ANSWERED:Give Concept Creators Credit In-Site

[stogucheme]

Someone proposed a theory that the conceptor/description writers would get an 'expanded' breed description, going in to far more detail about habitat, mating habits, etc. I'd like that way more than an alternate sprite.

OOH! I'd LOVE that!!! Like, Dovealove could have all those pages of info on her Skywings' pages! That would be EPIC.

 

Would it be just for one or all, though? I'd think one, personally.

Edit:

So you're saying that the only ones that will ever get in-cave are the ones made entirely by just an artist? And that there will NEVER be a single dragon in-cave that was thought up by someone who isn't an artist?

 

Again, I don't understand why people don't think conceptors deserve credit. Yes, it's true that everyone has an imagination but obviously not everything thought up something that TJ thought was worthy to go in cave. Why shouldn't they get credit for thinking up an interesting-enough idea to be in-cave out of all the other requests?

 

As for the art portion, I spoke to Haze before I ever posted my request and gave her what I wanted my dragon to look like. For my other concept, I made my own sketch to give an idea.

Now tell me, which of these is more likely to make it in cave? Even though my sketch was the best I could do?

Mine or Metalbeak's.

 

If I have an idea but lack the artistic ability to make anything beautiful out of it, why do I still not deserve credit for the idea? Does my lack of ability mean I don't deserve recognition for the rest of the breed?

Getting a little heated there, but THIS. THIS POINT RIGHT HERE.

Edited November 6, 2011 by stogucheme

[Jmm]

Someone proposed a theory that the conceptor/description writers would get an 'expanded' breed description, going in to far more detail about habitat, mating habits, etc. I'd like that way more than an alternate sprite.

I like that Idea much much better, because it suits what they did far more than an alt sprite.

[Ferus]

Someone proposed a theory that the conceptor/description writers would get an 'expanded' breed description, going in to far more detail about habitat, mating habits, etc. I'd like that way more than an alternate sprite.

This is also much more appealing to me as a writer. :3 We could know so much more about the breed. I think it would just be the one dragon though, like the spriter alts.

[BlueSkyy]

So you're saying that the only ones that will ever get in-cave are the ones made entirely by just an artist? And that there will NEVER be a single dragon in-cave that was thought up by someone who isn't an artist?

WOAH WOAH WOAH. WTF.

 

I was just being curious. As in, "How many of the current sprites have "hidden" contributors that we don't know about."

 

You read wayyy too far into that post.

Edited November 6, 2011 by BlueSkyy

[Azure]

<some text omitted>

 

If you are going to come up with an idea but contribute 0 pieces of artwork, you're basically a commissioner. (Though in this case you're not paying the artist.) You're telling the artist what you want them to do for you. And commissioners don't get to post art on DA or other art sites and claim it as their own.

 

<some text omitted>

That's entirely correct, but they aren't going to claim the ART is theirs in any shape or form. You know how art commission/request pieces, once finished, often have a little "character belongs to A" or "concept by A" next to them?

 

If you look at it that way, you could flip it on its head and say that a sufficiently detailed breed concept is a literary work of fiction and that it's the artist doing fanart, which again often credits that which birthed it.

 

Understand, however, that owning the concept is a matter of courtesy (as the OP states nicely), NOT a matter of legality. The conceptor will still have no 'power' over things, nor some amazing conceptor-only boon that the community or site owner does not choose to freely give. It's requests like that that make people balk. The idea is that you get an official 'thank you'. That's all.

 

The potential for drama aside, I do believe there should be concept credit. Who gets to decide what's significant contribution in the department is up in the air, but the idea itself is sound.

[Stromboli]

Again, I don't understand why people don't think conceptors deserve credit.

Personally, I'd be happy enough to see my dragons finally hit the cave, and to have Word of God powers regarding BSAs for them. I don't think I need it written on the page that I made the initial design, which was then very thoroughly altered and beautified to the final product by other people who did a lot more work than I.

 

I spend days on stumbleupon waiting for artists to come back with progress that I can critique (ineptly, given my lack of art background). The artists spend those days actually putting the art together.

[Ferus]

WOAH WOAH WOAH. WTF.

 

I was just being curious. As in, "How many of the current sprites have "hidden" contributors that we don't know about."

 

You read wayyy too far into that post.

Well I apologize for that then. The context made it seem as though you were saying that requests by people who don't make the art for them will never make it in-cave.

[olympe]

Taking a base image of an egg and putting a color on it isn't the work involved with the dragon, though. That's not a necessary part of the dragon itself because ANYONE can do that, and it's not a big deal at all. TJ himself made the generic egg design, didn't he? Other people are just recoloring and adding little swirlies and whatnot.

(Disclaimer: All these eggs belong to their respective owners and can be found on the dragcave wiki.) Neither of these eggs fall into the category of recolors with some added swirlies, and are quite original. So, how many of them could YOU have created, since you claim that ANYONE can do that?

 

Same goes with descriptions. That's simply taking the information from someone else and putting it into fancy sentences that sound nice. That is NOT original work. Original work is someone taking an idea, molding it, and trying to bring it to life with their own guidelines. Spriters are the ones who take that person's work and give it a polished look.

And description writers are the people who take the conceptor's work and put them into polished words.

 

Redlined a sprite? Nope.

Well, it does get credit, to be honest. At least if the changes were major ones.

 

I think some people (not everyone here, mind you. Don't take this statement personally.) just want to see their name show up on a bunch of dragons' pages because they feel like they need some kinda of public recognition to feel better about themselves. Guess what? You should be helping develop a concept or a sprite because you WANT to HELP, not because you want your name in tiny black letters at the bottom of a page.

That's exactly the impression I get.

 

Yeah, translations don't get credit.

Not true. The translator is usually mentioned in the book, and you can find their name even on amazon (if you're looking at translated books, that is).

 

Someone proposed a theory that the conceptor/description writers would get an 'expanded' breed description, going in to far more detail about habitat, mating habits, etc. I'd like that way more than an alternate sprite.

I'd rather have this kind of extended description in some kind of DC-lexicon that everyone can easily access.

[Ferus]

I may only be speaking for myself when I say this, though I doubt it, but ALL I WOULD WANT is just for someone to know whose idea the dragon breed was. And that is also what this thread is about.

 

Once again, why is that so much to ask for?

 

I think some people (not everyone here, mind you. Don't take this statement personally.) just want to see their name show up on a bunch of dragons' pages because they feel like they need some kinda of public recognition to feel better about themselves. Guess what? You should be helping develop a concept or a sprite because you WANT to HELP, not because you want your name in tiny black letters at the bottom of a page.

 

I didn't make my concepts to get my name somewhere on DC. I made them because I thought they were a good idea and that other people might like them. If all I want is for people to know where they came from, why is that a big deal? Why do the conceptors have to have some sort of self-esteem problem to want people to know whose idea the dragon was?

[stogucheme]

(Disclaimer: All these eggs belong to their respective owners and can be found on the dragcave wiki.) Neither of these eggs fall into the category of recolors with some added swirlies, and are quite original. So, how many of them could YOU have created, since you claim that ANYONE can do that?

Who claimed this? And people were just belittling the amount of work that goes into an egg, that's all.

 

Well, it does get credit, to be honest. At least if the changes were major ones.

So...people who edit sprites get credit, but the people who came up with the entire breed idea don't? Something's not right here...

 

I think some people (not everyone here, mind you. Don't take this statement personally.) just want to see their name show up on a bunch of dragons' pages because they feel like they need some kinda of public recognition to feel better about themselves. Guess what? You should be helping develop a concept or a sprite because you WANT to HELP, not because you want your name in tiny black letters at the bottom of a page.

That's exactly the impression I get.

Wasn't going to mention this, but your thing can apply to both. Why do you artists want credit so much? I mean, you want to help turn a conceptor's words into art, right? Why should it matter if you get credit?

 

This, too:

I didn't make my concepts to get my name somewhere on DC. I made them because I thought they were a good idea and that other people might like them. If all I want is for people to know where they came from, why is that a big deal? Why do the conceptors have to have some sort of self-esteem problem to want people to know whose idea the dragon was?

 

Not true. The translator is usually mentioned in the book, and you can find their name even on amazon (if you're looking at translated books, that is).

I meant someone who translates info into prose. Not one language to another.

 

I'd rather have this kind of extended description in some kind of DC-lexicon that everyone can easily access.

Well, yes, but not everyone agrees to the artbook and it'd be accessible through the conceptor's dragon's page anyway.

Edited November 6, 2011 by stogucheme

[Fuzzbucket]

I may only be speaking for myself when I say this, though I doubt it, but ALL I WOULD WANT is just for someone to know whose idea the dragon breed was. And that is also what this thread is about.

 

Once again, why is that so much to ask for?

Yes - this exactly. I'd actually like to know.

[ParticleSoup]

the only reason concepters are not listed now is because with the way Teej has it set up, he is simply including the people who the artwork is copywrite to.

 

THERE IS A VERY SIMPLE WAY TO DO THIS!

instead of all this long-winded what-appears-to-be-harshness-and-near-bickering, simply ask/suggest that the OP of the concept thread is included below the dragon's artwork.

 

EXAMPLE: (from pillows)

 

1104 users online.

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

Art Copyright © JereduLevenin, ParticleSoup

Concept started by ParticleSoup

Use of this site is subject to the Terms and Conditions

 

its not that hard.

Edited November 6, 2011 by ParticleSoup

[stogucheme]

the only reason concepters are not listed now is because with the way Teej has it set up, he is simply including the people who the artwork is copywrite to.

 

THERE IS A VERY SIMPLE WAY TO DO THIS!

instead of all this long-winded what-appears-to-be-harshness-and-near-bickering, simply ask/suggest that the OP of the concept thread is included below the dragon's artwork.

 

EXAMPLE: (from pillows)

 

1104 users online.

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

Art Copyright © JereduLevenin, ParticleSoup

Concept started by ParticleSoup

Use of this site is subject to the Terms and Conditions

 

its not that hard.

That's exactly what we've been requesting. Not gonna type more because of my temper.

[Ferus]

the only reason concepters are not listed now is because with the way Teej has it set up, he is simply including the people who the artwork is copywrite to.

 

THERE IS A VERY SIMPLE WAY TO DO THIS!

instead of all this long-winded what-appears-to-be-harshness-and-near-bickering, simply ask/suggest that the OP of the concept thread is included below the dragon's artwork.

 

EXAMPLE: (from pillows)

 

1104 users online.

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

Art Copyright © JereduLevenin, ParticleSoup

Concept started by ParticleSoup

Use of this site is subject to the Terms and Conditions

 

its not that hard.

I think this all this thread was meant to ask for. That's all I want at least, and I'm pretty sure that's what Haze meant too.

[BlueSkyy]

On a lot of sites, if you create artwork and submit it to the owner of the site, you're giving up your rights to it. TJ doesn't do that here, at least not as far as I know. It's like a joint-ownership type thing, from what I understand. Which is more than most sites do.

 

(I don't know how many of you ever played Neopets, but if you ever submitted art to them, it became their property to use as they wished. Which is why I never submitted art.)

 

Understanding all that, I think the same sort of thing applies. Here on DC, if you create a dragon but don't contribute any art, your name is not going to be mentioned anywhere on the main site. It's not because TJ's being mean, or that people don't want you to have the credit, it's just how the site works at this moment in time. If you're okay with that, go ahead and create your dragon. If you don't like those terms, you don't have to create your dragon.

 

That's not saying things can't/won't change. But if they do, it's going to be TJ's decision. I think a PM to TJ would be the best thing, rather than squabbling amonst ourselves, so you can get his opinion on the idea and whether or not it will ever be possible.

 

If TJ even accepts PMs. I dunno, I've never messaged him.

 

((Also please note: I have no idea if there are any current in-cave sprites that have conceptors who did not contribute art. On the bottom of each dragon's page, it only mentions the artists. I don't know if, say the Spotted Greenwings, have a conceptor different than the artist. I think to figure that out, one would have to go back and find the original concept thread.))

[Dr. Paine]

((Also please note: I have no idea if there are any current in-cave sprites that have conceptors who did not contribute art. On the bottom of each dragon's page, it only mentions the artists. I don't know if, say the Spotted Greenwings, have a conceptor different than the artist. I think to figure that out, one would have to go back and find the original concept thread.))

I'd like to confirm that the Flamingo Wyvern is a case where the conceptor (myself) contributed absolutely no art, and is therefore unlisted. However, I was involved with the creation start to finish, save for a few periods without internet access, and I wrote all the descriptions that made it on-site. I've also written up a more in-depth guide to the species, it's around the forums somewhere

[Dolphinsong]

There is an actual contract artists fill out with TJ when our sprites are added to the cave. This contracts states just how much rights we have to the art we submit to the site and how much control TJ has in reguards to said sprites (this covers pulling of sprites, recoloring, ect)

 

Also, TJ can and will change dragon descriptions to suit him. Neo's for example orginally had it in their description that Humans had dosmiticaed them and brought them to the jungle areas, and those that got loose and survived into the wild more or less adepted to that enviroment. TJ didn't care for the human part so he removed it.

Edited November 6, 2011 by Dolphinsong

[Fuzzbucket]

I think "original idea by" reads better than "Concept started by...."

 

Just a thought. But I do want to know.

[hazeh]

I dunno. I've always though it strange some conceptors never contribute any art toward their dragon. The least you could do is flippin' trace the parts you want from stock images and mash them together into a Franken-sketch and say, "Hey, I suck at drawing, but here's what I want this to look like. The art I referenced is property of blah-dee-blah." Even a crap-tastic Franken-sketch shows you tried.

 

Anyone can come up with ideas, honestly. We're all here because we like dragons and have some imagination. The spriters could come up with more ideas if they weren't so busy doing art for those of you who can't. tongue.gif

 

I think some people (not everyone here, mind you. Don't take this statement personally.) just want to see their name show up on a bunch of dragons' pages because they feel like they need some kinda of public recognition to feel better about themselves. Guess what? You should be helping develop a concept or a sprite because you WANT to HELP, not because you want your name in tiny black letters at the bottom of a page.

 

If you are going to come up with an idea but contribute 0 pieces of artwork, you're basically a commissioner. (Though in this case you're not paying the artist.) You're telling the artist what you want them to do for you. And commissioners don't get to post art on DA or other art sites and claim it as their own.

 

Also, this site is about the sprites. You don't post a dragon's description in your sig for other people to read and click on, you post the sprite.

 

Sorry if that was harsh/hard to read/made you mad, but that's how I feel.

 

There are plenty of people here on DC who have no means of getting their own art on the forums. Many people don't have scanners or cameras and feel too humiliated to put up some crummy scribble from a paint program. Many people can write out physical details for the artists to play around with, and that's just as acceptable as a "franken-sketch".

 

Yeah, sure, and some people want their name to show up on a art credit just because they made some minor tweak. What's the problem? Whoever is currently in charge of the concept, whether it's the OP or the artist who took over when the OP left, is the one who decides where this courtesy is due.

Like someone said, even if you get a commission, the character IS STILL YOURS. The art may not be, but the character is, and for all the artists I've seen do them, they've always explicitly stated that the character is copyright of so-and-so. Now, I'm not trying to get copyright things for these dragons. All I want is a little recognition for the people who take the time to actually hash out an idea for a dragon that happens to make it into the cave. And you know, it CAN be more than one person.

 

 

I have a dragon request right now called the Danglebottom dragon. I did a concept sketch just to show what I thought it would look like, and someone else much more talented came along and presented some great sketches. Her sketches don't look anything like mine, but they are much better than what I could have done. And no, I don't have the sprite in my signature as a link. I have member-drawn piece of art for the dragon. And no matter who works on the Danglebottom, it is still my baby, and I would appreciate that if it ever got into the cave, that others can know that without having to jump back and forth between the artists who are listed.

 

 

-egg sprites-

(Disclaimer: All these eggs belong to their respective owners and can be found on the dragcave wiki.) Neither of these eggs fall into the category of recolors with some added swirlies, and are quite original. So, how many of them could YOU have created, since you claim that ANYONE can do that?

 

I will admit that that was a hasty generalization on my part, yes. But in a sense they ARE recolors. They all used the egg template, did they not? The only ones that took much more work than normal where the ones with custom cracking sequences. The egg design is a very minimal part of the entire dragon concept, and although it was an error on my part to say "anyone" (because I honestly cannot do eggs, but then I've never tried), there are a vast number of people who can crank out a very nice looking egg within a matter of minutes. Many people are capable of this skill and the work that goes into it is very, very minimal. That was pretty much my point, I apologize for the misstatement.

 

And description writers are the people who take the conceptor's work and put them into polished words.

Yes. But like the eggs, many people are more than capable of doing that in very little time and effort. Spriters, on the other hand, put a lot of time and effort into polishing a look based off of someone else's idea and guidelines.

 

1104 users online.

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

Art Copyright © JereduLevenin, ParticleSoup

Concept started by ParticleSoup

Use of this site is subject to the Terms and Conditions

 

This is exactly what I've been trying to push for. x) Thank you, PS.

 

I'd like to know (if there's any way of finding out) how many current in-cave dragons even have "non-artistic" conceptors. That is, conceptors who didn't work on the sprite at all or contribute any sketches.

 

An excellent question that would be easily answered if there had been a concept credit from the very beginning c:

 

That's not saying things can't/won't change. But if they do, it's going to be TJ's decision. I think a PM to TJ would be the best thing, rather than squabbling amonst ourselves, so you can get his opinion on the idea and whether or not it will ever be possible.

 

If TJ even accepts PMs. I dunno, I've never messaged him.

 

No, this is why we have the topic. TJ wants to know what the members think of certain ideas before he considers implementing them, at least most of the time. That's exactly why I created this so that he could see how much support people give something that would be nice and complimentary towards the dragons he chooses to put on his website.

 

 

And honestly, I'll repeat myself. If someone made a thread for a dragon and had the basic outlines for it, and then left so that the artist got to mold it, I still believe the original person gets to be listed under Concept Credit. As WELL as the person who finished it up- but I only go to say this if the person who continued the project still used the guidelines from the OP. If they completely strayed from the idea, then it would be a different dragon.

[olympe]

Wasn't going to mention this, but your thing can apply to both. Why do you artists want credit so much? I mean, you want to help turn a conceptor's words into art, right? Why should it matter if you get credit?

As far as I know, it's a copyright issue. Also, I'm not really into doing things just for the credit. Take the trilobite dragon, for example. When the OP/artist decided they were as good as finished, they were simply black and brown. Then I came along and suggested something to set them apart, like bioluminescence. In the end, I spent hours researching bioluminescence in various colors and creating pallettes for this as well as recoloring the artist's reworked sprites with other kinds of colors. Yet, when the OP/artist asked me if I wanted credit, I declined because it was no more work than doing an egg recolor, which was considered not enough work to deserve credit.

 

I will admit that that was a hasty generalization on my part, yes. But in a sense they ARE recolors. They all used the egg template, did they not?

No, neither of the eggs I quoted used the egg shading template. All they did use was the outlines.

 

And description writers are the people who take the conceptor's work and put them into polished words.

Yes. But like the eggs, many people are more than capable of doing that in very little time and effort. Spriters, on the other hand, put a lot of time and effort into polishing a look based off of someone else's idea and guidelines.

Depends on the egg... Also, coming up with a dragon concept is about as much work as creating an egg design. This amount of work, however, can vary greatly in both cases. Also, you people who are in favor of giving credit to conceptors should agree on some guidelines. Either you don't want the amount of work spent on a dragon concept to count (because the art takes much longer), or you do (because descriptions take much less work), but you can't have it both ways.

 

And honestly, I'll repeat myself. If someone made a thread for a dragon and had the basic outlines for it, and then left so that the artist got to mold it, I still believe the original person gets to be listed under Concept Credit. As WELL as the person who finished it up- but I only go to say this if the person who continued the project still used the guidelines from the OP. If they completely strayed from the idea, then it would be a different dragon.

This is another thing where this gets hopelessly complicated. Where does due credit for a concept start, and where does it end? Before we know it, people will be quabbling about it. Which is the main reason why I'm against conceptor credit: To avoid drama.

[stogucheme]

As far as I know, it's a copyright issue. Also, I'm not really into doing things just for the credit. Take the trilobite dragon, for example. When the OP/artist decided they were as good as finished, they were simply black and brown. Then I came along and suggested something to set them apart, like bioluminescence. In the end, I spent hours researching bioluminescence in various colors and creating pallettes for this as well as recoloring the artist's reworked sprites with other kinds of colors. Yet, when the OP/artist asked me if I wanted credit, I declined because it was no more work than doing an egg recolor, which was considered not enough work to deserve credit.

Copyrights aside, that's my entire point. I just didn't want conceptors to be accused of being 'all about the credit' because of our 'low self-esteem.' We are proud of our work, and it's unfair that (ex) our cool idea for a dragon that curses others to be like them would be credited to someone else. Seriously, flip the situation. If someone took credit for all the artwork you did because they came up with the concept, how would you feel?

 

Depends on the egg... Also, coming up with a dragon concept is about as much work as creating an egg design. This amount of work, however, can vary greatly in both cases.

Okay, so can you at least credit me for designing the dragon and egg, even if I didn't draw it? (I doodled the dragon, gave a physical description, and made a large flat color of the egg.)

 

Also, you people who are in favor of giving credit to conceptors should agree on some guidelines. Either you don't want the amount of work spent on a dragon concept to count (because the art takes much longer), or you do (because descriptions take much less work), but you can't have it both ways.

*headdesk* Not sure about others, but I think that if the contribution is significant (as in, they made the whole breed or made the sprites), then they should get credit.

 

This is another thing where this gets hopelessly complicated. Where does due credit for a concept start, and where does it end? Before we know it, people will be quabbling about it. Which is the main reason why I'm against conceptor credit: To avoid drama.

Wow! Someone posted about a dragon in dragon requests! They must be the conceptor. *insert shock here* Seriously? And if the OP bails, just put the person who now manages it as the conceptor if the idea has changed significantly. (Change would count as (ex) someone taking my 7-headed dragon and making the heads elemental.)

 

EDIT: Thank you, other thread. Okay, check out the Leetle Tree thread that was recently started. Who was contacted for permission to change the idea of the Leetle Trees? The artist.

Now, I am NOT claiming that Kila was not the original conceptor- I honestly have no idea who was. However, if someone wanted to make an idea that redefined a breed, they would contact the *artist* and NOT the original conceptor, right? Because no one knows who the conceptor is, and the breed itself is considered sole property of the artist, despite the fact that the artist may not have come up with the idea. That's why conceptor credits are important. That's why DC's system needs to change.

Edited November 6, 2011 by stogucheme

[hazeh]

As far as I know, it's a copyright issue. Also, I'm not really into doing things just for the credit. Take the trilobite dragon, for example. When the OP/artist decided they were as good as finished, they were simply black and brown. Then I came along and suggested something to set them apart, like bioluminescence. In the end, I spent hours researching bioluminescence in various colors and creating pallettes for this as well as recoloring the artist's reworked sprites with other kinds of colors. Yet, when the OP/artist asked me if I wanted credit, I declined because it was no more work than doing an egg recolor, which was considered not enough work to deserve credit.

 

 

No, neither of the eggs I quoted used the egg shading template. All they did use was the outlines.

 

 

Yes. But like the eggs, many people are more than capable of doing that in very little time and effort. Spriters, on the other hand, put a lot of time and effort into polishing a look based off of someone else's idea and guidelines.

Depends on the egg... Also, coming up with a dragon concept is about as much work as creating an egg design. This amount of work, however, can vary greatly in both cases. Also, you people who are in favor of giving credit to conceptors should agree on some guidelines. Either you don't want the amount of work spent on a dragon concept to count (because the art takes much longer), or you do (because descriptions take much less work), but you can't have it both ways.

 

 

This is another thing where this gets hopelessly complicated. Where does due credit for a concept start, and where does it end? Before we know it, people will be quabbling about it. Which is the main reason why I'm against conceptor credit: To avoid drama.

If you didn't want the credit because you don't think you deserved it, then decline. If the OP asks you if you wanted it because they felt you contributed something significant, then obviously they felt you did enough work and deserved it. There's no issue in this.

 

 

I didn't say anything about shading. The egg is still the same egg, even if all it was were the outlines. The Red hatchlings are still copyright of TJ, even though they've been used for different dragons with different looks.

 

An egg design and an entire BREED design are completely different, and the work therein is completely different. Taking an egg shape, coloring it according to someone else's art and design, is NOT the same as taking an idea, refining it, and giving it traits to make it unique, which then people base art such as eggs off of. It's not so much the amount of work than it is the kind of work put it. Significant? Credit. Not really? No credit. It's that simple.

 

 

I've stated it already several times, I'm not sure why you aren't understanding.

Ferus came up with the Undine dragon idea. She gave it details and traits, and showed me examples from pictures online with features she wanted in the dragon. I sketched it. Wook redlined it, Little Art Girl sprited it. FERUS gets the concept credit because it is her dragon. That is her dragon breed, and I believe she should be given some credit for taking the time to actually make one so that we could have some fantastic art for it to later collect. Without her idea, this art would not be here, and there would be nothing to appreciate. Sure, I could have sketched something and told someone to go sprite it for me, but what would be unique about that dragon? Nothing, besides it looking pretty.

If someone else came along who wasn't so accustomed to how dragon requests work, and they had an idea like, "This dragon breaths fire. It has a long body with four wings and three eyes, and uses magic to keep itself surrounded in fire." Then another person comes in and helps explain the breed more and helps define other traits for the dragon, along with its physical concept, then BOTH of them get credit.

 

"Original idea by: This person, that person"

 

What drama? It's the same amount of drama that would be present with people helping and suggesting things on a sprite in progress.

[Fuzzbucket]

And just a small spanner in the works here - I would bet some people sprite really fast, and some people write really slowly.

 

But it ISN'T only about the time spent - the brilliant idea that kicked it all off is what made the sprites possible. I want to know who inspired the spriters in the first place.

[~!~]

What drama? It's the same amount of drama that would be present with people helping and suggesting things on a sprite in progress.

This.

 

I'm also on board with stogu's "commission" thing. Someone in this thread compared DR threads where the OP contributes no art to a commission. However, if you are an artist who takes on a commission for another person, and you draw a dragon based on their specifications, you would credit them if you show this art to other people, right? Just like if I draw fanart based on a character in a book, I would point out to people that the character was not my creation. I don't see why a breed is that different from a character.

 

However, even if we put all those issues aside, there's still the utilitarian reason for putting conceptors on there: so people know who they are, if they ever need to contact them.

[Lythiaren]

Wow! Someone posted about a dragon in dragon requests! They must be the conceptor. *insert shock here* Seriously? And if the OP bails, just put the person who now manages it as the conceptor if the idea has changed significantly. (Change would count as (ex) someone taking my 7-headed dragon and making the heads elemental.)

A note on this specifically.

 

A lot of concepts in DR, historically, have been so vague that it's near impossible to change it significantly from the original idea. One example is the rogue dragon; the OP made his thread, but no one was really interested in his idea so he left. Later, while Requests was closed, someone else stumbled upon the abandoned thread and took up the project, applying their own ideas which happened to be quite similar to that of the long-absent OP; it was based on the standard RPG rogue, the shady guy in the shadows with a dagger. Does the OP in this case deserve credit?

 

Along a similar vein, some people will tend to use the shotgun approach. I'll use, for this second example, one person from a few years ago who would make something like 3-4 threads in a single day. It seriously looked like she flipped to random pages in a thesaurus, or picked random objects in her surroundings, and then slapped the word "dragon" on it. The ideas weren't very well thought out so they were very poor quality due to the large quantity. This case is where someone tries to claim as many concepts as possible just to get their name in somewhere, just by being topic OP. Does this person deserve credit?

 

EDIT: olympe does have a point. How exactly do you distinguish a significant contribution from a not-so significant contribution? How do you set that standard? With spriting it's something you can actually see. Concepts are abstract things, so it's much harder to gauge.

Edited November 7, 2011 by Lythiaren