'logo' why have other logos been allowed? I seem to remember seeing a couple of wheel shots recently clearly showing logos. Are we all going mad??
Yeah, I thought it was great but I kinda wondered if it would be left. I'm pretty sure they have almost all their interface logos, icons and color schemes at least trademarked or copyrighted. I'm pretty sure they would have come after the site. Microsoft has to take its copyrights very seriously and prosecute them "vigorously" according to US Copyright law or they lose the copyright.
As far as the image goes, I scored it pretty highly as I remember.
Yeah, I thought it was great but I kinda wondered if it would be left. I'm pretty sure they have almost all their interface logos, icons and color schemes at least trademarked or copyrighted. I'm pretty sure they would have come after the site. Microsoft has to take its copyrights very seriously and prosecute them "vigorously" according to US Copyright law or they lose the copyright.
Used solely as an entry, inclusion of "other art" is allowed under the "fair use" doctrine of the US copyright law, as a non-commercial personal educational work. Don't try to sell prints of it.
There are many things encountered in everyday life that have a copyrighted design, ie. art. Among those things are Automobiles, street signs, buildings, even windows and wheels!
Where do you draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable forms of art? Does mass production make the artwork acceptable, as in automobiles? If so, then a representation of the Microsoft Windows logo should be acceptable, as it is also mass produced.
Just don't put that Mercedes hood ornament on a Volkswagon. You might own the ornament, but they still have an interest in how it's displayed. You would probably be ok until you went to sell the vehicle. That's another story though.
Here's a thought I've had about copyright. You walk into McDonalds to buy a cheeseburger. Everything you see is related to the cheesburger... pictures on the wall, pricing etc. Then they give you what you ordered in a paper wrapper. That wrapper has copyright protection. If I take it home, put a dead mouse between two slices of bread; take a picture and put it on a web site.... McD's is going to sue me. McD's has a vested interest in that wrapper. So far I'm ok with everything. That last long enough until I'm driving down the road and a see a bunch of liter at the side of the road and some of it says it's from McD's. I am really outraged at liter and think a fine of $1000 for people who liter is several times too low, especially those that throw burning cigarette butts out their car windows. But that's not my point. My point is that if McD's wants to claim an interest in how that liter gets used/reused etc... then they ought to pay their fair share in cleaning up what they claim belongs to them.
I may have unfairly used McD's as an example, I have no idea what they actually contribute to communities for liter removal.
I may have unfairly used McD's as an example, I have no idea what they actually contribute to communities for liter removal.
I have one down the street from me .. the answer is provide garbage cans no one uses at the perimeter of their property (same with the Jack-in-the-Box across the street). But the litter is a cultural/ethical problem; I've had kids drop their trash on the sidewalk right next to my own garbage can -- they're not done eating by the time they leave the parking lot.
Our Canadian neighbors may be unfamiliar with this use of the public ways as one big garbage heap ... every city I've visited there is notable for its cleanliness relative to similar US cities.
.... That wrapper has copyright protection. If I take it home, put a dead mouse between two slices of bread; take a picture and put it on a web site.... McD's is going to sue me....
Actually, you may be able to get away with the parody exclusion as long as it is perfectly clear that it is a parody, (i.e., label it with 'THIS IS A PARODY'). I wouldn't try it though.
Just to clear this up a bit, it was not DQed because the windows logo was IN the photo. It was DQed because it was a straight on shot of a computer screen. It was literally just the corner of a web site, which is technically art created by someone else. If you read in the rules, it does mention computer artwork is not acceptable. This is in place to keep someone from creating something really cool on the computer, and just taking a snap of it, we are no longer judging the photo, but rather the stuff you created on your computer. Not saying this applies to your photo, as there really isn't anything "artsy" about it, but this is why, cause it was just a straight on shot of a computer monitor.
Dang it.. I've been struggling with an aspect of one of my photos. I see yes it's ok, but then I see no it's not. I'm confused. Would it be improper to request validation, or better to wait til the challenge is over and discuss? There's no way it's going to finish anywhere near the top 10. I expect that it will be in the 60%. The crux is that yes I created something on the computer that appears in my photo.
I may be mistaken, but it appears to be a screen saver to me? A while back I had a submission in the propaganda challenge that was a photo of the iTunes visulizer on my mac that was DQ'ed. I assumed it was for this same reason as the current photo in question, but I was never notified... it was just DQ'ed. So basically, I'm curious why the above photo in the orange challenge was allowed?
A message we had gotten from the photographer of Burning Grid... "The image was taken in a dark room with a horizontal purple line of light thorough the middle. That is the thinck horizontal line you see
in the middle. I took it at a 0.5second shutter and flpped the camera to the right and then to the left creating the effect of many lines."
It is NOT a photo of a screen saver, and have larger photos of the actual line used to create such an effect. Very creative.
A message we had gotten from the photographer of Burning Grid... "The image was taken in a dark room with a horizontal purple line of light thorough the middle. That is the thinck horizontal line you see
in the middle. I took it at a 0.5second shutter and flpped the camera to the right and then to the left creating the effect of many lines."
It is NOT a photo of a screen saver, and have larger photos of the actual line used to create such an effect. Very creative.
Actually that photo was disqualified (because the SC thought the same thing, Russell). The submitter posted about the DQ in this thread, and after proof was submitted (several times, actually), the photo was re-instated (with our apologies).
Edit: I want to point out that this is a very good reason why it is important to list as many details as possible in the "Photographer's Comments" section when submitting. If a picture comes up for DQ, that information is available for the SC to review, and such details can really can help with the whole validation process.
