Credit

[-zenn]

Credit...

If you know somebody got a design from you, but didn't credit you. is it normal to ask for it?

Edited February 10, 2011 by -zenn

[Syn]

yeah, I've had that happen to me, but it never helps anything to say anything, I usually let it roll of my shoulder and go on about my day. but ahh... is that a Clap-Trap? or a CL4P-TP?

[-zenn]

yeah, I've had that happen to me, but it never helps anything to say anything, I usually let it roll of my shoulder and go on about my day. but ahh... is that a Clap-Trap? or a CL4P-TP?

Yeah, but it's normal to credit each other is it not? Clap-Trap/CL4P-TP is the same thing.

Ow well, I e-mailed the guy...

Topic lock up, please.

[sok117]

I have to say some people have no class, I think it's terrible that you would even think to rip off someones design, I would imagine some hours of building and rebuilding had gone into this. That sucks, I wonder what he will reply with. If it makes you feel any better, he collects meggablucks and he has a terrible taste in music

[Anio]

I also demand credit when people take inspiration on my MOCs (as I do when I take ideas on other people's work).

It's a matter of respect.

[ziljin]

Well there is always the possibility that he figured it out by himself separately.

EDIT: Nevermind I see that he credited you so he did copy your design then.

Edited February 6, 2011 by lego40k

[-zenn]

Well there is always the possibility that he figured it out by himself separately.

EDIT: Nevermind I see that he credited you so he did copy your design then.

In a reply he said he really wanted to make it, I replied it was descent to give credit. So yeah...

[mpec82]

Fantastic your little bots -zenn

[Syn]

In a reply he said he really wanted to make it, I replied it was descent to give credit. So yeah...

wow then it sounds like you were dealing with a far more Mature individual then what I've had to deal with stealing my designs. glad it worked out for you. Now I'm going to go play some borderlands....

[fred67]

My opinion is that sometimes asking for credit is a bit ridiculous. Those little bots are awesome, and I don't think I would have thought of them on my own, but they are only a few pieces each and not particularly complex.

So the guy gives you credit (and it was due), but sometimes I think people are asking far too much to be credited with very simply designs. I run into the same thing sometimes in computer programming - an obvious solution to a problem that many people come up with on their own. I'd done sorting algorithms and shortest path algorithms before I ever stepped foot in a classroom and read about them and discovered they already had been named by their 'inventors,' they were well known because they were the simplest solution that probably 90% of decent computer programmers would have come up with on their own given a task and no other input.

It can be worse with this attitude:

I also demand credit when people take inspiration on my MOCs (as I do when I take ideas on other people's work).

Inspiration? So... you build a house and someone says "that's a cool house, I'm going to build a house." That's inspiration. You'll have to be a lot more narrow than that for your "demands."

Now, never in a million years would I look at someone else's work, recreated it (substantially or wholly), post it online and take complete credit for it. Of course not - I'm not suggesting that we should always let it go. But there two things:

1. "Merely" inspiring? I'm sorry, if I'm inspired to make an Emerald Night coach after seeing some of the great ones done here, if I do it on my own (of course I want to keep the basic EN coach look), I'm not going to give anybody any credit. If I build their coach wholly, I would give credit - but of course it's going to be substantially similar, just as theirs was substantially similar to TLG's version. In this case similarity is not copying from another member of the community, it's building it in the style of the original set.

2. Some designs are so SIMPLE that claiming/demanding credit for them is ridiculous... again, there are building techniques in LEGO (like studs not on top) that have been obvious to many people without having to read anything on the subject; the mere existence of brackets to change the directions of building are all anyone needs.

[Henchmen4Hire]

What a perfectly reasonable, logical, and sensible point of view you have, Fred.

Are you sure you belong on the internet?

[Anio]

I'm fed up with answering to stupid messages. --'

Of course, I do not ask credits when a guy has assembled 2 parts like on a MOC I did. I do not give credit either in that case. (although sometime it is necessary ; the DSNOT for example).

But with a MOC and its overall design you can easily see if the builder has taken some ideas on another similar MOC.

And in that case, credit is absolutely necessary, IMO.

Edited February 8, 2011 by Anio

[Christoph]

Giving credit is decent and nice. One can show respect and thankfullness to the builders that one took inspiration from. So I encourage people to give credit.

On the other hand, I find demanding credit for a Lego design is a bit problematic. To me Lego is pure fun that I do in my freetime. This doesn't really fit with demanding credit. It sounds so buisness-like. But I understand the anger when someone else brags with your invention you are proud of yourself. At least I understand if the bragging is about your specific invention and not about a moc including your invention as an accessory. But remember, how many painters have copied Picasso?

On a related note: It is not so easy to give proper credit. I, for example, have read some 'how-to' articles on classic-castle.com, eg. DNLs and Slyowls article on building a landscape. Now when I build a landscape I somehow always remember Slyowls serious piece of advice to avoid "plate differential of more than one plate high for grass". Nevertheless, when I present my landscape on Eurobricks I would not give credit to Slyowl. I would feel embarressed and the credit list would be very long.

It becomes even more complicated when I don't remember or never knew who the inventor of a technique is. For example, I saw roofs with 1x1 round bricks on Eurobricks but I don't know where anymore. This does not mean I can never build such roofs and show them on Eurobricks.

Perhaps only very new designs should be credited. Once the designs become common knowledge the roots are too hard to track. I honestly do not want to research the credit list for my mocs.

[fred67]

Look - I clearly stated I think credit should be given where due, but even if someone posts some pictures of an interesting technique (let alone post an article about how to do it) that doesn't mean he was the only one to ever come up with it (or didn't copy it or build up from someone else's idea).

Like Christoph says... some things lead to other things which then lead to other things... we all build on what we learn. I didn't "invent" microscale, and I didn't invent "castle," and I didn't invent "modular," but I put them all together. Who am I supposed to credit?

If you substantially copy someone else's MOC, you should definitely give credit... but what is "substantially?" One house looks much like another house; one train car can look substantially like another train car - often there's only one or two obvious ways to build them.

Few can claim the entirety of their inspiration came from out of the blue. Even these cool little bots by zenn... we've seen bots like that in movies and television and comics; he did them in LEGO and that's really cool, IMO - but if someone else said "I'm going to make those little bots I saw on... <some show>" and comes up with something similar without ever having seen zenn's, what're you going to do?

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, they say. People shouldn't get mad or upset over these things.

I hereby declare that if anyone wants to use some technique I've done in LEGO, like this, they can do it without giving credit.

Edited February 8, 2011 by fred67

[Peppermint_M]

As a rule, if I see a MOC and that gives me a bunch of ideas, or motivates me to go and build then chances are I will credit in some way. Whether this be "I saw x technique in y's MOC, so I borrowed it for this/solved my problem with it". Or "I saw Y's MOC and decided to get building myself!". If I build a MOC that happens to look like or seems similar to another builders and I do not "credit" it I likely had no clue that his MOC existed.

Sometimes a problem is drawing from the same source. There are only a few ways to build something that has another media source. If I was to build say, Niteowl's Owlship, well chances are I use the same methods and techniques that someone else did. Simply because I was following an established design and to achieve a match, it turns out the same or close to another AFOL's model.

Another problem is the fact that few builders really can lay claim to a techinque really. Every single possible combination of bricks can be found quite by accident by someone with no contact with the AFOL online community. Possibly even years ago. Some become well known for using the part, technique or style and have a temper tantrum if someone "steals" it but it isn't their intellectual property.

I myself have been irked once or twice by someone repeating a method, part use or design I have used. A sudden spike in building space bikes using cowling and artful part placement occured a few months after I posted a trio of MOCs using the same technique. A part was used to achieve an appearance with soem figures and not long after a figure using the same part for the same effect appeared in the same forum. Both times I realised that it wasn't stealing from my ideas. The cowling is a part that lends itself to such a use and the other part and figure drew inspiration from a well known media source.

I guess people should get their heads out of the grandois clouds they have surrounded themselves in, remove the pole from their rear and get over the fact that people drawing from the same pool will sometimes chance on a duplicated techinique. It's only stealing if they take a picture from your photostream and claim it as thier own. Or if you have created a unique MOC from the annals of your mind with no prior media based structure/craft/character to draw from and someone else repeats it later and claims it as theirs.

[-zenn]

Well said Peppermint_M.

Could you lock this thread?

[Peppermint_M]

Well said Peppermint_M.

Could you lock this thread?

Well, at the moment the discussion still seems quite positive. You could edit your first post to reflect recent changes to the situation. However credit is a bit ofa hot button topic, so leaving this open (at least until just before it degenerates into a mud slinging contest) could be condusive to interesting and useful discussion.

So I'll hang back from closing for now, ok?

[Henchmen4Hire]

I love you, Pepper ^_^

[CP5670]

I agree with fred67 on this. It's one thing if someone basically copies an entire model, but this becomes a lot more murky when it comes to small components of models. Those bots in the first post are kind of a borderline case in my opinion.

If it's merely a building technique or functional mechanism that you copied, then chances are that the guy you copied it from also picked it up somewhere else (and most likely the TLG designers used it internally long before any AFOL "invented" it). The same applied to a generic conceptual idea, like a spacecraft with a certain overall shape. I might credit such things but would not necessarily feel obliged to do so.

[Ralph_S]

This is always a contentious issue and I have debated it many times in different places.

There’s a big difference between claiming an idea as your own and demanding credit if other people use it. I have plenty of MOCs incorporating ideas that I haven’t seen anywhere else before and I do claim that those are my ideas, quite simply because they actually are! It is possible that somebody else somewhere else may have had the same idea independently, but that doesn't make my idea any less my own.

That obviously means that I cannot claim credit every single time somebody else does something similar. They may have come up with it independently, and even if they have picked it up from me without attributing it, it isn’t a big deal. I'm sure I have used ideas in my MOCs that I have seen elsewhere, but whose exact origin I can't remember. However, if I knowingly copy an idea from somebody else, I will give credit. I've got nothing to gain by claiming that something is mine when it isn't and nothing to loose by giving credit. It’s actually a nice thing to give credit where credit is due, quite simply because it’s also a nice thing to get credit. Fortunately that does seem to be the norm.

What I don’t like is people explicitly claiming that something is their idea when it clearly isn’t. You can tell at times. Some people copy MOCs in as much detail as they can manage and go a bit further by then claiming that they came up with the ideas themselves. If somebody were to ask me where an idea I've used came from and I can't remember the source, I will be clear that it wasn't originally my idea. Case in point.

Dishonesty pisses me off, even if it isn’t technically illegal.

Cheers,

Ralph

[Derfel Cadarn]

To be honest I've never been bothered about receiving credit. People can take and use whatever ideas from me as they want and I really don't mind if they don't credit me. After all, Im just a guy who has built something with small plastic bricks, not someone who has created a brilliant money making idea. You cant patent Lego techniques. I think every technique has been done by everyone at some point and 90% of techniques are not rocket science to figure out.

I think it comes more down to style. If people copy all the techniques you regularly use then their mocs will look like yours, in which case they end up losing out because they have not got their own style. A lot of the great builders all have their own recognizable style. When you only need to look at a pic and instantly recognize who made it, that is what people should be more bothered about! That's what makes you stand out. If someone copies your style then everyone else will instantly see that they have copied you.

I think that kind of makes sense. Basically, people can get ideas and techniques from me and Im totally fine about it even if they don't credit me, but, when people start telling them their moc looks like my work, then they have a problem cause it means they don't have no style of their own!

Edited February 9, 2011 by Derfel Cardarn

[Lego_Hero]

I haven't posted in a while, but this caught my attention as it very well applies to me.

I mostly concentrate on turning minifigs into superheroes, so I'm constantly trolling (maybe not the best word) sites for ideas and I've even pulled decals from MCN (I have a file with at least a hundred torsos and masks). While I wouldn't copy anything that someone was trying to sell, I frequently use these on my minifigs. Some of you have probably seen them on my Flickr or Brickshelf pages. As far as construction, when I do build, my biggest source of ideas outside my own are from this very site.

As for MCN, I don't think they post torso and face decals as extensively as they used to, so I couldn't look up the creators if I wanted to. When given the chance to describe a piece, I will say where ideas and decals came from, but that's as close to credit as I get.

As for building, who's ego is so large that they know for sure that they "invented" that style/part use/idea? Tons of times I've built something thinking it looked cool only to find the same basic premise on Brickshelf by someone else.

So, my official stance (as though someone asked my opinion) is: If you got an idea from somewhere, admit to it. Don't pass it off as your own. It's just the right thing to do. BUT, the audience needs to realize (and not get bent out of shape) that it's entirely possible that someone came up with the same idea all on their own. There's usually not really a way to know for sure if someone stole your idea.

Brick on, my peeps!

[-zenn]

Well, at the moment the discussion still seems quite positive. You could edit your first post to reflect recent changes to the situation. However credit is a bit ofa hot button topic, so leaving this open (at least until just before it degenerates into a mud slinging contest) could be condusive to interesting and useful discussion.

So I'll hang back from closing for now, ok?

k.

[CP5670]

So, my official stance (as though someone asked my opinion) is: If you got an idea from somewhere, admit to it. Don't pass it off as your own. It's just the right thing to do. BUT, the audience needs to realize (and not get bent out of shape) that it's entirely possible that someone came up with the same idea all on their own. There's usually not really a way to know for sure if someone stole your idea.

I think what is meant by an "idea" should be clarified here. Even if you don't explicitly credit people, it doesn't mean that you are claiming every little technique used in a model as your own invention. It's only the model as a whole that is yours. In the vast majority of such cases, the other person wouldn't have been the first to use that idea either. I often pick up concepts and techniques from Brickshelf (and expect people to do the same with my models), and most things I find worth using have already been done by many people.

[Omicron]

Normally I give credit when it is due if I was inspired by someone else or I am using someone else's work. Most of the time when I use someone's work (BrickForge, BrickArms, MMCB), I tend to give credit on a few cases, but generally not credit them all the time considering I am regular with their work and they know I thank them and such.

Now when I make something and not know someone else did it, I won't give credit, and if I am demanded for it, well tough luck.

As for people borrowing my ideas, if you give credit that is fine but if you don't I'm not gonna hassle you for it. If people wanna make what I make, I say go for it.

-Omi

Edited February 10, 2011 by Omicron