Signatures, Stigmasures!

[techumseh]

Here's an example from my own experience. I made a US 105 howitzer for a Vietnam scenario I was working on. I started with a Soviet 122 gun made by Nemo and just started modifying it. While elements of the original unit can still be seen, it is a brand new unit. It didn't even occur to me that I should put Nemo's sig on it. Still doesn't.

[Sarsstock]

I have to admit I'm a bit confused as to why this has become such a serious issue on the forum. Have there been instances where posters were taking credit for work that wasn't they're own? Did unit creators start demanding they receive more credit for original works?

I'm just really curious what started this debate and why the sudden demand for change with unit signatures. Also, how can any of the above mentioned proposals be enforced? I mean as HT pointed out to me once before, making too many rules can really hamper creativity and turn a friendly forum into an unfriendly place.

[techumseh]

Well, if you're looking for someone to blame, it's probably me. My observation is that there is overkill regarding adding sigs of anyone who might have contributed to the production of a piece of unit art.

I think it's confusing to have multiple sigs on a unit, and it's far from standard practice. Some people don't do this, others do. I think it would be a good idea to work out some common ground. I agree we don't need a bunch of rules, if for no other reason than we have no authority to make any.

[Varwnos]

but what amount of similarity should be seen as resulting in the new unit being unmistacable dependant on an older one? Would using an arm from an older unit be enough, or should a significant part of the unit (eg at least 20%) be the same as an older one? - or its outline to be the same etc etc etc

[techumseh]

I think some people are worrying far to much about acknowledgment of bits and pieces. An arm? 20%? This is all public domain material.

Here's another example. I did simple conversion of Alex the Magnificent's Turkish infantry to my Baltic Infantry. I used both in Red October. I only put my own intitials on the Baltic unit - I consider it a new unit.

Did Alex care? Not in the least. He sent me some additional units of his own to use in the scenario after I sent him a beta copy of RO. BTW, Alex was the most jealous of all of his work - he even tried to charge for it at one point.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Sarsstock
I mean as HT pointed out to me once before, making too many rules can really hamper creativity and turn a friendly forum into an unfriendly place.

Yep, and I still stand by it. Etiquette is a great thing but rules suck. Why don't we just stop this nonsense? We're all friends here.

[Case]

I vote including the sigs of everyone who's made a significant contribution to the current graphic.

While we could nominate the number of pixels you need to have changed before your modification is 'significant' I think that common sense should do the trick

Incidently, when I download graphics I generally save them so that their 'final' artist's name is part of the file name - perhaps this could be a convention as well? (I certainly appreciate those artists who do it for me!)

Originally posted by techumseh
BTW, Alex was the most jealous of all of his work - he even tried to charge for it at one point.

...not to mention that he edited his .bmp and .gif files so they couldn't be opened with graphics editors!

[techumseh]

OK, if people think it's a tempest in a teapot, I'm cool with it. But what's the great fear of controversy on this forum? Do people really think if you have a vigorous debate the whole thing will fall apart? Actually, postings go up!

As for me, if I make a significant modification to an existing unit, I'll put my own sig on it, and that's all. I'll continue to view three and four sigs on a unit as just silly. And when I think something is dumb, I'll say so.

[Harry Tuttle]

No, we're just afraid that people will get pissed off at eachother or just turned off to the forum because people aren't creating - but debating. Hey that rhymed. Call me Al Sharpton...

[techumseh]

No, you sound more like Jesse Jackson.

Don't assume that if people get pissed off, they will drop away. If this forum has a problem, it's that it's too boring. Everyone is WAY too nice.

[typhoon]

Originally posted by techumseh
Everyone is WAY too nice.

Is that a bad thing?

[techumseh]

Yes. There's a difference between personal attacks and taking on issues, or constructive criticism. If someone makes a mistake on scenario, or a unit or something, people don't say so, they just don't comment. I'm as guilty as the next guy (or the other gender).

[Varwnos]

I remember Alex used to make unit files uneditable, so that no one else could use his units
(i thought that i posted that already? :hmm: )

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by techumseh
Here's an example from my own experience. I made a US 105 howitzer for a Vietnam scenario I was working on. I started with a Soviet 122 gun made by Nemo and just started modifying it. While elements of the original unit can still be seen, it is a brand new unit. It didn't even occur to me that I should put Nemo's sig on it. Still doesn't.

Perhaps Nemo's unit could be seen as the inspirational idea that led to your edit-unit?

I would have kept the Nemo sig, and added my own.

[curtsibling]

I think common sense and honesty should be the currency.

If you only change the paintwork of a tank or the helmet of a infantry -
Then I do not think an editor can be credited with any real work...

On the other hand......
If you slave for 6 hours, creating changes that render the unit unrecognisable -

Then, by all means, a sig should be added.
But the originator should still retain his sig.

That is my policy - I consider anything else un-gentlemanly...