I understand that one of the animations in the "Robot" round used models
taken directly off of the Lightwave CD-ROM, without attribution in the
.txt file, which is required by the contest rules.  The animation in
question didn't win anything.

What's going to be done as a consequence of this?  As I see things,
these options are available:

1)  Do nothing.  This is unfair to the people who submitted only their
own work, and to those who gave credit where credit was due.

2)  Handicap the score awarded by the judges.  Subtract a flat amount
from the artist's score.  Still might not be fair, especially since it
will still influence the judges' perceptions of the other entrants.

3)  Disqualify the animation.  Specifically, leave the submission on
the viewing page, but disallow any votes to be made for it.  Good and
fair, except that again it has the same problem as option two.

4)  Delete the animation from the IRTC server.  Pretend it never
happened.  This prevents tainted work from influencing the vote.

I leave this up to further deabte.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

The Yodeling Veterinarian of the Alps wrote:
> 
> I understand that one of the animations in the "Robot" round used models
> taken directly off of the Lightwave CD-ROM, without attribution in the
> .txt file, which is required by the contest rules.  The animation in
> question didn't win anything.
> 
> What's going to be done as a consequence of this?  As I see things,
> these options are available:
> 
> 1)  Do nothing.  This is unfair to the people who submitted only their
> own work, and to those who gave credit where credit was due.
> 
> 2)  Handicap the score awarded by the judges.  Subtract a flat amount
> from the artist's score.  Still might not be fair, especially since it
> will still influence the judges' perceptions of the other entrants.
> 
> 3)  Disqualify the animation.  Specifically, leave the submission on
> the viewing page, but disallow any votes to be made for it.  Good and
> fair, except that again it has the same problem as option two.
> 
> 4)  Delete the animation from the IRTC server.  Pretend it never
> happened.  This prevents tainted work from influencing the vote.
> 
> I leave this up to further deabte.
> 

I wouldn't like the issue 4 : Afterall, even if the models were taken
 from somewhere, the animation might be original.

Obviously issue 1 is not the right solution. Unless the omission was
not intentional. 

I would go a for something between 2 and 3, and yet more radical :
 allow vote and comment on all entries, but then disqualify
 the offending entry from any prizes (including merits, not only first
  place) and give it the last rank (whatever its score).
 It would still drag the quality up, showing what can be done to
 all the people, but their would be no benefit for the author
 (and keeping the entries will remind them forever what may
 have been their score and the great impression they did, if only
 they haven't cheated...)

 Of course the offense must be verified before applying such 
 a punition. I think for an animation, it may apply to the main 
 character but a tolerance should exist for a small secondary object 
 whose appearence is only during a small part of the movie.

Or do you intend to inforce a zero-tolerance ? What if the author
 just forget to write that the framed picture in the corridor,
 which is seen only during 1/20 of the movie, was taken from
 a demo-scene of the POV distribution, whereas s/he has given
 credit for about twenty macros and about fifty objects ?

Post a reply to this message

J. Grimbert <jgr### [at] atos-groupcom> wrote:
: Or do you intend to inforce a zero-tolerance ? What if the author
:  just forget to write that the framed picture in the corridor,
:  which is seen only during 1/20 of the movie, was taken from
:  a demo-scene of the POV distribution, whereas s/he has given
:  credit for about twenty macros and about fifty objects ?

  This kind of person should immediately be disqualified and banned from
the IRTC for the rest of his/her life and put into public shame!
  ;)

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

J. Grimbert wrote:
> 
> The Yodeling Veterinarian of the Alps wrote:
> >
> > I understand that one of the animations in the "Robot" round used
> > models taken directly off of the Lightwave CD-ROM, without
> > attribution in the .txt file, which is required by the contest
> > rules.  The animation in question didn't win anything.

> I wouldn't like the issue 4: Afterall, even if the models were taken
> from somewhere, the animation might be original.
> 
> Obviously issue 1 is not the right solution. Unless the omission was
> not intentional.
> 
> I would go a for something between 2 and 3, and yet more radical :
>  allow vote and comment on all entries, but then disqualify
>  the offending entry from any prizes (including merits, not only first
>   place) and give it the last rank (whatever its score).
>  It would still drag the quality up, showing what can be done to
>  all the people, but their would be no benefit for the author
>  (and keeping the entries will remind them forever what may
>  have been their score and the great impression they did, if only
>  they haven't cheated...)
> 
>  Of course the offense must be verified before applying such
>  a punition. I think for an animation, it may apply to the main
>  character but a tolerance should exist for a small secondary object
>  whose appearence is only during a small part of the movie.
>
> Or do you intend to inforce a zero-tolerance ? What if the author
>  just forget to write that the framed picture in the corridor,
>  which is seen only during 1/20 of the movie, was taken from
>  a demo-scene of the POV distribution, whereas s/he has given
>  credit for about twenty macros and about fifty objects ?

I'm primarily concerned about the legal problems this could create.
An omission on the part of the artist might not be noticed until
after the IRTC started selling the CD-ROM that contained it, at which
point it could land the IRTC people in court.

Consider the print media.  If you have ever plagiarized someone's work
for commercial publication, no publisher will ever deal with you again.
Even if it was an accident, it means that you have failed to exercise
the necessary degree of care when using other people's work.  How is the
publisher to know that another such failure won't happen again?

Okay, so the IRTC gets hauled into court and doesn't get hit for a huge
judgment.  I betcha they still can't afford the legal fees.

Is zero-tolerance too strict?  If nothing else will make the people
here take intellectual property issues seriously, then no.

If the IRTC people think it's important enough, they can ask for
specific confirmation that each entrant is the creator of each and
every object for which no credit is given.

Regards,
John
-- 
ICQ: 46085459

Post a reply to this message

If I read the .txt's correctly, no *winners* used Lightwave, so the issue is
a moot one. Also, the injustice here is proportional to the cash value of
the awards, no? ;-)

I used Animation:Master to make models.   I probably spent a month each on
models & action/movement/plot and then 2 weeks on realistic lighting,
scenery & textures.  I felt more pride here than if I were to have used
Poser figures and spent 2 months on realistic lighting, scenery, &
textures.  I probably deserve a lower score for poorer lighting, scenery,
and textures, so it is an issue of personal satisfaction.  All are necessary
to a good story, especially if you ever wanted to make a TV commercial.

As for the options, 1) doing nothing, 4) outright deletion, and 2)
handicapping the score are unworkable.  Yes, disqualify at the judges
discretion, depending on how bad it is.  I think if I used a Mickey
Mouse(TM) image in a picture frame in a corner which was a photocopy of a
copyrighted image, it'd be disqualifiable.

We are all really complaining about the same thing.  This thread is about
unattributed use of  canned models; I've been griping about a similar
problem, possible dumping of pre-existing portfolio pieces.  There is
something "less remarkable" indeed about entries which use Poser figures,
characters from previous rounds, publicly available povray- blob-men, and
models off of any CD-ROM.  The judging, however, does not seem to think so.
In the words of Stuart Smalley, "and that's OK!"

I think the solution, friends and colleagues, is eclectic topics!  If not
JFK then "Lewis & Clark", "Dukes of Hazzard" , "Surfboarding" ,
"Strothimimus",  etc.

I would love to compete in a contest where everything had to be from scratch
each time (exactly what the spirit of "originally for the IRTC" means to
me).   In previous objections to this line of attack, people have basically
said, "No that topic is bad because then people would have to make some
original material from scratch!"  [Surely, many winners, such as  HED's
"Traffic" and no13's "Pearl Harbor," are miraculous in every measure and
unquestionably from scratch.]  And I guess that is why I will always be just
a dabbler, because I'd rather throw a cool model at the viewer with merely a
pigment than take a pre-existing model and caress it with hours of texture &
lighting development.  I probably won't win contests or achieve my dream of
making commercials, but I'll have fun dreaming...

Keep on truckin...

The Yodeling Veterinarian of the Alps wrote:

> I understand that one of the animations in the "Robot" round used models
> taken directly off of the Lightwave CD-ROM, without attribution in the
> .txt file, which is required by the contest rules.  The animation in
> question didn't win anything.
>
> What's going to be done as a consequence of this?  As I see things,
> these options are available:



> Regards,
> John

Post a reply to this message

"Greg M. Johnson" wrote:
> 
> If I read the .txt's correctly, no *winners* used Lightwave, so the issue is
> a moot one. Also, the injustice here is proportional to the cash value of
> the awards, no? ;-)
> 

I may sligthly disagree here: the injustice may also be proportional
to the EGO-BOOST of the competitors.
Some people do not work directly for the awards, but to please themself
and show to the whole world what they can do.
And for some of them, getting the 14th place instead of the 15th on
a list of 29 might do a great difference.
Moreover, ego-boostees tend to participate in many rounds, and may
get a great satisfaction when their rating and rank evolve in the
good direction.

There may be a prejudice for them if uncredited port-folios are used.
(I thinks it's Ok for credited port-folios, as the ego-boostees can
still get some pride for having done all the hard-work rather than
having resorted to the canned solution: the canned solution user will
not be better on a different subjet, s/he is just a button-pusher,
not a real doer like the ego-boostee. :-)



> 
[SNIP]
> As for the options, 1) doing nothing, 4) outright deletion, and 2)
> handicapping the score are unworkable.  Yes, disqualify at the judges
> discretion, depending on how bad it is.  I think if I used a Mickey
> Mouse(TM) image in a picture frame in a corner which was a photocopy of a
> copyrighted image, it'd be disqualifiable.

Only if you do not give the credit ?
What about an animation having a McDonald driving. With the M symbol.
The trademark would apply wether you create the M yourself or you take
it from someone else (even canned from a distribution).

[On the horror still competition, there is a nice caricature, 
will you disqualify it for use (and misuse) of trademarked symbols ?
Which laws should you apply ? For instance, in France, the use of
symbols for humourous purpose is possible, whereas the same use for
commercial purpose would required an authorisation from the symbol's owner.
 (it's more complex than that, but I hope you see the possible problem
 for the IRTC...)

> 
> We are all really complaining about the same thing.  This thread is about
> unattributed use of  canned models; 

YES, the keyword here is "unattributed".

> I've been griping about a similar
> problem, possible dumping of pre-existing portfolio pieces.  There is
> something "less remarkable" indeed about entries which use Poser figures,
> characters from previous rounds, publicly available povray- blob-men, and
> models off of any CD-ROM.  The judging, however, does not seem to think so.
> In the words of Stuart Smalley, "and that's OK!"

This is subject to personal feeling: I think that adding the constraint
of a reccurrent character may make the thing more remarkable 
(I'm expecting it now on every round ! :-)
Of course, using Poser and the like is just going the easy way.


> 
> I think the solution, friends and colleagues, is eclectic topics!  If not
> JFK then "Lewis & Clark", "Dukes of Hazzard" , "Surfboarding" ,
> "Strothimimus",  etc.

Well, I sincerely hope one of the next round will be JFK !
For "Lewis & Clark" and "Dukes of Hazzard", it would raised a copyright issue.

> 
> I would love to compete in a contest where everything had to be from scratch
> each time (exactly what the spirit of "originally for the IRTC" means to
> me).  

Where "everything could be done from scratch each time" would please me.
But this may reduce the number of competitors and the quality of the entries.
I think it's a question of balance between attracting beginners and 
professionals-level. Too much canned things will leave no hope for the
from-scratch doers, whereas banning the canned things would make
the realisation of some smart ideas very difficult.

Don't forget there is only 3 months to do an animation. That may
sometime be very short. 

> In previous objections to this line of attack, people have basically
> said, "No that topic is bad because then people would have to make some
> original material from scratch!"
 
Disqualifying a topic on this ground is unfair. 
All topics should have a chance ;-)

The interest of a topic may be related to the variation it may allow.

Post a reply to this message