| |
STE'86
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 274 |
Release id #27140 : Serpent Picture
reclassify.
either Triad demo or Robin Levy art. coz its not Triad art. |
|
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
who says it's "triad art" ? |
| |
STE'86
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 274 |
oh i'm sorry is Robin Levy a known Triad member now? |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
no? who says that? |
| |
STE'86
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 274 |
so how is a peice of Robin Levy art a Triad graphics release then?
a Triad demo release, possibly, seeing as it has music but how can Triad be credited with releasing an artists stuff who has no affilation to them?
as i say, either its a triad demo release or a robin levy graphics release. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
its a picture released in this form by triad. end of story.
an entry beeing classified as graphics does in no way imply that said graphics was created by the one who released it. it means that the entry (mainly) contains a picture. |
| |
Jon
Account closed
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 247 |
I agree, it's mislabeled. It's a Triad demo.
You have the power to reclassify it, STE.
J |
| |
Joe
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 229 |
Many groups did that back then: Rip off (especially) music and (occasionally) artwork and released it under the group name. In worst of cases, such as cracks they would have their name tagged on the picture. In worst of cases, people ripped parts/images and tagged them as artists work.
Obviously, this was released by Triad in '87 and correctly credited (on this database and all knowing) to R. Levy & M. Gray. Since there is no trivia written we can only imagine
A. They lent something they thought was supercool and packed it altogether.
B. They had a communication with the people involved.
|
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
as for classification, the hypothetical example is a picture made by person A, not released, stolen by person B, and released by some group.
this would be a graphics entry, credited to said group as releaser. and person A would get the graphics credits (plus if known, maybe some trivia info). essentially exactly like it was done with this entry :)
(and wether picture+tune counts as demo is a completely different matter unrelated to this. commonly releases like this, ie a picture with some tune playing in the background, are not considered demos - simply because a whole lot of gfx releases were like that, original graphics, and some ripped tune playing)
|
| |
Jon
Account closed
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 247 |
Gah. I see your point, Groepaz. If I had upped it, I would have classified it as a demo (as I think that a gfx release is simply the gfx with no intro/ addons). It also gives a little more legitimacy to the "ownership" of the release and would most likely assuage STE's concerns.
J
|
| |
Joe
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 229 |
Ste: Ok, I see your point. The line between demo/image and music played in the background is always changing: I'd favor "Triad Demo". |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
well, we have no hard rules for that.... and the line is blurred :) personally i can well understand that a graphics entry should be just the graphics without anything extra. on the other hand, that would suddenly make a whole damn lot of graphics entries demos (because really a lot of them play a tune)
but sure, if you think so, make it a demo (no, please use "one file demo" instead :)). but do that because you think this kind of release, ie tune+picture, should be a demo and not a graphics entry. DONT do it because of the credits, they are correct either way, as said. |
| |
Joe
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 229 |
Groepaz: I fully agree, never thought of the classification as such. If I uploaded someones work, which contained a still image, of an artist I did not know. I'd go for Graphics.
Then we had all major parties in the scene-history ranging from standalone images to cheats with interlace, code works, sprite multiplexors and music. None was ever called demos, Tihi :D
|
