ANSWERED:Give Concept Creators Credit In-Site

[hazeh]

Mkay. I know I've heard a lot of people (including myself) get frustrated over the lack of credit towards conceptors who make the dragons come to life in the first place.

I was browsing the site and going over some dragons breeds and looked down at the credits. I noticed there were the cave credits and the Art credits. Why not a courtesy or concept credit? It doesn't have to be a "copy right" for the conceptors, since I've been told you can't copy right an idea, but we should at LEAST be able to get credit for being able to put that dragon out there.

Besides, I would really love to know who the original creator of the dragon species were since I know a lot of them weren't just the artists. And I don't care if this is selfish, but I want people to be able to know that the dragons I create are my babies too, not just the person who did art for them.

 

^^;

 

If this is a dupe, please just merge? o wo

 

 

Idea from Skauble:

 

I support the idea that people who worked on whatever part of the dragon should get credit.  However, I don't think that the name at the bottom of the page is meant to do that, but rather to establish ownership of the art.

 

Since it doesn't seem that ownership of the concept is what's being asked for here, what I think would be fair is a link at the bottom of all the dragon pages that says "Credits" or "Contributors" or "Contributions made by" that takes people to a page where all the dragon credits are and it could be listed like:

 

Example dragon

 

Concept contributors:

 

Name

Name

Name

Name

Name

 

Art contributors:

 

Name

Name

Name

Name

 

That way there could be a list of people who contributed significantly made at the end of a suggestion thread and they could all be listed instead of TJ going back and deciding who did what.  And if someone disagrees, they can do so in that thread and simply link to the posts where they contributed before the thread is deemed finished.  If it's still contested, then TJ would have to make the determination.

 

That way, everyone gets credit and we don't have to whittle it down in case someone actually gets too much.  Even if it said:

 

Conceptors and Contributors:

 

Main conceptor:

Main conceptor:

Contributor

Contributor

 

Artists:

 

Adult:

Hatchling:

Egg:

 

Then everyone can still be credited for the work they did and it can be in cave and all in one place so it's easy to see who all helped with each particular dragon.

 

EXAMPLE: (from pillows)

 

1104 users online.

Dragon Cave Copyright © 2006-2011 T.J. Lipscomb and Techno.Dev.

Art Copyright © JereduLevenin, ParticleSoup

Concept started (or "Original Idea") by ParticleSoup

Use of this site is subject to the Terms and Conditions

 

How we're going about this:

(Suggestion by Dolphinsong)

How is this. Again TJ still decides who gets concept credit blah blah blah. In the threads that are about to move to completed section (or there already) At the bottom of the OP there is a list made of everone that helped out and beside each name, what said person helped out with. This way its all in text exactically stating how each person helped with the concept. Then TJ and go through said list and pick out those who were signifiant in creating the breed from those that did very minor additions.

Reason I suggested that way is to prevent people bickering with one another on who did enough to be worthy of credit. If they personally feel they should of gotten credit after TJ made his choices, they would have to take it up with him personally.

 

 

Quote from Sock:

DC (the forums anyway) already gives a huge amount of rights to conceptors - look at BSAs. We hold the creators word as 'the word of God' if the dragon could or couldn't do it. On this basis, I think it would be reasonable to at least give some way to people to know who did the work on fleshing out a dragon and who would know the most about what BSAs would be okay and such.

 

 

Also:

-Do not use "Tj said" or "Tj wouldn't like" as an excuse.

-Do not pull the "Tj should spend his time doing more important things" excuse.

 

Both of them are pointless and unhelpful. If you're going to post, please only post legitimate concerns with the idea overall and how it might affect gameplay negatively, if you have problems with it.

 

 

I propose that conceptors go through their dragon request threads and pick out either themselves or the other person(s) who brought the breed together and add them to a "Courtsey Concept Credit:" tab alongside other credits or the biome information. I'm going to go through and add it to my concepts now. If TJ feels that someone didn't contribute enough to the dragon breed to be considered credible for the information, then that's his decision.

 

Well said. It's not as if the request is to take something away from the spriters to give to the conceptors, it is just to add a little something for the conceptors. I really don't see why spriters should get defensive over that. it doesn't mean that we value their work any less, it's just that we also value the conceptors input.

 

Books, movies, art forms - I've seen examples in all of these areas of people stating that 'this/that/other was based on an idea/a book/a concept by...' and many authors give credit to people who have supplied even a vague outline of an idea/concept/character in a 'credits' section in the front of their books.

 

It's not really a question of whether copyright is legally possible, it's a question of truth and justice, to give credit where credit is due.

 

And in this instance, that particular dragon would never have been sprited without the concept being provided.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Shiny Hazard Sign

[Imbecamiel]

I support this! Even if it's entirely unnecessary as far as copyrights and such go, I do think that it would be a good courtesy to acknowledge the person who created the breed. And it makes sense, for those who might be looking for additional information on the dragon.

 

I do think that, if such credit is given, it should be separated from the regular artist credits, though, for clarity's sake. :3

[hazeh]

Oh, of course. It would have it's own line that read "Concept Credit: hahaiosfbasofib" below the art credits. c:

 

But yeah, there are things I've wanted to ask some conceptors, but I dunno who they are. :/ And I think this would really help with that.

 

Edit:

 

Either "Concept Credit" or "Courtesy of" to label the conceptor on-site. c:

Edited November 4, 2011 by Shiny Hazard Sign

[TLOSpyrogirl]

Actually, you CAN copyright an idea. As long as it is in tangible form, it belongs to you. But that's in general. I think here you're basically handing over the idea and any sprites to TJ who can do whatever he pleases with it. I'm not completely sure. I didn't check. But that's what I'm assuming. I'm PRETTY sure artists do have the right to say 'I don't want this on the merchandise', 'I don't want this to be used outside of the cave', etc. So maybe the spriters own it in part? Or maybe even completely?

EDIT: And, as we know, spriters have the right to ask for the sprites to be removed from the cave.

 

I'm pointing out copyright laws for anything, not the cave, though. Just in case you didn't know. :3

 

I agree with this. I think that the Spriters getting all the credit is rather unfair. Yes, I love all you spriters, you're all awesome. But without the spriters, the idea couldn't be implemented, and without people to come up with ideas, the spriters would sit idle with nothing to do. So, yeah. I completely agree that the people who come up with ideas should get just a little credit. I'm sure it must be annoying if you, say, came up with the idea for Silvers, but nobody knows who in the world you are...

Edited November 4, 2011 by TLOSpyrogirl

[Banuk]

Yes. Yes. Yes. Please.

 

Spriters aren't the only minds behind a dragon concept--it would be nice to stop treating them like they are. Give credit where credit is due and all that jazz.

 

EDIT: For those who will inevitably say, "But a conceptor should just be happy their dragon gets into the 'Cave!"...the same could be said of spriters, yet they get credit anyway.

Edited November 4, 2011 by Derranged

[Dolphinsong]

Problem is, sometimes the ones who comes up with the concept only has very little to do with the finished design, often times just a very general appearence which anyone could do. Now if they have VERY well indebth information about the concept yes I can see crediting them, but when all they did was give very general ideas... No. Heck, oftem times the one who starts it vanishes long before the sprites are even halfway done, such as the case with the diamondback wyvern I am trying to work on. Does that person deserve credit when they arn't even around to keep their idea strong and keep it from changing into something different? Or should the credit belong soley to those who actually WORKED on the art?

[stogucheme]

So many kinds of support this!

Edit:

@Dolphinsong: When you make a Dragon Request, there's a ton of info you have to add before it'll even be accepted. You need to have:

- An in depth physical description or sketch or sprite

-- Your physical description must include more than just the color of the dragon. Also think about size, shape, build, wing type and number of wings, head shape, special features (spikes, frills, fur, armor), end of the tail, etc. No sketcher or spriter likes to be bound by extremely strict restrictions, but some idea of what you’re looking for always helps inspiration.

--- Another dragons description is not a physical description. Saying your dragon has "wings like the embers" and "feet like reds" is not a description. It is a comparison and a copy. Rather, take a look at those wings that remind you of your idea and figure out why, then lay it out with words or do a quick sketch or doodle yourself.

--- Pictures as references are good and can be helpful, whether you've drawn these yourself, or grabbed it off the internet (with credits to the original artist or site). However, they are also not a stand in for a description. They can help get your point across, but you must also either sketch it yourself or describe it in your own words.

--- Just because you add a sketch or sprite into the first post doesn’t mean it has to be the one you stick with. Don’t be afraid to ask for other sketches. It’s fine to want to do it all on your own, but be prepared for serious critiquing. Nothing is ever perfect and certainly not the first time around.

- Breed description; other information on the dragon

--- Flesh out your concept. Other information about the dragon could be personality, quirks, habits, habitat, diet, mating behavior, why it’s named whatever you named it, ect. We would like to see at least a paragraph with any combination of this information.

- Biome Info

--- The biome/s the dragon will be located in need to be included somewhere in your post.

- In special cases: biological information

--- A lot of dragons have some special ability or power to do something or some odd physical feature. This is fine, but don’t expect the people who participate in the thread to think everything out for you. Have some idea of why and how your dragon is an amazing flyer without any wings whatsoever (why does the dragon need to fly if it doesn’t have any wings? Why doesn’t it just have wings instead? How is it flying without wings?). Saying that the dragon “just uses magic for all that stuff” is a cheap cop-out and won’t fly. If you are having trouble coming up with any (reasonable) explanation, feel free to PM me. If I can’t seem to help, there are a lot of people I can go discuss it with and help you come up with something. Don’t PM me if you’re just too lazy to do any research or work on your own suggestion – only if you’ve really thought about it and can’t come up with anything good or reasonable (I’ll want to see what you’ve managed to come up with so far).

- To fit into DC

--- There is a basic Medieval setting to DC (so you can imagine a timeframe), so a cyborg dragon just isn’t going to fly. Even if you give me ten pages of information on your dragon, it doesn’t fit in with DC and will not be chosen.

- References

--- If you have some color or texture in mind it helps to link an example. More importantly, if you're basing your dragon off an animal or a legend or whatnot, make sure you include a reference link or picture, because not everyone will know what you are talking about or be able to picture it right away. When people come into your request topic, it's always nice if they don't have to ask fifty questions to finally understand the concept or have an idea for a sketch.

- Readability

--- Your request needs to be understandable and readable, with some semblance of grammar and spelling. If it isn't, how can we help you get work done on it? If your request is too hard to understand or it's too confusing, you can always pop into the description proofreading thread and ask if somebody there will help you whip it into shape.

(From: http://forums.dragcave.net/index.php?showtopic=100141 )

So yeah. Don't claim the original conceptor doesn't do anything.

Edited November 4, 2011 by stogucheme

[paradoxangel]

I don't know about other conceptors, but I write excrutiatingly in-depth summaries about concepts for writers to work on. Looks, habitat, things they can and can't do, behaviour. That's more than just "it's orange and it has horns, I don't care if it can fly or not, breathe fire or not, you run with it."

 

If something of mine ever makes it in cave, I'd like to be acknowledged for partially giving the dragons life.

[Hawktalon]

My full support for this. Spriters and artists are absolutely amazing, but so are the people who imagine these dragons.

[hazeh]

Problem is, sometimes the ones who comes up with the concept only has very little to do with the finished design, often times just a very general appearence which anyone could do. Now if they have VERY well indebth information about the concept yes I can see crediting them, but when all they did was give very general ideas... No. Heck, oftem times the one who starts it vanishes long before the sprites are even halfway done, such as the case with the diamondback wyvern I am trying to work on. Does that person deserve credit when they arn't even around to keep their idea strong and keep it from changing into something different? Or should the credit belong soley to those who actually WORKED on the art?

If all the person did was give a very vague outline for the dragon or ditched the idea because it was fully developed, then no. They didn't really come up with the entire concept, so they aren't much of the conceptor any longer. It would be the person who saw though or took over the design of the dragon, their attributes, their personality, the breed quirks.

The sprites belong the artists, absolutely. But the dragon itself belongs to the person who created it. Spriters can do whatever they like with their art, that's fine. The breed behind the art, however, is not theirs if they did not come up with it on their own. ^^

Which does to say, since the art is the biggest part of the cave, the spriters will still retain their rights over what to do with said art. But if there's an issue over the dragon's breed, such as a BSA, should be left up to the conceptor completely. If they are no longer available, then it's the next person who worked on them, and then TJ if no one else.

 

The fan art I'm a bit sketchy on. Spriters make the sprites based on what the conceptor says, yes? I give very specific details when laying out the guidelines to the dragons I suggest, and I know I'm not the only one. Fan art, to me, is based on the design of the dragon given, just like a sprite is. Not a copy of the spriter's work, per se.

[Imbecamiel]

For the issue of conceptors who disappear long before it's done - maybe that could be handled similarly to the way sprite credits are, though? Credit both the person who originally came up with the idea and the person/spriter who gave it more depth and polish. It would seem to make sense to me, since we do often enough give sprite credit to people who make quite minor edits.

[hazeh]

Just to add to my earlier point, if spriters take over a concept because someone ditched, then they get added to the Concept Credit whatever thing too, alongside the art credit. ^^

[tjekan]

Does that person deserve credit when they arn't even around to keep their idea strong and keep it from changing into something different? Or should the credit belong soley to those who actually WORKED on the art?

In most contexts, it's better to err on the side of thanking everybody who made a major contribution to a project. Acknowledgments are free, and it doesn't harm anyone if a dragon creator who is no longer involved with the site happens to get thanked along with the creators who stuck their projects through to the end. :-)

[stogucheme]

In most contexts, it's better to err on the side of thanking everybody who made a major contribution to a project. Acknowledgments are free, and it doesn't harm anyone if a dragon creator who is no longer involved with the site happens to get thanked along with the creators who stuck their projects through to the end. :-)

THIS. So many kinds of this. Thank you.

[Dianacat777]

Hmm. I like that idea. Sometimes people contribute things to a dragon design and don't get credit for it anyway because they didn't really do enough. For instance, I came up with the color scheme for the neotropicals, not that I can prove that. Now, that on its lonesome isn't too much work, and I agree that that much work doesn't deserve credit... but it also accentuates the point that to get credit, you need to either be working on the version of the sketches that actually get used, or doing consistent work on the sprite that actually gets used. Which leaves a lot of room for overlooking somebody who provided sketches that weren't used, who followed the thread from the get-go and suggested features and ideas and poses for the dragon, et cetera.

 

On the flip side, I suppose the question then becomes this; when does contribution begin and 'I like this dragon' posts/basic critiquing end?

[TLOSpyrogirl]

As, I said, yeah. Plus one from me.

 

I was surprised and slightly annoyed the first time I went through the wikia and found that the people who came up with the ideas weren't mentioned on the pages. Who came up with vampires, if not TJ? Balloons? It's just an interesting thing to know.

[stogucheme]

Hmm. I like that idea. Sometimes people contribute things to a dragon design and don't get credit for it anyway because they didn't really do enough. For instance, I came up with the color scheme for the neotropicals, not that I can prove that. Now, that on its lonesome isn't too much work, and I agree that that much work doesn't deserve credit... but it also accentuates the point that to get credit, you need to either be working on the version of the sketches that actually get used, or doing consistent work on the sprite that actually gets used. Which leaves a lot of room for overlooking somebody who provided sketches that weren't used, who followed the thread from the get-go and suggested features and ideas and poses for the dragon, et cetera.

 

On the flip side, I suppose the question then becomes this; when does contribution begin and 'I like this dragon' posts/basic critiquing end?

Ah, the old 'where to draw the line?' problem. How about this?

If you came up with words or art that will actually appear in-cave, you get credit.

If you came up with the physical description of a dragon, and it was due to this description that the dragon was made (even if it looks totally different now- so long as the original wasn't just totally scrapped) you get credit.

If you came up with the breed info that lead to the creation of words that appeared in-cave, you get credit.

 

Is this fair enough?

[Fengari]

I agree that it would be good to credit the conceptors.

 

Not only because it would be nice for them to be recognised for their input, but because of the BSA thread. When discussing if a certain BSA fits a certain dragon, that actually has more to do with the concept than with the actual art. So it would be good to know who the conceptor is so you can ask their opinion.

 

But I do see the problem Dolphinsong mentions. Maybe there should be some guidelines as to what a conceptor should do to 'earn' the credits?

I'm thinking of:

- actively guiding the creation process from beginning to end

- providing a physical description as a guideline for the artists

- providing the background information about how the dragon lives and special abilities it has.

However, I don't know how this was done earlier, but I know just a vague description and 'run with it' don't get your idea into dragon requests nowadays. You have to have a pretty well worked out concept. I know because I had one refused

So I think this should warrant at least partial conceptor credits.

 

Another problem I see: what if the description texts that are used for egg, hatchlings and adults did not come from the original conceptor but from someone else who has taken an interest in the thread? What if someone suggested a minor rewording that was eventually used? Should all these people be credited too? Where do you draw the line?

Edited November 4, 2011 by Fengari

[Dianacat777]

Well, I'm not the person to ask that, but that sounds good. :3

[stogucheme]

I agree that it would be good to credit the conceptors.

 

Not only because it would be nice for them to be recognised for their input, but because of the BSA thread. When discussing if a certain BSA fits a certain dragon, that actually has more to do with the concept than with the actual art. So it would be good to know who the conceptor is so you can ask their opinion.

 

But I do see the problem Dolphinsong mentions. Maybe there should be some guidelines as to what a conceptor should do to 'earn' the credits?

I'm thinking of:

- actively guiding the creation process from beginning to end

- providing a physical description as a guideline for the artists

- providing the background information about how the dragon lives and special abilities it has.

I like what you have suggested.

 

Another problem I see: what if the description texts that are used for egg, hatchlings and adults did not come from the original conceptor but from someone else who has taken an interest in the thread? What if someone suggested a minor rewording that was eventually used? Should all these people be credited too? Where do you draw the line?

1. Then they should get credit.

2. Checking for grammar, spelling, or making minor edits that account for less than 10% of the thing you're editing should not get credit.

[annageckos]

I agree with this. I have a couple of dragon ideas I have been working on for months now, but I am reluctant to submit them. I have put a lot of time and effort into them. It is only fair to give credit to the conceptors too.

[Dolphinsong]

Have you even seen all the different requests that get through? Most if it is a VERY rough sketch that doesn't really detail what they want + a very general description of the dragon they are purposing. Almost nothing really for people to work with at times so we start drawing sketches, get crits on them to get it more to what they want, repeate several times till finally got a good enough sketch, then finally the actual spriting and bickering of colors. To me, I see it should be kept to those that actually worked on the concept (again unless the one who asked for it has a ton of information about the breed BESIDES JUST DESCRIPTION). If its only description of the dragon, not really worth it but actual information about the breed such as their habits, lifestyle, ect yeah its worth crediting them.

[olympe]

I don't know, I'm a little iffy on conceptor credits. First of all, as both a conceptor and would-be spriter, I know from personal experience that coming up with and fleshing out a concept is child's play compared to spriting (and probably sketching, which I cannot do at all). Also, the amount of time needed for spriting (and presumably sketching) far exceeds the amount of time you might use to write down everything noteworthy for your concept.

 

But let's imagine that conceptor credits are going to be given. If conceptors get credits, and several people refine and redefine a concept until it works, who gets the credit? The person who came up with the breed? The person who worked out special breeding mechanisms, color schemes and whatnot? After all, artists can get credit for something as simple as a wing redline, which can be done in less than 15 minutes (if you know what you're doing, that is).

 

Personally, I feel that conceptor credits should be treated like egg spriter credits: Right now - unless something has changed without me noticing - the artist(s) working on eggs don't get credit because it's considered not enough work. (And I spent an hour and more on trying to get an egg shaded just right - only to realize that it looked like crap.) I don't think that coming up with a concept is much more work than creating an elaborate egg, so I think that no credit for conceptors should be given.

[skinst]

This subject has been discussed before, both off forums and on in public (the thread's probably vanished now though) and basically it boiled down to the conceptors wanting access to the Artist section or their own secret section. It got messy and went nowhere, and basically the thread died without any real ideas as to what to do.

 

If a conceptor puts solid work from start to finish on their dragon without having actually put any art on it, then I do think they should be credited in some form. Some conceptors do in fact work very hard on their dragons, that much I have seen in the past.

 

However, I do not think coming up with the idea, letting spriters handle the rest, and then writing a description qualifies.

 

People who do a 15 minute redline will not get credits unless the edit was significant enough to the main artist(s) of the project. It's at their discression as to whether they get credit or not.

[Fengari]

Have you even seen all the different requests that get through? Most if it is a VERY rough sketch that doesn't really detail what they want + a very general description of the dragon they are purposing. Almost nothing really for people to work with at times so we start drawing sketches, get crits on them to get it more to what they want, repeate several times till finally got a good enough sketch, then finally the actual spriting and bickering of colors. To me, I see it should be kept to those that actually worked on the concept (again unless the one who asked for it has a ton of information about the breed BESIDES JUST DESCRIPTION). If its only description of the dragon, not really worth it but actual information about the breed such as their habits, lifestyle, ect yeah its worth crediting them.

I must admit I haven't for a while now. I decided to not follow those threads anymore because I like to be surprised.

 

When I entered mine, I did look at a few of them that came out of my search for similar ideas, and I didn't get that impression, but I believe you as you've undoubtedly seen more than I have.

 

So, if we do away with the idea that the starter of the thread should get credit anyway, could you live with credits being given if the other requirements I listed are fulfilled?

 

I would also like to add to the second one: ..., and answer questions about how they see the dragon if asked by the artists.

This because I think it is viable to leave some things unspecified to give the artists enough freedom at first, but if they need your input you should give it.

 

@Olympe: you're stating yourself that it is not right that whoever made the egg doesn't get credited while someone who spent 15 minutes on a redline does. So why not argue that the creators of the eggs AND the creators of the concept should get credit where credit is due?

 

EDIT: @skinst: I don't think getting access to the artist section is what the OP or other supporters here are after, just a little recognition for their input in creating the variety DC has to offer.

Edited November 4, 2011 by Fengari