Sistine Chapel Ceiling
 

A story in "Image of the Day" regarding the cleaning of Michaelangelo's "David" included a link to a commentary about the cleaning.

The author comments that: He's wrong, of course. A cleaned ceiling reveals the work as it is meant to be seen and thus brings us closer to both the artist and his work and therefore its meaning.

Here is a photo of the Sistine Chapel ceiling, taken by me on October 22, 2003.

Beautiful. Thanks for posting.

All that nakedness that can't be seen by someone wearing a short skirt.:rolleyes:

Further cleaning has revealed the origin of the world's oldest gag.

- Bad MS Paint picture, long way to go for bad gag. i.e. removed at request of Arz -

Hey Uryoces
 

Please don't fuck with my photos.

It was extremely uncool when NTN did it to another one of mine, but I kept my mouth shut that time. Not this time; I request that you remove your post.

Arz, I removed the picture that I modified, (it was a "Pull my finger" gag with God reaching out ot Adam), it was a long way to go for a bad gag, and not well done, so I have no issue with removing it.

However, You did post a photo in an open forum for public consumption, with no indication of copyright, other than to say "Here is a picture I took." If you are that serious about your art, this may not be the place to post such things. This is especially true knowing half the loonies running around here.

No harm intended.

[edit] I'm also not going to say anything about your choice of language, considering the relaxed atmosphere.

Thanks, Uryoces. And sorry about the f word, but I was very annoyed.

...


In the US, copyright is now implied; I don't have to directly state it to claim it.

And, given the "community spirit" (aka "relaxed atmosphere") of The Cellar, I shouldn't have to expect that others will take a (admittedly a low-resolution JPEG) copy of one of my images, "mess" with it and then post the messed-with version as a joke.

And yet it has happened twice now, which I think really sucks for a lot of reasons, some of which have to do with my inflated opinion of my own artistic abilities relative to a lot of what gets posted here as a "quality" image.

Yes, this is a hot-button issue for me. :(

Arz, I would suggest to you that part of the "Community Spirit" or "Relaxed Atmosphere" of the Cellar is that people here feel comfortable enough with each other to joke around now and then. You "kept your mouth shut" the first time, and its not really fair to fly off the handle when its done the second time. You created the precedent.

Regardless. If you don't want humour inserted into the thread at your expense of your pictures, your best bet is to not post them at all. It would be a shame, but its the only way to ensure it never happens. People rib each other from time to time. Especially in a relaxed environment where we all know each other. I imagine people will avoid editing your pictures in future because of this post, but they probably won't forget why.

In other words, forget about it. We're all friends here (most of us, anyways. I fucking hate that Dave guy :) ).

I found the melted-case copy of Rallisport Challenge too. That's 2 Xbox games I'm offering you, both of which got 9+ ratings on IGN. PM me your address, fool.

And arz, being that you seem familiar with copyright law, you're aware of the parody exception, I'm sure. Meaning that you can ask nicely to have the modified image removed, but you have no legal basis to do so.

I just wanted to point that out for those that weren't aware.

(I didn't see it, but I've seen the "pull my finger" gag about a million times, so whatever. I guess maybe some of my photos I wouldn't want being messed with, but I wouldn't post them if that were the case. I think you post good images, so I encourage you to keep posting; I don't have the time or the interest to muck with them, but obviously others do. I'd suggest you just lighten up, dude. No one thinks your stuff sucks - they just see an opportunity to be funny with it at times. I look at it as adding value to your photo, albeit in a different way. So whereas your picture of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is awesome and inspiring in an art sense, it can also be funny as well. See, to me, that's a bonus.)

Uh, no. My added value was a hack job. :p

perth,
You're absolutely correct on that. I will keep that in the frontmost of my mind the next time I ponder posting an image.

So is that "I'm mad so I'm taking my ball and going home" or is that a realisation that no one means any harm by it? I don't want it to be misinterpreted. :)

Seriously, we all get ribbed from time to time. It would be a shame for you to stop posting your photos because of this, they are very interesting and I am sure I'm not the only one who enjoys seeing them.

If you don't want people to edit them, thats fine. You said as much. And now everyone knows. But you have also created the perception that you can't take a joke.

Welcome arz, you must be new here on the Internet. In case you didn't notice the sign next to the door on the way in, one of the warnings reads:

"Whatsoever you place on the Internet may become subject to scrutiny, criticism, and/or parody. Contribute at your own emotional risk."

Luckily, we're all friends here and any such scrutiny, criticism, and/or parody are done in a friendly manner. Nice photo, by the way. Keep 'em coming.

If you've been reading The Cellar for a while, you may have noticed it's pretty much a given that if an interesting (or uninteresting) photo is posted here, even if NOT in the photoshop phrenzy phorum (sorry), it's gonna get played with.

And usually in a rather creative, clever way.

(hey, I thought the "pull my finger" gag was funny, but then I am easily amused.)

It's one of those things that passes as an honor around here, yah know?

You do realize just how incredibly stupid you are posting this, right? You also realize that your browser automaticly creates a copy of every single image you ever see, right? I mean, let's get real here, you do not actually get the "real version" of the image when you send an image some place.

As such, by linking it, you're automaticly handing everyone who loads the page a copy of said image. If I sit here and press F5 all day long, I'm creating myself as many copies of your image as I want to. Furthermore, there's nothing you can do about it.

Once you post it, you no longer have any control of it. Don't believe me? Post (insert random file here) to a P2P app, give it a day, and then try to take it back, or "unshare" it. You can't. You're screwed. Once someone has a copy of it, they can do whatever the hell they want to it, and you can't do jack to stop them.

Liken this to "leaked" movies. Once they're posted, nothing is going to stop it. It's out, it's no longer in your control.

Welcome to the real world. As it's been pointed out, used in parody, you really have no prayer.

Besides, does it really matter that it's "your picture"? Give me .5 seconds and Google and I can have infinite pictures to work from.

Consider:

You put up a big display on your lawn.
I set a huge mirror on my lawn, and paint on it.
You look out of your window, see the mirror on my lawn, which reflects your display, but now has things "painted on it".

What you're doing is like you getting mad in the above scenario because you don't like me mirroring your image and modifying it.

Except in this case, it would be like me then photographing my "modified" image, and then displaying it.

You still can't do shit about me and what I feel like doing to "your" picture.

All that having been said, the ceiling is hardly the most impressive portion of the Chapel. Take the whole picture in. Why do people gloss over the walls of the place? They all gaze up in awe. Sure, it's great, it's a ceiling. But check out the whole place. No one ever takes pictures of the walls.

[EDIT]
Alright, I can't leave this one alone. This is just stupid.

Ok, so you post a picture on the internet, and you expect nothing at all to happen to it? Were you drunk when you thought this up, or what's your excuse? Do you expect no one to say "Hey, that's cool, I want to make it a wall paper!" save, stick as background...

Or, "Hey, that background is cool, but let me resample it so it fits better." save, resample...

So you'd get mad there too? Or is there some special copyright we're supposed to mentally absorb from you when we see the image? "Oooh, Arz says we can view this, we can even save it as our wall paper, but no resampling.!" "Oh, we can even resample, but we can't do anything 'bad' to it." "Oh, we can do 'bad' things to it, as long as they're in good taste." "Oh, they can be in somewhat poor taste too, just not bad."

I mean come on here! This is just absurd. Fucking absurd.

I have to stop now, because I could go off on this all day long on how stupid you are.
[/EDIT]

Quzah.

Not exactly. You're talking about the cache that most browsers use. The whole point of a cache is not to have to download multiple copies of something. It gets downloaded the first time. After that it is retrieved from the cache. So you can press F5 all day long, but you're only going to get one copy of the image.

I realize that this was not the main point of your post. Just wanted to correct the misconception.

Sssssh! Don't get him started on technical details of the workings of browsers. We'll be here all day!

Brian

It depends on your browser settings. Not that I'm using it, but let's take IE for example. Go into your options, and there's a little setting that tells it what to do when it goes to a page. Refresh every time, refresh once per visit, refresh never, something like that.

This also assumes you're using a cache. It's quite possible to not use a cache. With broadband, I really have no need for one, so were I to turn mine off, I wouldn't see much of a difference. Especially considering how much ram the average computer has. There's no need to disk cache it if there's ample room in ram to hold your current session.

Oops, too late.

Quzah.

Ok, there's a catch: an image can be seen as a stream of bytes, and under this definition you can argue that an image is different every time you open it in your computer (this will be true almost every time this binary stream is loaded into memory.) Also, if you change the file format (from JPG to PNG, for example) this binary stream will be entirely different, and most likely of a different size.

But you can't say an image is different just because of different meaning of storing/reading/showing it. An image is a representation, much like the letters you are reading right now are just a convention to represent ideas and concepts.

To resume the obvious, arz can safely claim that the copyright of this image belongs to him (her?.), but obviosly, that parody exception thing also apply.