ANSWERED:Give Concept Creators Credit In-Site

[hazeh]

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?

In both cases, if a request is finished, then yes. I do believe those original people get credit. Why? Because it was their idea that spurred the other people into working or finishing a concept. If they took up the project from someone else's idea that wasn't finished, then they're still basing it off of someone else's idea.

 

Now, if say someone made a Rogue dragon or whatever but it wasted away into nothing, and then sometime later someone else made a similar request that was not as a continuation of the first, then no, the first person does not get credit. I'm aware this might sound confusing, but this is where the idea of dupes comes in. If the dragon that was finished does not tie back to the first person who suggested it, then that person does not get credit.

And more than one person can get the credit. The OP may not be the only person to be considered the conceptor if someone else picked up the slack.

 

 

Edit to your edit:

 

Is is breed defining? If so, ask if that person would like credit for contributing to the breed.

If it isn't, then no problem. No credit.

Edited November 7, 2011 by Shiny Hazard Sign

[Dolphinsong]

I have asked this I don't know HOW many times in here and NEVER got an answer.

 

"Lets make them live in herds!" one person suggests in a thread. That tiny bit of information makes it into the breed description. Does that person deserve credit?

[Lythiaren]

In both cases, if a request is finished, then yes. I do believe those original people get credit. Why? Because it was their idea that spurred the other people into working or finishing a concept. If they took up the project from someone else's idea that wasn't finished, then they're still basing it off of someone else's idea.

 

Now, if say someone made a Rogue dragon or whatever but it wasted away into nothing, and then sometime later someone else made a similar request that was not as a continuation of the first, then no, the first person does not get credit. I'm aware this might sound confusing, but this is where the idea of dupes comes in. If the dragon that was finished does not tie back to the first person who suggested it, then that person does not get credit.

The important point of consideration with the rogue example was that it was while DR was closed to new requests. There was no way for the new person to make a new thread and it wasn't intended to be a continuation of that, it just turned out that way. A lot of things did change through the process, iirc, like moving away from the initial red-tinged black bloody murderer theme the OP had left in his posts and more toward the more blue-toned "slinking in shadows" aspect of the rogue class. But the people who took up the project and moved it forward didn't have anything to do with the OP at all. He was long gone before they dug it up.

 

The girl who just picked things and shoved the word "dragon" behind it didn't do much thinking, either. Like I said she really looked like she was doing just that. She was eventually chased out because she was starting to put social stereotypes into concepts and trying to anthropomorphize to the point where one of her threads had a stoned dragon in a tiedye shirt with a guitar. But... taking a single word and applying "dragon" to it isn't any work. The ideas were very poorly thought out and unless they were social stereotypes she had absolutely no idea what they should even look like, much less in-depth information. The social stereotypes were like... putting black eyeliner and lipstick on a dragon and giving it spikes that were designed intentionally to look like a spiked collar.

 

EDIT again: But... define "breed defining". :x

Edited November 7, 2011 by Lythiaren

[hazeh]

I have asked this I don't know HOW many times in here and NEVER got an answer.

 

"Lets make them live in herds!" one person suggests in a thread. That tiny bit of information makes it into the breed description. Does that person deserve credit?

Sorry, I actually never saw this in the thread.^^;

 

Does that breed revolve around the mechanics of living in a herd? Would the dragon be any different as a dragon if it lived solitary? Not really. Just because it's in the on-site description doesn't necessarily mean it's completely significant to that dragon breed.

 

Honestly, in my opinion, the most defining traits of the dragon are GOING to be already made by the OP. Unless it has to change so drastically because it's unworkable, I don't see many contributions in the thread very impacting towards the breed as a whole.

 

The important point of consideration with the rogue example was that it was while DR was closed to new requests.  There was no way for the new person to make a new thread and it wasn't intended to be a continuation of that, it just turned out that way.  A lot of things did change through the process, iirc, like moving away from the initial red-tinged black bloody murderer theme the OP had left in his posts and more toward the more blue-toned "slinking in shadows" aspect of the rogue class.  But the people who took up the project and moved it forward didn't have anything to do with the OP at all.  He was long gone before they dug it up.

 

EDIT again: But... define "breed defining". :x

 

Gah, ninjas. T AT

 

I'm slightly confused with your example now. Was this person aware or not that the Rogue dragon was already requested before they were able to make their new thread? Or was it suggested after they made their request and were oblivious to it before hand? Because I do see a difference in this.

 

 

Breed defining, to me, means whatever the dragon breed revolves around or is based on.

Edited November 7, 2011 by Shiny Hazard Sign

[JOTB]

I did the art for the rogues - as I imagined them they have nothing to do with the rogue class, more like a rogue animal (i.e., the shark in Jaws.) No one was doing anything in that thread and I thought "Rogue" could be used and applied differently. So the OP supplied the name and nothing more. :x

Edited November 7, 2011 by JOTB

[Dolphinsong]

Sorry, I actually never saw this in the thread.^^;

 

Does that breed revolve around the mechanics of living in a herd? Would the dragon be any different as a dragon if it lived solitary? Not really. Just because it's in the on-site description doesn't necessarily mean it's completely significant to that dragon breed.

 

Honestly, in my opinion, the most defining traits of the dragon are GOING to be already made by the OP. Unless it has to change so drastically because it's unworkable, I don't see many contributions in the thread very impacting towards the breed as a whole.

Actually, only sometimes is it the OP who really defines the dragon.

 

Take Neotropicals for example. When Jazi and me stumbled into the thread, it was ONLY a sketch, NOTHING else really to my knowledge. So I took the sketch, lined it (his orginal lines were way too large) and I think i threw on the green coloring cannot remember that or not. Jazi and one other then took and added stripes to it, I added triangles to the wings to break up the coloring there, Jazi shaded it, I did a lil play with her shading style and the colors and its more like it is now. We then named it Neotropical and gave it description and information.

 

Does the OP deserve any credit besides just the sketch? Who owns the concept then? Jazi and me? Or the OP who only provided a sketch?

[Lythiaren]

The rogues as I imagined them have nothing to do with the rogue class, more like a rogue animal (i.e., the shark in Jaws.) No one was doing anything in that thread and I thought "Rogue" could be used and applied differently. So the OP supplied the name and nothing more. :x

Woah that was you? It was so long ago I didn't even know.

[hazeh]

If the concepts have nothing to do with another concept when the request is made, then the first concept does not get credit for the second one. It's simply a dupe, or an incredibly similar dragon.

 

Dolph, if you and Jazi were the ones to actually give the breed its definition, its attributes and unique qualities, then you two would get conceptor credit. The OP would get sketch credit, because they did not provide the idea.

 

It sounds like it was simply reversed. Instead of information, the OP gave a sketch and said "do away with it", and then you and Jazi went wild and actually grew a breed from your art. The breed is yours, then, because it was your guys' idea.

 

 

 

Edit: I can't tell if I'm making sense anymore. ;n;

Edited November 7, 2011 by Shiny Hazard Sign

[Lythiaren]

Gah, ninjas. T AT

 

I'm slightly confused with your example now. Was this person aware or not that the Rogue dragon was already requested before they were able to make their new thread? Or was it suggested after they made their request and were oblivious to it before hand? Because I do see a difference in this.

 

 

Breed defining, to me, means whatever the dragon breed revolves around or is based on.

DR was closed, there was no way to make a new thread. At the time most people were just picking up abandoned projects and completely redoing them, taking only the name, because there was no other way to make anything.

 

Okay, fair enough on your definition. Buuut... how do you define what the breed revolves around? A lot of breeds are quite complex, so for some it's hard to pick out which aspects are the most important, rather than important but not really super important. We need to get specific guidelines hammered out here.

 

*incessant question asking*

Edited November 7, 2011 by Lythiaren

[stogucheme]

DR was closed, there was no way to make a new thread. At the time most people were just picking up abandoned projects and completely redoing them, taking only the name, because there was no other way to make anything.

 

Okay, fair enough on your definition. Buuut... how do you define what the breed revolves around? A lot of breeds are quite complex, so for some it's hard to pick out which aspects are the most important, rather than important but not really super important. We need to get specific guidelines hammered out here.

 

*incessant question asking*

How about this? If you contribute 30% or more to the concept, you get credit. Nice and simple.

[Lythiaren]

But what's 30%? People have different ideas of the distribution of significance. One person could say "I totally did 40% of the work!" but another could believe they only did 15%.

 

... I'm being annoying aren't I. >>

Edited November 7, 2011 by Lythiaren

[hazeh]

DR was closed, there was no way to make a new thread.  At the time most people were just picking up abandoned projects and completely redoing them, taking only the name, because there was no other way to make anything.

 

Okay, fair enough on your definition.  Buuut... how do you define what the breed revolves around?  A lot of breeds are quite complex, so for some it's hard to pick out which aspects are the most important, rather than important but not really super important.

I understand that. I was here during the time DR was closed, but I still came up with my own ideas and patiently waited for them to open again. I had no idea if what I wanted to suggest was a dupe of anything because I couldn't really find anything matching what I wanted, but as we know, searches often fail. If my idea had been reminiscent of someone else's long before, I don't consider my idea to be credited to the other person, simply because it was an idea I had constructed myself without any outside help. If someone picked up an old concept and finished it, then the first person who actually defined that breed would still get credit for giving them the idea to base their new dragon on.

Now. Say one person had a Yin-Yang dragon that they made, but it was abandoned because no one liked it. Sometime later, someone came across that Yin-Yang dragon and decided to make a different dragon also based on the Yin-Yang.

Okay. I admit this gets complicated here and I'm going to try and explain it the best I can. Yin-Yang is not an original idea. It is a universal concept that other people derive their own ideas from. I'm not saying we need to go so in depth as to credit whoever the person was to come up with Yin-Yang as a concept- that's a bit extreme- but if the dragons who were based on the same concept, but were COMPLETELY different dragons, then I think it's fair enough to separate out the credit.

 

Did I make sense? ;A;

 

 

I'm not sure how else to explain it. Could you give me examples of some breeds that are complex?

 

Edit: No no! Not annoying! Question away, I'm well aware this idea should be perfected as best as I can before anything gets done with it x)

Edited November 7, 2011 by Shiny Hazard Sign

[stogucheme]

But what's 30%? People have different ideas of the distribution of significance. One person could say "I totally did 40% of the work!" but another could believe they only did 15%.

These are my dragons' features:

• Very territorial
• like avocados
• Likes to scare others for fun.
• Can live just about everywhere that‘s open; they‘re really hardy
• Forests and jungles are too hard for them to hunt in- they need wide spaces.
• fat and they like it
• Each head has a different preference for food
• they have seven different meals three times a day
• This causes their stomach to grow larger, making it seem more like a face.
• mono-gendered and sterile; they do not lay their own eggs
• they steal the eggs of other dragons and curse them. This mutates the hatchling inside into a Seven-Headed Dragon.

Forgive the sloppiness, but that gets the point across. 4 things from the list (if I'm counting 11 right) count as 30% or more.

[Lythiaren]

I understand that. I was here during the time DR was closed, but I still came up with my own ideas and patiently waited for them to open again. I had no idea if what I wanted to suggest was a dupe of anything because I couldn't really find anything matching what I wanted, but as we know, searches often fail. If my idea had been reminiscent of someone else's long before, I don't consider my idea to be credited to the other person, simply because it was an idea I had constructed myself without any outside help. If someone picked up an old concept and finished it, then the first person who actually defined that breed would still get credit for giving them the idea to base their new dragon on.

Now. Say one person had a Yin-Yang dragon that they made, but it was abandoned because no one liked it. Sometime later, someone came across that Yin-Yang dragon and decided to make a different dragon also based on the Yin-Yang.

Okay. I admit this gets complicated here and I'm going to try and explain it the best I can. Yin-Yang is not an original idea. It is a universal concept that other people derive their own ideas from. I'm not saying we need to go so in depth as to credit whoever the person was to come up with Yin-Yang as a concept- that's a bit extreme- but if the dragons who were based on the same concept, but were COMPLETELY different dragons, then I think it's fair enough to separate out the credit.

 

Did I make sense? ;A;

 

 

I'm not sure how else to explain it. Could you give me examples of some breeds that are complex?

 

Edit: No no! Not annoying! Question away, I'm well aware this idea should be perfected as best as I can before anything gets done with it x)

*points up* Ask JOTB, she's the person who picked up that thread, apparently. I don't remember who it was exactly so I'll take her word for it. >>

 

But yes I'm understanding what you're saying. If you came up with a concept that just happened to be similar to someone else's from a long time ago and unintentionally so, then you should get credit for whatever comes from your thread since you didn't piggyback on the other person. That's very reasonable.

 

A complex breed, let's see. Maybe I should use one of my unfinished ones. Let's take... the harvester drake. What defines them? Is it their affinity for all things apple-y? Is it their basket-weaving? Their social structure? Courtship rituals?

[hazeh]

*points up* Ask JOTB, she's the person who picked up that thread, apparently. I don't remember who it was exactly so I'll take her word for it. >>

 

But yes I'm understanding what you're saying. If you came up with a concept that just happened to be similar to someone else's from a long time ago and unintentionally so, then you should get credit for whatever comes from your thread since you didn't piggyback on the other person. That's very reasonable.

 

A complex breed, let's see. Maybe I should use one of my unfinished ones. Let's take... the harvester drake. What defines them? Is it their affinity for all things apple-y? Is it their basket-weaving? Their social structure? Courtship rituals?

...Wait, what I am asking her? ._.

 

c:

 

Well, why not all of those traits? A breed doesn't necessarily have to revolve around one idea, but the ideas that make that dragon the most unique compared to the rest of the dragons is more of what I'm getting at. Would the breed be completely different if one or more of those traits were missing? If so, I'd say they're pretty significant to what makes it its own dragon breed. If not, well then perhaps it's not so important.

[~!~]

Dolph, if you and Jazi were the ones to actually give the breed its definition, its attributes and unique qualities, then you two would get conceptor credit. The OP would get sketch credit, because they did not provide the idea.

I'd think in this case, Dolph and Jazi would be listed first, but the original sketcher would still get some conceptor credit because they defined at least a few things about the dragon--the slender body, huge wings, etc.

[JaziandCo]

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but ideas are not copyright. Ideas must be trademarked to have any true "owner", and that costs money. Right now none of the DC dragons are trademarked (unless TJ registered each individually), which means legally I could redraw the neos in a different pose and sell them to someone else, and not have to deal with any consequences. Morally, we know that's bad, and then I don't do that, but I easily could.

 

That means anyone can take even the most original idea and claim it as theirs as long as nothing was registered and nothing was traced. Within "ideas" are designs, colors, patterns, names, and poses. I could even call my hypothetical psuedo-neos "Neotropical Dragons" and TJ wouldn't be able to touch me legally, though he might ban me from the site and DS/Ultimate might stop talking to me.

[hazeh]

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but ideas are not copyright. Ideas must be trademarked to have any true "owner", and that costs money. Right now none of the DC dragons are trademarked (unless TJ registered each individually), which means legally I could redraw the neos in a different pose and sell them to someone else, and not have to deal with any consequences. Morally, we know that's bad, and then I don't do that, but I easily could.

 

That means anyone can take even the most original idea and claim it as theirs as long as nothing was registered and nothing was traced. Within "ideas" are designs, colors, patterns, names, and poses. I could even call my hypothetical psuedo-neos "Neotropical Dragons" and TJ wouldn't be able to touch me legally, though he might ban me from the site and DS/Ultimate might stop talking to me.

This thread has nothing to do with copyright...

 

Yes, you could very well do that. But I highly doubt TJ would allow your dragon on the site, and that's what I'm trying to get at. Not the dragon concepts that are still in the works or that will be, but dragons that are completed and are or will eventually be in the cave.

 

I'd think in this case, Dolph and Jazi would be listed first, but the original sketcher would still get some conceptor credit because they defined at least a few things about the dragon--the slender body, huge wings, etc.

 

Hm. I'm slightly torn on that. Since it was a sketch that was used, I think that has more to do with art credits, and that the breed itself belongs to Dolph and Jazi, because they're the ones that actually gave the breed its uniqueness. But I understand that physical traits are also a part of a breed, so I do suppose the OP could also be listed as a conceptor, as they provided something to be used in the main design. Or something. x_x Ach, this is hurting my head.

Edited November 7, 2011 by Shiny Hazard Sign

[stogucheme]

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but ideas are not copyright. Ideas must be trademarked to have any true "owner", and that costs money. Right now none of the DC dragons are trademarked (unless TJ registered each individually), which means legally I could redraw the neos in a different pose and sell them to someone else, and not have to deal with any consequences. Morally, we know that's bad, and then I don't do that, but I easily could.

 

That means anyone can take even the most original idea and claim it as theirs as long as nothing was registered and nothing was traced. Within "ideas" are designs, colors, patterns, names, and poses. I could even call my hypothetical psuedo-neos "Neotropical Dragons" and TJ wouldn't be able to touch me legally, though he might ban me from the site and DS/Ultimate might stop talking to me.

We're not discussing legalities. We're discussing acknowledgements- like when an author writes a 'Thanks go to:' page in their books.

Edit: 'd

Edited November 7, 2011 by stogucheme

[skinst]

But the point I think Jazi is trying to make is that, at the end of the day, copyright is the reason why artists are credited and not conceptors.

[stogucheme]

But the point I think Jazi is trying to make is that, at the end of the day, copyright is the reason why artists are credited and not conceptors.

And politeness can't be our reason to credit conceptors?

[hazeh]

But the point I think Jazi is trying to make is that, at the end of the day, copyright is the reason why artists are credited and not conceptors.

But it's so wrong to acknowledge a conceptor for having their idea refined into something beautiful for other people to collect and appreciate? o_O

[skinst]

I never said that, did I?

 

Frankly I don't have an issue with the idea of true conceptors getting credited on site, so long as:

 

They actually DID contribute a genuine amount to the project;

They don't beg for access to the Artist section.

 

But the trouble is, I don't know how to define a true conceptor in a way that seems fair.

[hazeh]

I never said that, did I?

 

Frankly I don't have an issue with the idea of true conceptors getting credited on site, so long as:

 

They actually DID contribute a genuine amount to the project;

They don't beg for access to the Artist section.

 

But the trouble is, I don't know how to define a true conceptor in a way that seems fair.

I apologize, I didn't mean to make out that you had. But the statement seemed to imply such, even if that's not what you felt. ^^; I'm sorry.

 

 

What would you consider unfair about how I've defined the conceptor so far?

[JaziandCo]

Mostly both of the things Skins has said. I get where you guys are coming from, but legally there is no real reason to credit someone who comes up with a concept. Yes, you could do it to be nice, and yes, I hate it when someone uses an idea I obviously came up with and claims it as theirs. I'm pointing out that because artists onsite are still holders of copyright, TJ HAS to credit us in some form to avoid artistic plagiarism (or "art theft"). He does not HAVE to credit those who came up with an idea.

 

Edit:

@TLOSpyrogirl, still nope. I could easily draw your character from your novel as long as it was not a registered trademark and not fear legal action. I could also draw a lantern. I CAN'T copy/paste your story and I CAN'T trace your drawing. But I can use the ideas off of them easily.

Edited November 7, 2011 by JaziandCo