Quote:
In this case, Neil Gaiman and Charles Vess are credited seperately.  One is credited as the writer, the other as the illustrator.  That tells me that one created the story and the other created illustrations based on that story.

They work together from the beginning.
http://www.superherohype.com/news/featuresnews.php?id=4830

Did everybody knows the famous french "The Adventures of Asterix" from René Goscinny and Albert Uderzo?
There are several animated movies and 3 real ones. CLT Tool says:

"Albert Uderzo" is credited in the following 104 titles (142 profiles):

Until Goscinny died 1977 Uderzo was only the illustrator and Goscinny wrote the whole story. And every movie based upon comics before 1977. So Uderzo must be removed from every profile because he only illustrates the comics - this can not be right.

Quoting HilbertHimmelwaerts:

Quote:

Quote:

Until Goscinny died 1977 Uderzo was only the illustrator and Goscinny wrote the whole story. And every movie based upon comics before 1977. So Uderzo must be removed from every profile because he only illustrates the comics - this can not be right.

That may or may NOT be correct, it is dependent upon his film credits and only his film credits. If all his film credits are set up in the same fashion then YES they would have to be removed from the Online. But...if it is important data to YOU, then keep it local and wait...perhaps someday we will be able to accomodate that specific credit type...just not NOW.

Skip

Quoting HilbertHimmelwaerts:

Quote:
[Did everybody knows the famous french "The Adventures of Asterix" from René Goscinny and Albert Uderzo?
There are several animated movies and 3 real ones. CLT Tool says:

"Albert Uderzo" is credited in the following 104 titles (142 profiles):

Until Goscinny died 1977 Uderzo was only the illustrator and Goscinny wrote the whole story. And every movie based upon comics before 1977. So Uderzo must be removed from every profile because he only illustrates the comics - this can not be right.

I was wondering when Asterix would surface in this debate. I don't have any of the DVDs (despite having every one of the books...in French). I would be interested to hear from anyone who has the DVDs how (if) Goscinny & Uderzo are actually credited.

Quote:
Which might explain why, in this case, the studio chose to credit them separately.

This is the picture frame with the credit:


In my opion this is a kind of together.
And the studio decide to credit the illustrator.

Quote:

I was wondering when Asterix would surface in this debate. I don't have any of the DVDs (despite having every one of the books...in French). I would be interested to hear from anyone who has the DVDs how (if) Goscinny & Uderzo are actually credited.

I just checked "Asterix Le Gaulois".

The only entry is "de Goscinny et Uderzo". I hope this is enough to credit both of them for the original material.

The allowable credits for OMB are wide open in the rules and Illustrated by would certainly fit in. There's nothing to prohibit it and there's nothing that requires "material" to be words. Example: Richard Rodgers receives an OMB credit for "Babes in Arms" for "Based on the Play by" in which he wrote the music and Lorenz Hart wrote the words.

There's also nothing in the rules that says all OMBs have to be credited together or under the same credit to qualify for OMB.

The fact that the work of the filmmakers chose a different visual style from the illustrator doesn't negate the OMB credit for the original illustrator either. Many scripts depart from the original story yet the original story writer is credited.

Sometimes even Screenwriter A receives a credit as screenwriter when their script was tossed and Screenwriter B wrote the final script. They'll each be credited (depends on Writers Guild arbitration and all that) yet the on-screen content came from only one of the scripts.

Let's not make this more difficult by creating additional requirements.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
...Artwork is NOT writing in any way shape or form.

Ancient Egyptians and their Hieroglyphics or Cavemen and their cave paintings might disagree with you on that

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Yes, they worked together, but one had the idea and wrote the story, the other illustrated it.  Quotes from the article say just that.  The most telling thing in that story, at least for me, is this exchange with Vess:

Quote:

SHH!: And how about yourself, Charles? You obviously have a very distinctive art style, and I wasn't sure how that might translate to real people, but then I saw the picture of Michelle Pfeiffer on the chariot pulled by goats.
Vess: I've been trying to figure out how to put it into words, but the best thing is that "Stardust" is a very large world and I built my "Stardust" over there, and they built their "Stardust" over here, and they both co-exist, but they're different visually. It's got the same spirit. It made me very happy to see what they've done. It had some very talented people working on it, and I don't see any problem with re-interpreting anything as long as you've got really keen minds on it.

He says the film was visually different from the illustrations in the book.  He says that they re-interpreted it.  That tells me that the film was based on the written word, not the illustrations.  Which might explain why, in this case, the studio chose to credit them separately.

irrevelent, if people for giving an OMB credit can't use other aspects of this interview to support giving an OMB credit, you can't use portions of the interview to support not giving them an OMB. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

---

there is no credit for Theme by though some people argue that should get credit (maybe some of the same people agains OMB here)
there is no credit for additional music, though same situation as Theme by

--

Original Material By and Even Original Characters By, while under the writing section, never exclude characters or material that was created in a form other than writing in a modern language. What if a Picture Book (no text at all as part of the story) was the source for a movies story? Do we not give an OMB and/or OCB credit for the Author (who would likely be the illustrator unless of course the story is written down by someone and then they say, here draw a picture book for this, but how would we necessarily know if that is the case)? Or does it depend. If that person is credit as 'Based on a picture book by [author name]' then yes, but if its 'Based on a picture book drawn(or illustrated) by [author name]' then no? Or it could be 'Based on a book by [author name]' we wouldn't even know its a picture book, so I guess that gets the credit. But if the only credit is 'Based on a book drawn (or illustrated) by [author name] then not?

This better get added to the rules ASAP because it could turn out to be the most confusing rule of them all.

-Agrare

Quoting Agrare:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
He says the film was visually different from the illustrations in the book.  He says that they re-interpreted it.  That tells me that the film was based on the written word, not the illustrations.  Which might explain why, in this case, the studio chose to credit them separately.

irrevelent, if people for giving an OMB credit can't use other aspects of this interview to support giving an OMB credit, you can't use portions of the interview to support not giving them an OMB. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I am not trying to have my cake and eat it too as I said nothing of the sort.  if you go back and look, you will see that it was Skip who said the interview didn't have any relevance.  If you want to counter something I said, at least have the courtesy of addressing something I actually said. 

Quote:

(...)
Original Material By and Even Original Characters By, while under the writing section, never exclude characters or material that was created in a form other than writing in a modern language. What if a Picture Book (no text at all as part of the story) was the source for a movies story? Do we not give an OMB and/or OCB credit for the Author (who would likely be the illustrator unless of course the story is written down by someone and then they say, here draw a picture book for this, but how would we necessarily know if that is the case)? Or does it depend. If that person is credit as 'Based on a picture book by [author name]' then yes, but if its 'Based on a picture book drawn(or illustrated) by [author name]' then no? Or it could be 'Based on a book by [author name]' we wouldn't even know its a picture book, so I guess that gets the credit. But if the only credit is 'Based on a book drawn (or illustrated) by [author name] then not?

Let me try one last time since you are making assumptions based on things I did not say.  In this case, we are dealing with two credits.  A writing credit and an illustration credit.

The first one is easy, the writer of the book the film is based on will always get an OMB credit.

The second one is not as easy.  Was the film based on the illustrations or just the written story?  The fact that they used two different credits leads me to believe that it was just the written story.  My opinion was further reinforced by an interview, with the illustrator, where he states that it was a re-interpreting.  Does anybody here really believe he meant anything other than a re-interpreting of the story?

Now, had this been a 'picture book', with no written words, then I would credit the illustrator with an OMB credit...but I never said otherwise, now, did I? 

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Let me try one last time since you are making assumptions based on things I did not say.  In this case, we are dealing with two credits.  A writing credit and an illustration credit.

Ok, i apologize, yes you didn't argue that the interview couldn't be used for outside source, but my comment still raises a valid point that it can be used to argue both ways.

However, now it is you who assume, did you notice the -- in my post, the ones you conviently left out. I put those there to seperate those comments from the ones made after the quoted text.

*edit* however you are still free to respond to that point, dont get me wrong. But however, if its a reimagining, is it not still based on the work created by others?

-Agrare