Quoting Formerly known as...:

Quote:
It's not the only difference between the actual cover though.

The submitter has said they've composited the banner on to it. That in itself, makes it a custom cover.

Then please point the other differences out.

And any alteration of a scan makes it a custom cover - are you saying we should automatically vote no to anyone removing dust marks or scratches or rounded corners?

I remember a while ago someone submitted a cover for a limited edition horror dvd, and for giggles made the limited number "666"  - that makes it a custom cover. Are you saying we should all have voted no to that because he didn't leave his own number on it?

In my eyes there is a huge difference in cleaning up an image (I've found more times then not the dust and all is from the scanner... not the cover that you scan... so I don't feel that is comparable to this) and taking a whole section from 1 source and adding it to another source to get the image as it needs to be.

Quoting Formerly known as...:

Quote:
As previously stated, the banner itself is the difference between the DVD cover and the slip cover. Whilst minor differences might be allowed, that is one major difference. The rules don't allow for adding in data like that.

No, I'm talking about differences between the actual slipcover and this composite image.
Isn't that the most important thing? Twelvemonkeys has submitted a good image of the front of the slipcover. How he came about that image is not important. The rules do not dictate where the images should come from, all that's important is the final result.

And as for the number example, the user actually stated in the notes what they had done. Are you saying that everyone should have automatically voted "no" to that regardless of the quality of the image simply because of the changes to the number?

Quoting Formerly known as...:

Quote:
Really it's no different to taking say a US cover, sticking a BBFC rating on the front and then submitting it as a UK cover. Would people still vote yes to that?

If the end result was near identical to the actual UK cover, hell yes I would.

Quoting Astrakan:

Quote:
Quoting Formerly known as...:

Quote:
Really it's no different to taking say a US cover, sticking a BBFC rating on the front and then submitting it as a UK cover. Would people still vote yes to that?

If the end result was near identical to the actual UK cover, hell yes I would.

So would I. If the submitted image looks like the cover I hold in my hand and is an improvement over what is in the online, I don't care how the image was created.

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:

No, I'm talking about differences between the actual slipcover and this composite image.
Isn't that the most important thing? Twelvemonkeys has submitted a good image of the front of the slipcover. How he came about that image is not important. The rules do not dictate where the images should come from, all that's important is the final result.

  Totally agree with that. We want an image reproducing exactly the cover. The way it is obtained has no importance.

Personally, I don't like the idea of composed images in the database. I don't see how the rules would allow this. It states the inner cover can only be used if the slip is reflective, and the inner is identical.

Personally, in case of reflective covers, I try to take a photograph with a digital SLR camera. Often this gives nice results. I know not everyone has the necessary equipment to do this.

Anyway, as an alternate solution, I will be happy to host the composed image on my site, so those who want it, can download it.

So, TwelveMonkeys, should your contribution get declined, check out this topic. If you like, just send me the scans, and I'll share them.

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
Quoting Formerly known as...:

Quote:
You can't just create something new and claim it as original artwork.

Original artwork was produced by a cover maker artist and is not available for anybody. The cover is not original, just a reproduction, using printing methods. This reproduction can be scanned (digital method),  photographed (digital method) or treated by software (also just a digital method). What is important is to obtain something which is closest to the reproduction seen on the cover.  All other considerations about the way it was obtained, have, in my opinion, no interest.

You're just arguing there for the sake of it. You know exactly what I meant.