ANSWERED:Give Concept Creators Credit In-Site

[Cecona]

Who is saying conceptors shouldn't get credit? It looks to me like pretty positive feedback on the idea. There are a few cautions.

Someone was saying that it takes no talent to make a concept and that a solution for this was to only allow spriters to make dragon concepts. They basically said that being a concept creator means nothing and there for deserves no credit.

[Fuzzbucket]

Someone was saying that it takes no talent to make a concept and that a solution for this was to only allow spriters to make dragon concepts. They basically said that being a concept creator means nothing and there for deserves no credit.

 

That's rather shocking.

[Guillotine]

 

That's rather shocking.

The only time I can see an attitude like that being viable (and it's still rude as hell) is if the concept creator posted a very barebones concept and then vanished into the aether, and I'm pretty sure that the new guidelines don't allow for topics like that to be posted anymore (and I'm also pretty sure that they wouldn't get to the point of even a sketch anyway). The vast majority of completed dragons that I've looked at have been fairly detailed, so there's no reason to not credit the conceptor if they didn't make the sketch or sprite.

[DigitalGarden]

Someone was saying that it takes no talent to make a concept and that a solution for this was to only allow spriters to make dragon concepts. They basically said that being a concept creator means nothing and there for deserves no credit.

Then they have never had a major art block that doesn't let an artist/conceptor to even make logical and nice-looking (correctly built sentences, choice of words, etc.) dragon descriptions... Heck, even without an art block on the way it isn't easy in many cases. It. Requires. Some. Effort. ._.

 

 

/approves crediting concept creators, reasons have been already said before multiple times.

[Syphoneira]

Good point, but the concept itself is a creative work of imagination grounded by logical feasibility within its own fantasy-world framework.

 

That alone merits credit, not merely the description itself, which typically details only a portion of the background built behind the well-fleshed concept.

 

 

Edit: should have added that space considerations must affect what's used in the description actually used on each sprite's page.

Edited September 15, 2013 by Syphoneira

[Drakefyre]

I think conceptors should be credited. Quite a few of our dragons wouldn't exist if the only conceptors were the spriters, but the spriers get all the credit! I'm not saying that the spriters shouldn't get any credit, just that they should share a bit with the not-so-artistic conceptors.

[skauble]

I think conceptors should be credited. Quite a few of our dragons wouldn't exist if the only conceptors were the spriters, but the spriers get all the credit! I'm not saying that the spriters shouldn't get any credit, just that they should share a bit with the not-so-artistic conceptors.

Although I support this suggestion and offered an idea as to how it might be done, I just want to point out that the artists are not necessarily receiving credit as much as that's most likely simply a byproduct of the fact that the ownership of their art is being established via the copyright note. Which means two things:

 

1. This very likely isn't a case of anyone being left out or one group favored over another, but rather one group needing to be listed for other reasons (copyright), and so those are the names shown.

 

2. The currently used space being for the purpose of establishing ownership could be the very reason that conceptors can't be there. The law allows for things like rights and ownership to be established in many rather roundabout ways, and businesses are often very careful about matters like this...which is why it's lucrative to be in business law.

 

That's why I think that there's a good chance that the current lack of in-cave conceptor credit has little to do with denying them recognition, and may be more about the kind of gray areas that a lot of people running small businesses/independent projects encounter. It's also why I think that "credit", as opposed to the ownership establishment, may need to take place somewhere other than the dragon page, and it may end up having to be outside of the cave.

 

I'm just not sure we can say that artist copyright = credit and appreciation and that conceptors are, therefore, being excluded, when that's not necessarily the purpose of having the copyright there at all.

[Fiona]

You put that very well, skauble. I haven't heard any official say about the matter, but I do know that copyright issues mean artists have to be on the dragons' pages.

 

A suggestion was made to put each dragon breed on a thread in a Dragon Details type section, with something that said who the concept creator was. While I'm not sure that's totally sufficient, at least it would give recognition to the people who came up with the concepts.

 

There currently aren't very many breeds that users who are not the artist came up with the concepts. That will probably change though, as the way Requests has changed means that people are coming up with detailed concepts when they post the thread.

[Obscure_Trash]

A suggestion was made to put each dragon breed on a thread in a Dragon Details type section, with something that said who the concept creator was. While I'm not sure that's totally sufficient, at least it would give recognition to the people who came up with the concepts.

http://forums.dragcave.net/index.php?showt...dpost&p=2322389 I don't know who did a lot of the concepts, though, so it's fairly empty.

 

~

 

I will say that I think in DR people will need to be more clear over who actually did the concept and if people they are giving description credits to simply did editing or helped flesh the concept out. I've helped edit quite a few descriptions, and people kindly listed my name as thanks, but I definitely wouldn't deserve conceptor credit for those. x3

[Fiona]

What was suggested for the dragon breeds went beyond jus who did what, to giving more details about the different breeds. It would be a place for conceptors to talk about that breed and what was different or special about it. I think we'd need a TJ ok for it though, since just making a thread in Site Discussion probably wouldn't be sufficient. I did post in that thread though mentioning who did some concepts.

[Completely Different]

^ I agree that something like this would be very nice. I think most people recognize the legal greyness around this area and the lack of credit isn't borne out of ill-will, but simple feasibility. I'd be more than happy with a listing on the forums (and an extra sub-forum to give extra info sounds amazing). <3

 

That said, I totally understand what Sock means about the difficulty about working out who gets credit, which is why I think doing this retroactively is very difficult, and maybe not feasible. I mean, going back to really old concepts (before the quality restrictions were put in) will be nearly impossible, and even more recent ones could be difficult to assess.

 

I personally think just instating it from a date moving forward would be okay. When I and other conceptors previously made concepts, we knew we weren't getting credit and agreed to it, so its not like anything has changed, and this would allow new rules to put in place to easily determine who the conceptors (and maybe description writers? IDK) are.

 

Edit: Just realized we do have credit, just in the Official Arts Usage Forum, so concept creators don't go completely unacknowledged.

Edited September 17, 2013 by Completely Different

[Firebirdwyvern]

I support this. I would love people to know who actually thought up the dragon and the conceptors are the ones who pulls the dragon's strings.

 

We know their behavior, their history as a breed. It's the CONCEPTORS who know the dragons, the spriters just brought the dragon to life in a sprite. I do give credit to people who helped me spruce up the descriptions, but I would like to be recognized for having come up with a idea.

 

The Conceptor is the real owner and they know the dragon as a whole. They know what it acts like and the background information. We should be able to be thanked for contributing a idea that nobody had thought about, not pushed into the back due to our lack of drawing or spriting skills.

 

But I do like Fi's suggestion, I love reading background info on dragons. Although my dragons might be portrayed different from those standards. I love fun facts, they are just so interesting to read and they do give you a in depth look into the dragon's workings.

[Syphoneira]

What's wrong with a live Conceptors link leading to an information page being given under the copyright?

 

Wouldn't take much room, or create confusion, since the conceptor would be clearly identified as such, and, where different from the spriter(s)/sketcher(s), all this could be clarified, as well as background info provided on the dragon.

[TJ09]

I don't see the real need for this. As others have pointed out, the artist names are there for copyright purposes. Idea people don't hold copyright over any tangible item like artists do with sprites, so they don't appear in the copyright notice. That's all there is to it.

 

As for the idea of more recognition of concept creators: there's already plans underway for that. This specific recommendation for implementation, however, is flawed.