Cover Artist Credit Discussion Topic

[UncleBob]

Apparently, people ARE trying to put credits on their covers:

I have to agree on this.  When I do find a retail cover that has someones personal autograph on it I usually PSP that thing outta there.

If you think the discussion is "stupid", please feel free to find a different topic - the goal, from the beginning, was to have a civil conversation about the subject - not to go around insulting people and their opinions on it.

Personally, I feel this needs to be addressed.  No where in any rules or guides for the site does it say that cover artist credit isn't allowed on a cover - and the site owner has already said there is no official stance on it.

If we're going to have an official stance against it, we need to say that.  Someone doesn't need to come along, work on a dozen covers, then upload them and find them rejected because they hid their initials on the cover or something.  If we're going to have rules, they need to be clear, not some invisible goal that varies based on whichever person approves the cover.

[Harp00nX]

No matter how many covers i make they will never bear my name. (Unless i happen to make a cover for a game called Harp00nX but i cant see that happening lol)

[AppleQueso]

If you think the discussion is "stupid", please feel free to find a different topic - the goal, from the beginning, was to have a civil conversation about the subject - not to go around insulting people and their opinions on it.

"insulting"?

You're getting awfully twisted up over absolutely nothing. Look at your posts, you're going nuts over what amounts to an extremely minor issue.

[UncleBob]

"stupid" is pretty much universally an insulting term, yes.

As far as it being "nothing", I agree... a simple credit to the artist is "nothing"... and not really worth arguing over - which is simply why I'm suggesting clarity on the "policy".  The official stance, as communicated by the owner of the site is that we have no policy.

I'd be happy to leave it at that, as it lines up nicely with my feelings on the subject.

However, there are a number of individuals who aren't a fan of this and want to change it.  We were directed to reach a consensus, as a community, if that is what we wanted to do.  In order to do that, we need to discuss it.

If you wish to contribute your opinions and your reasoning behind those opinions, please, by all means, feel free to do so in a constructive and respective manner.

If you feel this discussion is "stupid" and "about nothing", then please, feel free to find a better use for your time that you don't feel is "stupid" or such.

[sheep2001]

Sheep - you're okay with someone making a profit off someone else's work?  But you're against the idea of someone getting a small, single line of text crediting them for the work they did?  I just don't understand that...

I'm against it because if we say go ahead and put your name on it, it's open to even more interpretation as to where, how big, what format, how prominent.  I don't want to have to photoshop every cover before I print it.  And as arseen said -  if someone is going to take credit for the cover, then shouldn't the provider of the original art and the template get credit too.  I think it's easier all round to just ban watermarking/signing.  It's worked fine up to now.

[UncleBob]

I'm against it because if we say go ahead and put your name on it, it's open to even more interpretation as to where, how big, what format, how prominent.  I don't want to have to photoshop every cover before I print it.  And as arseen said -  if someone is going to take credit for the cover, then shouldn't the provider of the original art and the template get credit too.  I think it's easier all round to just ban watermarking/signing.  It's worked fine up to now.

...except that that hasn't been the policy on the site up until now - or ever.

As for having to photoshop the credit out of every cover before you print it:
A) I think virtually all artists have already said they have no intentions of putting their names on the covers
B) If one came along that did, then you could simply chose to print an alternative cover.  If no alternatives are available, then you're in the exact same boat you were in before that artist came along - you still have no cover to print.  Except now, everyone else who wanted that cover now has an option.

Basically, because "you" don't like the idea that someone might want credit for their work, everyone else has to lose out.  How is that fair for anyone?

[AppleQueso]

So so you know, "stupid" is in reference to the discussion itself, not towards you, not towards anyone's viewpoints.

You want a serious response form me? Fine.

Your argument for this is basically "I'd rather have covers with credits on them then no covers at all, you can photoshop the credits out if you're really that bothered by it".

The same argument could be use for, say, lowering the quality standards. I'm sure plenty of members here really wouldn't mind if our quality standards were a lot more lax. I'm sure one could argue that they'd rather have low-quality covers than no covers at all, but that's not the point of this site. As far as I'm concerned, if you're okay with low quality covers, credits on covers, etc., there are PLENTY of other websites out there that will supplement TCP for you.

When I look at a custom cover, they generally fall under 3 categories.
1. Replacing goofy/horrible looking retail art with something a little more pleasing.
2. Creating a set of unified covers for a collection of titles.
3. Using alternative art because high resolution scans of the original art are not available.

In all 3 cases, the overall point I think is to make the covers look as if they were released retail looking like that. Making them look as close to official packaging as possible in other words. Retail packaging doesn't have COVER CREATED BY ______ on it.

Is this me thinking my views on this should dictate site policy? Well sure, me and every single person who's posted in this thread besides you.

[Merri]

My suggestion for the policy: allow the credit, and the only rule to the placement is in the back as regular text on a single color background. This is super easy for anyone to remove before printing if they wish so. It would also be a very simple rule.

There are (non-cover) artists that do want to have their work credited, ie. you ask for a permission from say a DeviantArt artist and they tell they want to be credited for their work. The only way you can do it right now is to add the artist's name in the cover, because it is your name that is credited on the download page here.

For the vast majority of the covers that exist right now there is no issue with crediting as the system works for them. Most of the covers are based on uncredited scans anyway. However allowing crediting for special cases such as use of someone else's artwork for a custom cover would give more options and possibilities for great covers. There are far more artists out there than there are cover makers. And far less cover makers who have enough artistic talent to make a great custom cover based on their own artwork.

[UncleBob]

Your argument for this is basically "I'd rather have covers with credits on them then no covers at all, you can photoshop the credits out if you're really that bothered by it".

My viewpoint is multi-fold.

1) Yes, a lot of it boils down to the fact I'd rather have covers with credits than no covers at all.  Yes, of you're bothered by it, you can either photoshop it out (you still get a cover out of it) or just not print it at all (and then you're no worse off than you were beforehand).

2) There are some folks who put a lot of work into their covers - and it shows.  If they want to put a credit on the cover, then I don't mind.  It's a very minor thing, in my humble opinion, that doesn't take away from the overall quality of the cover and I don't feel right dictating to them that they cannot take credit for their work.

3) Ultimately, no one is being FORCED to sign their work - it's still up to the individual cover artists, of which all who have responded said they have no intentions of signing their work.  However, the fact that we're giving the artists a choice is something that errs on the side of caution.

Is this me thinking my views on this should dictate site policy? Well sure, me and every single person who's posted in this thread besides you.

I used quotes around the 'you' for a reason.

And you are correct - I appear to be the only one really siding with the view point of allowing an artist to take credit on their work if they so wish.  While I find that a little sad, that is the purpose of this thread - so that we can discuss it and see how the community feels about it to determine if there is a consensus towards making it an official rule.

However allowing crediting for special cases such as use of someone else's artwork for a custom cover would give more options and possibilities for great covers. There are far more artists out there than there are cover makers. And far less cover makers who have enough artistic talent to make a great custom cover based on their own artwork.

Great points.

[Snowcone]

Here is my take....

I honestly don't care if an artist drops their name in super tiny print in some unknown part of the cover. I would prefer to not have some gigantic artist name on the cover though. I know people in the past have hidden names in the barcode and other places. I see no issue with this. At the end of the day, we will have covers on the site that meet either requirement.

[akrate69]

Even if this site didn't host "signed" covers, a person could always upload their work to a Mediafire type account and link to it from here. As always, they would be welcome to preview their work in the forums. Then whoever wants to could download the covers. If someone real desire is to share their work with the other members here, they wouldn't mind.

[sheep2001]

@UB - so if i decide i would like to put a small - 1cm by 1cm sheep icon on the spine of every cover i make, you'd have no problem with them being added to the site?

before i found this site (and before i was proficient with photoshop) i re-covered a lot of my uncased megadrive and master system games from material at zonesega.com - they put a small logo on the back of each and every cover they host, AND IT ANNOYED THE HELL OUT OF ME!!!  I wanted my collection to look as original as possible - i didn't know how to remove the stamp/watermark, and i didn't want it there.

The main ethos of this site is to save original game cover artwork for posterity - i just think if we start allowing/promoting signiatures you are opening a whole wider debate about which covers can have it, where you can put it, size limitations, obscurity, if it's hidden in a barcode - then is it still an original cover.  and what if i grab a whole lot of other peoples work from elsewhere on the net and stamp my own sig on it and upload it?  

I know you are saying nobody is forced to put a sig on their work - but by simply allowing it i think you are not only going against the main ethos of the site, but also steering us down a dangerous road.  I have a feeling however that this is a pointless argument, because your mind is as made up as the rest of us, and you don't see a problem with it.  I say lets leave it until someone who is desperate to have their name on their cover tries to upload it - and we'll find out why, and if they would refuse to upload without it.

[Merri]

Sheep: you're very much mixing watermark/logo issue to a true text only crediting, which is a very different thing than what UncleBob is talking about. You're basing a lot of your critic on bad feeling with something that is not what is being suggested and talked about. I also dislike logos, watermarks and everything of such sort... just that we aren't talking about that here.

I think any cover that is an attempt at preserving original does not need any credit on it. Some covers may require more work than others, but when a cover is made to be as much like the original as possible there is no need to be credited the cover maker in the cover itself.

Any cover that may involve a lot of work by someone is a very different case. Say, a custom Pokémon cover set with some awesome artwork used with permission - artwork not done by the cover maker - and the artist wants credit.

Although, I also have some covers coming up that have involved many days worth of work already. The artwork looks just like the original, but is very sharp and detailed, and looks better printed than the original box. A reason why I consider adding something, because those covers aren't your regular mass production stuff that are quickly and easily put together.

[UncleBob]

@UB - so if i decide i would like to put a small - 1cm by 1cm sheep icon on the spine of every cover i make, you'd have no problem with them being added to the site?

I wouldn't care.  Honestly.  Let me get you a list of the GB/GBC covers I need and you can get started - I'd be thrilled to get the last of my GB/GBC covers finished.

i just think if we start allowing/promoting signiatures you are opening a whole wider debate about which covers can have it, where you can put it, size limitations, obscurity, if it's hidden in a barcode - then is it still an original cover.[...] I know you are saying nobody is forced to put a sig on their work - but by simply allowing it i think you are not only going against the main ethos of the site, but also steering us down a dangerous road.

Minor correction here - we currently do allow signatures/credits.  Snowcone himself said the site does not have an official stance on it.

What I'm saying is if we're going to have an official stance on it, we need to get that posted somewhere.

[sheep2001]

I give up - my opinions are stated as above.  Of course I will comply with whatever is decided best for the site as a whole - but as per my own opinions will not be marking my own covers in any way.

@ merri - lots of the covers i do are complete rebuilds, have hand drawn areas, text completely retyped (in multiple EU languages).  And although I don't draw the entire cover myself, it can still equate to hours of work when the source material is poor.