Well, everybody got their panties in a twist over this one, but I happen to genuinely think Serkis qualifies as a "lead animator" for Caesar.   He didn't use a mouse and keyboard, but not so long ago using a mouse and keyboard wasn't considered "animating" either.   I'm not saying he should get credit for something he didn't do, I'm saying the fx team should acknowledge what he DID do.    And might have, if not for the misguided Oscar campaign that gave the impression their contribution was negligible. 

On Troopers we had three input-device animators: two were stop-motion animators by experience, and one (whom I hired personally) was a puppeteer.   (We also had about ten keyframe animators who only used a computer.)   All three input device animators used the exact same setup, except two used the device like a stopmo armature and keyframed poses, while the puppeteer used the device in realtime and captured performances live.

One of our computer-only animators was ADAMANT that the stopmo animators were "animating", and the puppeteer wasn't... even though the only difference was how fast they did it.   It was a ridiculous argument, but the hatred of motion capture among "real animators" runs deep and still exists to this day. 

I think it's a silly and arbitrary way to look at it.   Personally I don't care how the data gets into the computer, or how many people had their hands on it along the way.   I only care if you believe the end result as a character on screen.  And if so, then everybody deserves to take a bow.   I still don't think Caesar deserves a Best Actor Oscar, but he deserves an FX Oscar, and in a fair world without these silly turf wars Serkis would be duly credited for his contribution to the effect.   

There certainly didn't seem to be the same animosity if you look at the making-of's for King Kong and Lord of the Rings, where the FX teams were generally profuse in their praise of Serkis and the contribution he made.