 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
These entries should be disqualified:
crabsim.jpg - Completely off topic. It's clear the artist didn't read the
rules before entering. This one saddens me because I can appreciate the
work that went into it, but unfourtunately this is the wrong forum.
chrysler.jpg - Should be removed because of the large cigarette
advertisement prominently featured in the center of the scene. Tobacco
advertising is banned in several European nations and this entry opens up
the IRTC to potential legal liability. Also, smoking is the world's
leading preventable cause of death and the IRTC has no business promoting
it.
narrows*.jpg - Four identical copies of the same image. Three of them
should be cut.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Slashdolt
Subject: Re: Entries which should be removed from competition
Date: 1 May 2003 15:45:32
Message: <3eb1795c$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
CopperPin,
Generally, it's inappropriate to comment on images until after voting is
over.
I see nothing wrong with the entries that were submitted (no rules
violations), and as a result, I'm not sure if your post was simply to
provoke some of us. Please read all appropriate FAQ's.
--
Slash
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sorry for any breach in etiquette, I thought I was being helpful by pointing
out what I thought were rules violations or otherwise problematic entries.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Slashdolt
Subject: Re: Entries which should be removed from competition
Date: 1 May 2003 16:57:01
Message: <3eb18a1d$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'll agree that the Narrows entries should have been pared down. It looks
as if the artist submitted it 4 times, probably by accident.
Even so, it's not a rules violation. It's simply a dumb move on the part of
the person who submitted, since they will probably be judged badly as a
result.
--
Slash
"Copper Pin" <Cop### [at] hotmail com> wrote in message
news:web.3eb17faa52c02ef8e80df2df0@news.povray.org...
> Sorry for any breach in etiquette, I thought I was being helpful by
pointing
> out what I thought were rules violations or otherwise problematic entries.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I have to disagree with you about the cigarette advertising. It's appropriate in
this historical context, and I hardly feel an image displayed on the irtc is
going to start people smoking. I have a particular gripe about this because a
colleague of mine recently had to search through video footage of historical
motor races looking for one shot of a man smoking a pipe, because he'd been told
to remove it under cigarette advertising laws in some countries! Fair enough,
cigarettes are a terrible thing and should be removed from our culture as soon
as possible, but I think we should stop short of sanitising history.
The image is not attempting to glorify smoking, any more than it's trying to
make you want a piano, it's merely using a number of period details.
--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com
"Copper Pin" <Cop### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:web.3eb17588a5b279b0e80df2df0@news.povray.org...
> These entries should be disqualified:
>
> crabsim.jpg - Completely off topic. It's clear the artist didn't read the
> rules before entering. This one saddens me because I can appreciate the
> work that went into it, but unfourtunately this is the wrong forum.
>
> chrysler.jpg - Should be removed because of the large cigarette
> advertisement prominently featured in the center of the scene. Tobacco
> advertising is banned in several European nations and this entry opens up
> the IRTC to potential legal liability. Also, smoking is the world's
> leading preventable cause of death and the IRTC has no business promoting
> it.
>
> narrows*.jpg - Four identical copies of the same image. Three of them
> should be cut.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 01 May 2003 15:29:12 -0400, Copper Pin wrote:
> chrysler.jpg - Should be removed because of the large cigarette
> advertisement prominently featured in the center of the scene. Tobacco
> advertising is banned in several European nations and this entry opens
> up the IRTC to potential legal liability. Also, smoking is the world's
> leading preventable cause of death and the IRTC has no business
> promoting it.
>
The laws prohibit advertizing as an inducement to purchase. They only
cover people offering them for sale such as manufacturers, distributors
and retailers. A picture of an ad is not an inducement to purchase.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
As the creator of this entry, I have to disagree with your assessment
of the ad in question. It's not large, you can't even read most of
the ad copy. It's not prominent, it's presence is only incidental to
the overall subject of the image. I could have put any circa-1930 ad
there and it would not change the scene one bit. It's not even really
in the center. It's merely a period detail. People smoked like
chimneys back then and tobacco ads were everywhere. It's inclusion is
accurate and appropriate in the given historical context.
Seriously, I don't think a tiny period billboard for a brand of
cigarettes that I'm guessing hasn't been produced in 50 years is going
to encourage anyone to smoke.
On Thu, 1 May 2003 15:29:12 EDT, "Copper Pin"
<Cop### [at] hotmailcom> said:
>chrysler.jpg - Should be removed because of the large cigarette
>advertisement prominently featured in the center of the scene. Tobacco
>advertising is banned in several European nations and this entry opens up
>the IRTC to potential legal liability. Also, smoking is the world's
>leading preventable cause of death and the IRTC has no business promoting
>it.
---
Jet Jaguar
Visit my crappy home page at http://home.att.net/~chmilnir/
MSTie #54297
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Marc Jacquier
Subject: Re: Entries which should be removed from competition
Date: 2 May 2003 15:29:54
Message: <3eb2c732$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
ksf5bvo008mjp7cc3670iid85a41t3hsfe@4ax.com...
>. It's not large, you can't even read most of
> the ad copy. It's not prominent, >
I agree with you, I had to seek to find it after I read it existed.
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I agree, it is ridiculous to sanitize history. I thought things went
overboard when I heard they airbrushed out the cigarette from Paul
McCartney's hand in the "Abbey Road" album cover photo. But the difference
in this case is that this is *not* a period photo. It's a modern work, and
as such, it's bound to modern sensibilities, conventions, and laws.
Tek wrote:
>I have to disagree with you about the cigarette advertising. It's appropriate in
>this historical context, and I hardly feel an image displayed on the irtc is
>going to start people smoking. I have a particular gripe about this because a
>colleague of mine recently had to search through video footage of historical
>motor races looking for one shot of a man smoking a pipe, because he'd been told
>to remove it under cigarette advertising laws in some countries! Fair enough,
>cigarettes are a terrible thing and should be removed from our culture as soon
>as possible, but I think we should stop short of sanitising history.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
So a modern work can't depict things as they actually were? That's a
dangerous interpretation, and clearly wrong.
Copper Pin wrote:
>I agree, it is ridiculous to sanitize history. I thought things went
>overboard when I heard they airbrushed out the cigarette from Paul
>McCartney's hand in the "Abbey Road" album cover photo. But the difference
>in this case is that this is *not* a period photo. It's a modern work, and
>as such, it's bound to modern sensibilities, conventions, and laws.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
