pouët.net

Sometimes even when you credit with the best intentions, you forget to credit some inspiration because you think it's obvious. Like in Save The Earth, I credited where the "would you copy" sequence come from, the pixel art truck, but I did not gave credits for Outrun and Union Demo music remixes from XiA mostly because I believed it was obvious. Which remains me I should have given credits for the Terminator poster. And the Dell screen, and... fuck I'm a lame ripper !!!!

I see no problems with using unoriginal work, as long as you're honest. If you're not honest, well, then you're a liar and a cheat. Quite simple, no general scene rules needed.

Also, ripped graphics in a demo? WHAT A TOTAL SHOCK NOBODY ELSE DOES IT

I think forcing the perpetrators to listen to entire discography of Coldplay, Kane and Nickelback in a single sitting would be appropriate \o/

I liek nickelback :(

Well....only that one song.

what Havok said + in front of the complete BITS demography on a bigscreen.

I'm 100% with Gasman.

I think it would be a great idea, indeed, to list "inspiration sources" next to the not very informative "ps2.0" or "ps3.0" thing during the compo. It should go also in the .txt.

As ps said, some demos (as fairlight's one with the colorful smoke) have been seen as a concept breakthru by many sceners just cause they didn't know the original piece. We don't want that in the end demo compos reduce to rewarding the one who has the best skills digging into obscure threads, books and documentaries for "yet unseen" effects/material, do we. I think opening the list of inspiration sources, just as one opens the hw context in which the demo runs is a good thing, no harm, no talibanism, just be clear and people will judge accordingly, and that's it, not big deal.

that's assuming they're honest.

i mean really, if i pull together a demo mostly from motion graphics ads, why would i admit to it if it automatically gives me a disadvantage, even if the demo itself is good, especially if it takes 5 years for people to find the original influence and overreact it?

What should we do if those "inspiration sources" are too many to be listed?

Put the most important ones there and a more complete list in the nfo?

Well, this is the question: *Are* you keeping your sources secret because you're dishonest and want to pretend that someone else's work is your own so that you don't want people to react negatively to that in the voting (in which case fuck you, I'm the voter and I'll judge YOUR work how I like) - or are you keeping your sources secret because you're presenting your work in good faith but what the hell, this is the demoscene, so what if I ripped a photo from Nike that's just the same as when someone copies the idea of having ribbons in a demo so what's the big deal right?

My point is, if we make this a standard practice, then we can tell the difference between casual ripping and outright dishonesty.

gargaj: because you'll get labelled as untrustworthy once someone finds out you lied/omitted. so it's to your advantage to list things properly from the start. the same way crediting your samples in tracked mods became more and more mandatory as time passed by. it was acceptable to use others samples, but incredibly lame not to credit them accordingly.

what gasma+ps said.
And the goal should not be to win at all costs, but to surpass yourself. I also think that the average scener should be smart enough to know the difference between, say, a ripping off an mp3 or recreating it in 4k. Same as repixelating a Terminator poster or some cartoonish naked girls.
So we can say: whoah you've got a good synth, you do good pixels, instead of good melodies or nice choice of colors.

also, it's all for fun, let's stay casual. I wouldn't enfore a rule for it but it's a god habit, to be encourage, and it can also open the eyes of some people, help their general culture.

I'll do it. Whenever I do a demo. Or something. But I will do it.

instead you want to see all the effect clliches - copyed aswell just from other demos? if someone does this, he made his homework just aswell, no prob. Also these digging skills dont win demo compos alone do they,,,

so, demo compos should be won by thoughts & intentions ? the .nfo / text files should be shown then before the compos, or the results of a lie test machine, so we can vote accordingly.

i'm with gasman/ps/iq.

i really like the "inspiration sources" on the bigscreen. if demoparty organisers / partysys coders would add that term to that field (i.e. "comments for the audience" => "comments & inspiration sources"), i think such a culture shift might happen quite fast, in fact.

Please don't show this on the big screen before the demo. It'd be like having a lead singer begin every song with "Hi, I was listening to a lot of <insert band name here> before I wrote this one".

What happened to the "everything goes" spirit the scene used to have? As long as I am entertained I dont really care if much of it is a mashup of stuff from other places. obviously giving creds whre due, is the polite thing to do. But it should still be up to the ethics of the individual content creator to come clean for the reasons 4mat offers up.

Think of all the great demos from back in the days with heavily sampled music (FSOL, Prodigy etc), Boris vallejo rip offs (that still required a load of skill to do properly!), I dont think less of any of those just because the work is not 100% original.

im quite concerned with the idea of listing sources UNTIL there is an attitude shift. many in the scene are still stuck in the "no copy" mentality, and until that changes it'll never work.

the problem with sources is that in the scene people are so black and white about them. it's like, as soon as someone discovers a "source" (or something that looks similar) a witchhunt begins; it's like the whole creative value of the demo is eliminated. that's not right. sources of inspiration are just that - the triggers for new creative ideas, not a replacement for your own creativity. but they arent seen like that.

i'd far rather be tbl, bringing in the outside ideas into the demo environment, reinterpreting them, making them realtime, adding their own twists, than the bunch of groups who are getting those ideas second hand by ripping off tbl. but i dont think the audience sees it like that when presented with a list of sources, or discovering those sources later on youtube.

in fact it's surely better to have a long list of sources than just one or two, right? shouldnt that big list of sources on the compo screen, as many non-demo as possible, make you *want* to vote for that demo? when people start looking at what's new, not what's old, when that day comes, i'd be all for putting up that list.

and by the way, it's not about winning a democompo. it's about people respecting the creativity you put in, not voiding it of merit because some of the concepts you threw into the mix came from elsewhere.

agreed. as long as those 'concepts' aren't color-corrected stills from Nike videos, i suppose ;)

and btw. the amusing thing about the "sources = sucks" idea is - the better you are, the more likely you are to suffer from it. if you suck, you aren't likely to get results anywhere near the level of the original - so nobody will notice. :)

The bathroom mirror plagiarizes me every morning.

The thing is, imho, TBL has earned the right to copy the odd picture and video sequence and incorporate them into their demos.