There has been considerable discussion via e-mails about the advisability of a rule concerning the admissibility into FCC competitions of photos taken during workshops and photo tours. In order to alleviate the press of e-mails, I’m starting this blog entry to provide a forum for discussion of possible rule changes.
First, here is an excerpt from Cliff Lawson’s e-mail that started this discussion:
****************************************
The second thing I want to bring up is a recap of our discussion last week about images shot at instructor-led workshops.
A bit of background for those who were not there: I attended a workshop last winter in which the instructor set up specific lighting scenarios and the participants photographed the setup and then shot the image that was a result of the setup. A great teaching/learning device.
A few months later while looking for images to enter, I cam across the one I shot at the workshop. I entered it. It got 10 points and a first. It went to council – did just as well there. It was then I began think that I really should not have entered it at all. It really was not MY image – it was the instructor’s. I just stepped in and shot it. Then last May I attended the workshops in Breckenridge and one of the instructors there made the comment that we need to remember that the PPA (Professional Photographers of America) does not permit the entry of any image shot at a workshop during the hours of the workshop. After hours on your own time with your own equipment is fine.
After all, if you cannot replicate what you learned at the workshop/seminar, you: A) wasted your money, B) went to the wrong workshop, or C) are not ready to work at that level yet.
I absolutely believe we should never enter an image shot if the setup is supplied by/done by an instructor. Will we make a club rule? I don’t know. There are some workshops that follow a different plan and images shot at those would be OK. For example, I attended the Rich Clarkson Sports workshop two years ago. Instructors never accompanied the participants, but offered critique on what was shot the previous day. In that case, the students had to arrange their own shoots. The workshop made arrangements to allow permission for some venues, but what you did there was up to you. Those images should be allowed.
Photo tours should be allowed. Even though the guide gets us to the location and know the best times of year and times of day, the actual choice of subject and composition are up to the participant.
On the other hand, as an honorable person, if the tour guide tells you to…”put your tripod here, put the left edge of the frame against that tree, and the sun will come up over THAT hill,” I think you should not enter it as you just pushed the button and the tour guide did the set-up. But that is your choice.
There are questionable areas to be sure. I went on an organized “Senior Shoot.” There were no instructors, just a group of about 6-7 photographers of varying skill levels (really good to really mediocre). We took turns posing the models (who were hired for the event). We could use whatever lighting we wanted – we could borrow another person’s lights and reflectors. I would suggest that those images are acceptable as there was no set-up by a professional or instructor. However, even in that situation, if another person set up the whole image and I just stepped to take my shot, I would be reluctant to enter that particular image because it really is not mine.
So the so-called litmus test is: Did the instructor (or any other person for that matter) set up the lighting and/or the models? If so, I would suggest it is not really YOUR image.
I think a club rule might be too vague to write and impossible to enforce, but I also think we should understand that some images may not really be ours even though we were able to move a forefinger.
****************************************
The comments made by e-mail are reproduced here as comments. To see them and the subsequent comments made directly to this blog, click on the word “Comments” under the title of this post.
From Russ Burden:
It’s simple and I propose it be adopted as a rule as soon as it can be put into place:
Images made under controlled workshop conditions in which the photographer was not in charge of the set up should not be eligible for competition. If the models/subjects (could be a person, bug, glassware) are provided as well as the lights and everything/most everything is staged or orchestrated by the professional/leader, images taken under these conditions are deemed ineligible for entry into the Focus Camera Club. The idea is to take the knowledge that is gleaned from the workshop and apply it to your own photographic session.
From Craig Lewis:
It is not simple because even if everything was set up by someone else, it was the photographer who decided when or whether to take the photo. If the photographer agreed that the setup was good, who can say that the photographer could not or would not reproduce it either at that moment or at some time later?
It is unenforceable because only those present when the shutter clicked know who made the setup. Even they may not agree on the amount of control the photographer had.
It is unnecessary because a camera club competition should be a learning experience. I do not think that a member should be precluded from getting the opinion of a judge on the photo because the member did not set it up entirely and independently. There’s no money and very little glory in camera club competitions. They should be learning experiences. As we have seen with an infamous exercise where the same slide was entered in all competitions during one year and got the full range of scores from the various judges, judging is not a precise science. I see no reason for precluding a member from getting the opinion of another judge merely because the image was taken in a workshop under controlled conditions. If our competitions involved prizes more significant than ribbons, my opinion might be different, of course.
As Einstein once said: “Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler.”
I think that the rules should stand as they are now so that our competitions can continue to be the learning experiences they have been.
From Paul DiSalvo:
Just a thought, but Focus Creative Shooters Group shoots might fall into one of these grey areas. I’ve only been once or twice but on those occasions, there is usually a group leader who pulls together some sort of “shoot setup” and everyone has a whack at it. If I understand the comments so far, these would seem like they fall under what is described as not qualified for competition.
From Carol VandenBerg:
I see the argument – but I have to agree with Craig
So, if the equipment is set up by another photographer for us to utilize in a workshop situation, we shouldn’t enter the photo into competition?
But it’s my photo (or so say the copyright laws). I think that I decide when to click the shutter, what settings to use, and where to stand – just because I don’t personally own a studio light or a time machine or a 1000mm lens shouldn’t preclude me from thinking the photo is mine to enter (or not).
With this line of thinking, outdoor workshops would also preclude many photos from being entered – so, why would we go on these workshops if not to get great photos? And there’s the ultimate workshop leader who has provides us with a spectator earth to photograph – some people think He is standing by their side directing their activities.
It’s intimidating enough to enter a photo – hopefully it won’t get more so.
If it bothers you to enter something from a workshop, then don’t enter it. If you think that “your” photo is really not “your” photo. then don’t enter it. You know the difference.
I would like to commend Carol for her objective comments about what amounts to “personal” ethics vs “camera club” ethics. I’m all for personal ethics and morality, but it really gets dicey when you try to apply it to club competitions that are supposed to be for fun and education. Right? For most members this is recreation, so don’t take it too seriously, maybe a little more serious than going to WaterWorld. Ethics discussions, on the other hand, can get serious and cause a lot of consternation. For example, take a subject that we’re all familiar with, taking of a life, such as murder, euthanasia, abortion, capital punishment. You can either say that it’s simply all murder, or accept extenuating circumstances. You can do the same with our photography example, of who “owns” the image when there’s collaboration involved in the shooting process. In moviemaking it could be the producer, the director, the costume designer, the set decorator,the photographer. So why complicate things to a point where it’s not for fun anymore? That’s why I like Carol’s take that it should be personal ethics, not ethics dictated by the club. I belong to more than one club, and each one could have it’s own ethics and morality (code of conduct), not to mention competition rules. Life is just too complicated as it is, let’s not make it any worse.
From Joe Bonita:
How about this for a compromise?
“Any image made under the direction of a photographic workshop leader is not eligible for entry in any Focus Camera Club of Colorado members’ contest.”
This doesn’t encompass all of the possible variations of what could be viewed as objectionable but I think it gets at the core issue: was it the member’s creativity or was the member mostly an amanuensis of the workshop leader. It seems to me that the supplier of equipment or models is less relevant than who directed the shooting. Enforcement? Unlikely that it will be possible unless another member who was at the same workshop rats out the submitting member. And even in that case, there will be argument. Nevertheless, I think it’s important that the principal be stated.
From Russ Burden:
1) to not bog up everyone’s email, let’s not turn this into an electronic forum. I suggest we have an open meeting and those who have a strong opinion either way can bring up their points to discuss.
2) Please think about the following as I have done after reading all the emails I received – I’m particularly fond of my letter g proposal to appease all:
a) as a member of many camera clubs both in Colorado and back east in addition to being a former board member of the Photographic Federation of Long Island knowing many of the 40+ club’s rules, what is being proposed is not unusual or meant to be a way to single out members and prevent them from entering workshop images. The vast majority of clubs back east don’t allow workshop pics to be entered.
The simple matter of clicking the shutter according to the law makes a photo your own but we’re not debating the law. We’re discussing the ethics of whether or not a photo where most everything but the clicking of the shutter was performed by someone else. With this in mind, I have to question whose photo it is. Without all the work that was done by someone else, there would be no image to be made. As I’ve stated before, glean what you can from the workshop and set up your own situation to make it your image.
b) There will always be a gray area if we make any proposal a rule. There was with regards to what was allowable in Photoshop. There is with regards to the new rule of “Similars.” It has to be left to the ethics of the member and I have to place my faith that the members will use good judgement if the rule is made.
c) I agree that the rule may not be unenforceable, but to not make it a rule for that reason isn’t practical. I do take issue with a statement I read “It is unenforceable because only those present when the shutter clicked know who made the setup” in that it may imply that if the rule is put into effect, people will try to cheat their way into entering an image and I don’t want to think that the members of FCC are cheaters.
d) The purpose of a camera club is to educate, promote, and further each person’s photography. As Craig stated, a camera club competition should be a learning experience and feedback about an image is important. If it’s an opinion that is desired, bring the workshop photo in as a print and pass it around amongst experienced members to get feedback but keep it out of a competition. If a competition is not the be all and end all, why the need to enter an image made at a workshop? To go back to the first sentence of this paragraph, with the purpose of the club being to educate, then let’s adhere to it. Apply the situation the workshop taught you and put it to use with your own set up so that there is no doubt as to whose photo it is.
e) The decision as to when to click the shutter has very little impact if a workshop subject is inanimate or if a professional model is brought in who can sustain a million dollar smile for hours on end. It really removes the decisive moment aspect. It would be great if an FCC member attends a workshop, recreates the shoot and brings in his or her own models using his or her own lights, backgrounds etc. – then it drastically changes. As I read in the responses I received, it should be a learning experience – not a plug in your camera experience. The resulting image has no bearing on what you learned other than using it as a reference to create your own situation.
f) A response that was brought up was the Creative Shooters Group. While it may be gray in effect, in that there is no official leader and everyone contributes their lights, materials, props etc., I don’t take issue with it. If on the other hand, one person in the group does all the work and the rest of the group’s members simply plug themselves into a PC cord or something to the effect, then it’s the same as a workshop photo.
g) Perhaps we could have a meeting night, not a competition, dedicated to images taken at a workshop where the members would not only have the opportunity to receive feedback but discuss the workshop, what they learned and perhaps even do a demo. Now that would be educational.
Additionally, each participating member would receive the desired feedback about the photo.
h) With regards to Judy’s question, trip shots are fair game in that there’s nothing set up. The light is the light. If the workshop leader had control over natural light, that would be omnipotent. On the other hand, if the workshop leader set the shot up on the tripod, that’s another thing. This is where the ethic of the photographer enters the equation. The key to this whole discussion is the aspect of going to a workshop where the set up shot is made under controlled conditions including models, lights etc.
The bottom line is we’re all members of FCC to further our photographic knowledge and to be able to take our photography to the next level. To me, there’s just something unethical about claiming a photo is yours when everything has been done for you. It’s not about receiving glory for someone else’s work and taking credit for it via the simple fact you were the one to press the shutter. It’s about each of us learning from what we’re taught and applying it to our own situations. If I teach someone the concept of selective focus and demonstrate it using a flower where I procure the blossom, set it up, put the camera on a tripod, light it, and create an out of focus background and have a random person simply press the shutter, I ask of you this question – Ethically, whose image is it? If you can honestly claim it as your own, please don’t admit it to me.
I hope the above gives you some insight over a topic about which I’ve bit my upper lip for too long. I fully agree with Joe’s response that the principal behind what Cliff brought up be stated. I further support doing something about it as evidenced by what I have above.
From Dick York:
My take on competition rules is to go by the KISS (keep it simple stupid) principle. Yes, you need some basic overall rules and guidelines, but don’t go too far and take the fun out of competitions with more restrictions and complications. When you have to refer to a rules sheet before entering your images so you don’t break some rule it’s gotten too complicated. There should be few enough rules so everyone knows them, is comfortable with them, and should not need to fight over their interpretations and enforcements. This is not what this club is about.
Since Focus started we’ve shot tabletop set ups and portrait models at club meetings and other locations, and went on field trips shooting the same still lifes, landscapes and animals. Participants enjoyed themselves and entered some of their images in club competitions. It’s never been a problem before. What’s different now? In a tabletop set-up, hardly two photographers will shoot from the same spot with the same lens, the same selective focus, much less edit the image the same way. In shooting a model each photographer has a chance to do some directing of poses, expressions, clothing accessories, camera positioning and lighting. One would be hard pressed to exactly duplicate someone else’s image. Same type of thinking applies to outdoor photography. We don’t want to discourage field trips or group shoots either. Most club members shoot for competitions as a hobby.
Take a look at the competition rules that we already have instead. Try making a list. There may already be too many as it is. Some should have been left behind in the 20th century with film. For example, when only the minority of people had darkrooms and had the resources and time to create/manipulate images, we used to push people to go out and take lots of pictures to stay in the game. In the digital age this has reversed. Image capture is now just one of the steps in the overall workflow. Most of us spend more time creating our images at home than spending a lot of time and money traveling to build up huge inventories that will never be used for anything. Our digital image captures can go a lot farther than film ever did.
Another example might be the elimination of an image from future competitions if it gets a score of 8 or higher, but not an award. We all now know that all judges are subjective in one way or another, to one degree or another. You may spend lots of travel time, money, or editing time on an image. You enter it in a competion thinking that it’s a sure winner. Then some rookie or incompetent judge gives it an 8 or a 9, and all is lost. If you could re-enter it for another judge you may get a 1st or 2nd place. Most clubs’ rules knock out an image only if it’s a winner, the image only gets to win once. These are just a couple examples, there are others that need to be looked at as well instead of creating more rules. Lets try to simplify and give people more freedom, not restrict or complicate things.
Im in agreement with Craig and Dick, I simply do not think a rule is needed. I too was at the class that Cliff mentioned, and although the lighting was set up, focal length, some angle changes, expressions, all were up to photographer to capture, so it was not exactly the instructors camera on the instructors tripod with instructors lightning…simply swapping out cards. Really, if we exclude a class like Cliff and I went to, then tours such as what Russ offers are become at best grey, and at worst excluded (NO I do not want that, the images are great from Russ’s tours from everyone)…. I think it is a fine line… However, simple is best, keep the club fun without a rules sheet for each competition. I have no issues with club members entering images from classes, or workshops, or photo tours, its all fun! If a photographer feels in his heart he shouldnt enter as it was 100% setup by someone else, then let the photographers own value system determine if he enters or not. I do not see it as a problem and feel its best to leave well enough alone!
I took a flower photography workshop last spring. I got two really great shots. One was of a flower the professional’s wife had purchased. I did the entire set-up, decided on where to put it within a large home for best light, created a background, and did all camera settings myself – no one else was even around. I think of it as mine.
The second one was the same flower taken outside with a lot of help from a professsional portrait photographer. He held the flash units for me, did the placement of the flower, helped me with the camera settings, etc. I consider it his, even though I snapped the shutter.
Both were taken in a workshop, and I would be very disappointed to lose the ability to enter the first one in a competition.
Jan Cabral
To answer Jan’s post:
You sum it up correctly – If you did the work it is OK for competition. The first image you took is your work – no question about it.
The one in which the instructor did most of the work should be considered a learning experience, but creatively, it really is not your work – as you correctly point out.
So you would NOT lose the ability to enter #1.
Cliff
Basically, I agree with Cliff. However, if Russ Burden’s rule (#1 above) is adopted, neither shot would be eligible. I think that would be unreasonable. Under our current rules, both shots are eligible. I think that it should always be up to the maker’s integrity as to whether a shot is eligible for competition in our club.
I’d like to throw my 2-cents into the mix, realizing that it is worth about that amount. In art galleries, etc. class/workshop creations (unless completely at the hand of the artist without subject selection/composition and design/major suggestions by the instructor) are not considered original works of art. Yes, the pieces are done by the artist hand, but the design/composition is often not. Some competitions care about the topic and some do not; however, when it comes to selling a piece, class works are not originals and should not be indicated as original artwork, as this IS a violation of the designer/instructor/teachers copyright. Watch where you go here — copyright law is extremely tricky and the photographic world is no exception. If it were blanketly true that any photo you click is “your original” it would be easy. Examples that do not meet this: shooting a photo of someone elses “photo” or other artwork; photos of private property and photos of people (technically must have written releases); if the instructor has a significant hand in the design/composition then the work is an adaptation — not yours as an original. I think the point is that we want to respect the instructors that we have and give them fair credit where credit is due. I would hope that most of us click enough images independent of classes that we come up with some great stuff on our own (and I must say that I have definitely seen this at Focus). I, personally, agree in ethics with Cliff and Russ.
As far as our competitions, however, I don’t know if it really matters, since there is no financial impact on the originator (this is really what constitutes a copyright violation) and it certainly falls under the category of fair use as an educational tool. I don’t think it is worth fighting over for our competitions — for those that involve money or re-sales, then the photographer should care. I do think that in competition, that the discussion should include that this was part of a class and how much the photographer did on their own.
You got my 2-cents — don’t spend it all in one place!
Since Russ has written the most on this subject I wonder where you would draw the line with regard to your many classes or guided photo tours. On your Hunts Mesa tour I’m sure that you help suggest not only camera placement, shutter speed, etc, etc. Should these images then be precluded from competition? I think not.
I feel that Craig and Dick have both expressed fair and logical aproaches – make workshops a learning experience. Lets not be burdened with excessive rules.
I think Jan sums it up well with the flower workshop example. Cliff and Dick make good points, and I agree, we should not need to inject too many rules, we are hear for fun and learning. As Tim said, I would hope we could just trust in our fellow members personal ethics to guide their judgement on entries, and continue to enjoy the competitions. I would love to take one of Russ’s tours soon, but would hate to be unable to enter the photos taken there!
Actually, Russ was careful to frame the rule to allow shots taken on his tours. The shots that are excluded are primarily studio shots where the instructor set up the lights, made the composition, framed the shot with your camera and set the focus. This is in line with the general attitude at Focus against studio shots.
The rule that I use for myself (therefore not official) is that if I controlled my camera and lights (whether mine or the studio’s) and made the composition for a studio shot, it’s my shot and therefore “legal” for Focus CC competition. Other camera clubs and certainly some sponsored competitions have different rules, of course.
Craig