My avy should be in the hall of fame. It's the best one ever. Period.

Hi all, long time no see....

...and what about source images in the voting queue?

well I am well aware of this refers to what happens on my entry the other day.

I however, welcome this clarification, it is needed as a guide, as so many ask, and so many just do not know.

So good

Here is an interesting take from Malcolm Gladwell...
http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_11_25_a_borrowed.html

In my opinion, if you can take someone's work and make it into SOME OTHER THING that has some new message to the viewer, your fine. Passing someone's work off as your own - 90+% of the finished work, is another story. IMHO.

If you took an image of the Mona Lisa*** and put RayBan Sunglasses on it, that would be a new message/idea - even though you got the image of the Sunglasses and Mona Lisa from the interweb. YOU ARE CREATING!

***I know this is public domain, so don't be hatin'!


as for giving credit for some cloud you used or pic of a mouse or fork - I really don't care to know, nor is it necessary - to me, they are just props in your NEW creation. If you feel they inspired your image, it might be something to share if you wanted to. at least give someone credit for the inspiration they gave to you.

Since the submission page says Submit An Original Image, I would assume that all of those are pictures that have been taken by PSC members and that their submission to the voting queue is implied consent for the other PSC members to use them freely in their chops.

Let's hope so. Another good point to bring up here. If you see a cool image from another site, please don't submit it as an original source. You will risk being banned.

I understand and agree with the ethical, moral and, in most cases, LEGAL issues being discussed here, but there is a fine line of distinction, as pointed out by jasper, in trying to pass off someone else's work as your own and incorporating other people's images into a new work. On another site one of the members was caught using a great piece of art of a dog riding a tricycle wiht a cat on his head holding a balance bar on which two mice were performing. It is one of my favorite chops (or paintings, sometimes you can't tell). But this site member added another creature to the cat's head and tried to pass it as her own creation. It didn't work, I was one of the people who outed her, I am very much of the opinion that this is wrong.

But is it wrong to take one of the dancing mice and incorporate it as a minor enhancement into a work you are doing with, say, six other images of a whale, an eagle, a clown, a girl scout, an apple and a violin for instance? I'm just using this as an example, but can we call this fair usage?

I'd at least say "mouse, whale, eagle, clown, girl scout, violin, apple are outside sources". If you did something to any of the characters or objects, such as giving them human characteristics by making them smile, adding clothes, or posing them differently, I'd leave a link to the original image so people can see how creative you got with it. But if the subjects have simply been integrated into an image without much change, I don't need to see the original, just say it's an outside source.

When I see a great chop, I sometimes wonder how much work was actually involved if I'm not familiar with the artist. I wish some people would give you at least an idea to what they did themselves. For instance, If I see a landscape image with the sky made up of stars, planets, and moons, a beautiful fantasy mood to that background, I'm to assume the artist compiled that background him/herself.... but I sometimes wonder if that sky was borrowed from a fantasy poster found off of Google. If there are no comments left under the entry, I have to guess.

But not banned if we get permission from the other site to submit the photo right?


(thinking back to my pocket watch submission and the houses).

I don't believe the intent is for everyone to start splitting hairs. I think the GUIDELINES are, simply, "all or none" for citing outside sources. If you list the partridge as an outside source but do not mention the pear tree, people may assume YOU created the pear tree, even if that is not the case. In instances where several "found images" were utilized, I suspect a general statement "too many outside sources to list in the author's notes" would suffice in most cases...(?)

The GUIDELINES should help more clearly define "all source" or "created in PS" statements. Either statement MEANS there are NO sources or references besides the original PSC contest image, and YOU deserve ALL creative credit for the resulting image. To use these statements falsely is to take credit for someone else's image(s), and to risk being banned. Simple as that.

While the Mods maintain that it is still not necessary to list sources, it is clear that if your contest entry relies heavily on just one or two outside sources, it would definitely be better to mention it/them rather than say nothing at all and have people assume you did all the work until someone outs you.

...right?



Or what Blue is about to say.

Come on people its easy, do what we do, what we have always done and if some one wants to know your externals then let them ask, if ya wanna have a 10 page list of what ya used then do so, its not rocket science. We all know where the line is and yep some times it crossed but don't start make this place another police site, to many of them out there all ready.

Hey Alex nice avy.

p.s. damn it caf you weren't there when I started my rant..what she said but with an aussie accent K

Very well said!
When I do an "all source", I label it as such. If I add an external, I mention the external, like a spoon or leaf, because there are members who are able to create these items in PS.
But there were objections,too. So now I'm inclined not to list anything.

And I think that simply taking a logo and changing the color or adding texture should at least be mentioned. Same goes for complete backgrounds.

If this is indeed what is happening nowadays then this makes me sad. Back in the day you didn't have to list your sources... everybody used junk that they found on the internet and everybody knew it. It sounds as if the modern day practice of listing your sources and where they were used in the composition has made NOT listing your sources a "crime". In the context of PSC, I don't think that not crediting a source is the same thing as taking credit for it yourself. But if you ARE going to credit your sources then be thorough. I am of the opinion that if you use something from the internet and you aren't using it for commercial purposes, aren't using it in a hateful manner or aren't actively taking credit for it then it's ok to use here at PSC without getting permission.

I'm not a fan of the "all source" labeling business. An image should impress me on it's own merits according to what I think those merits are. I'm not going to like my Chilean Sea Bass any better when I find out that it's the waiter's favorite dish or that the chef had a rough upbringing. If it's good, I'll like it.

Interesting points there...
BUT PLEASE THINK ABOUT THE BRACKETS!!!

I'm not sure what you mean or to whom this was directed.