Posted under General
They are much more proper nouns than, say breasts, but they don't lend well to a character tag, so the closest distinction is teh purpulz, and IMO a distinction is needed for something that specific (heck, poppippoo is copyright'd, and it's for a song and related imagery, though other dance-related tags have remained generic).
FWIW, I approve of marking those as copyrights. Our use of "copyright" is really not that far off of brand, and that's what they are. I'd define copyrights as "proper nouns describing concepts with an established identity independent of the generic qualifiers that could be used to describe them", and both heinz and poppippoo make the cut. Pampers maybe not quite so, as they're heavily genericised and pretty much used to mean "diapers", but as long as the tag is kept separate from diaper, I'm okay with it being a copyright. As for things such as moe_moe_kyun!, not really, since they lack the proper "product" behind them.
This is how I feel the copyright tag should be used:
Series: obvious enough, this is the generally accepted use of the tag.
Brand names: If it's a distinctly recognizable shape (pocky, ramune) or the name appears in the image (coke, pepsi) these are owned brands and there's no reason for them to be generic tags.
Songs: This one's more of a gray area but here's how I feel, if an artist comes up with an original song that has a distinctive style (koi_wa_sensou, poppippoo)) it deserves a copyright backing. I'm torn about OP/EDs but things like caramelldansen have transcended copyright straight into meme territory and don't really deserve it imo.
tl;dr: Series, brand names and most songs deserve copyright typing.
葉月 said:
I'd define copyrights as "proper nouns describing concepts with an established identity independent of the generic qualifiers that could be used to describe them"
Log & Shinjidude said:
stuff
I am really not following the logic here. Are you trying to argue what the "copyright" tag type should refer to based on the semantic meaning of the word "copyright"? I always thought it was obvious that "copyright" here referred to "a body of intellectual property", and that a post tagged with a particular "copyright" tag was tagged as such because the post would be considered a derivative work of said "copyright". But OK, if you really want "copyright" to expand to the definitions you guys are proposing, fine. I just want to know why that's important enough for danbooru to have a separate tag type for it. I can understand why we care about classifying characters names as "character tags", and why we care about classifying artist names as "artist tags", but why do we care about random modifying noun phrases referring to objects whose appearence happens to be copyrighted? If we expand the copyright tag we wouldn't be able to distinguish series from other random copyrighted "concepts with established identities independent of the generic qualifiers that could be used to describe them". IMO we could just rename the copyright tag type "series", since that's essentially what it's used for (the fact that a thread was even made asking the question is one indication). I always assumed the only reason it wasn't called "series" was because you don't necessarily talk about a video game or OVA as being a "series", and albert wanted something more general-sounding to encompass all these types of things. Am I wrong?
Log said:
Brand names: If it's a distinctly recognizable shape (pocky, ramune) or the name appears in the image (coke, pepsi) these are owned brands and there's no reason for them to be generic tags.
I really don't see any reason for them not to be generic tags, either.
0xCCBA696 has a good point. The reason I changed the tags to purple was due to semantic reasons, as 葉月 and Log mentioned, but I realized there would be a lot of purple-tag clutter if product brands and songs were to be copyrighted.
Very well, I've reverted heinz and pampers back to general tags.
Updated
0xCCBA696 said:
words
You're forgetting one thing: danbooru is a dynamic system that changes as the users see fit. Just because albert created something to be used one way doesn't mean it has to stay that way. The everyone tag, pools, and the character tagtype have changed over time, just to name a few.
Just because albert created something to be used one way doesn't mean it has to stay that way, but it also doesn't mean it has to change, so I don't see what point you're trying to make.
Perhaps you didn't notice, but I wasn't just advocating the status quo for the sake of advocating the status quo. I listed my reasons why allowing the semantic definition of the word "copyright" to dictate the usage of the tags labeled as such is a bad idea. You're right, you have every right to propose policy, but you sure haven't convinced me to take your position.
I wasn't trying to convince you of anything because it was obvious with that many words that I wasn't going to change your position no matter what I said, what I was trying to do was inform you that "albert made x this way so it should stay that way" is a pretty bad argument.
And it wasn't my argument, and isn't my argument, as I reiterated in my last post. By your reasoning, "copyright means x so we should follow that to the letter" is just as invalid an argument as "albert made x this way so it should stay that way". Luckily neither of us are making either of those arguments, are we?
Well, just to drop my two cents in the bucket, I think "if there are several characters that fall under this heading" is a pretty good way to determine it. Thus, things like vocaloids and touhou characters would fit.
I'm not too keen on purpling pocky, ramune, and such. I think they should be general tags.
Tissue isn't a brand name but nice try, I guess.
sgcdonmai said:
I think "if there are several characters that fall under this heading" is a pretty good way to determine it.
Counterpoint: the major supercell songs all are set to copyright and Miku is the only character that falls under them. It was discussed and agreed upon they're copyrights.
