Semantics, that. It still stands.
Posted under General
0xCCBA696 said:
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"?
No, I'm explaining how I understand them in the context of danbooru. Notice how I said "I'd define it as", not "it's defined in the dictionary as". I feel that making the above mentioned tags copyrights makes perfect sense and fits with what we've been using them for / what I believe they should be used for. Copyright[*] is pretty much when you can make a parody of it, except for memes such as moe_moe_kyun, since, as I mentioned, they're too embedded in the parent copyright to become copyrights on their own.
[*] By which I mean the technical meaning of the term in danbooru, ie. "the copyright: prefix and purple highlight". Not anything that would follow from the dictionary definition of the word, as the term "copyright" was pretty much adopted straight from wasei-eigo, for lack of a better term. Albert complained about that, but we haven't found anything better since.
葉月 said:
Copyright[*] is pretty much when you can make a parody of it
This. This is pretty much what I said, though I wouldn't require it to be a parody as such (homage or otherwise borrowing intellectual property should count as well). I don't think you can make a parody of a bottle of Heinz ketchup or a Pampers diaper. I see the word "copyright" as referring to parent works of derivative works found on danbooru, such that the derivative works would be tagged with the name of the parent work, i.e. the "copyright", or in quasilegal terms, the "property" from which they are "derived".
EDIT: I should probably also mention that I don't consider songs, dances, particular scenes, memes, etc. to be "copyrights", because they are not large enough in scope to be a "property" - I'd just consider them to be "patterns" which are repeated. For example, I doubt that kyoani or whoever could have grounds to claim that the pose represented in moe moe kyun! was their intellectual property, nor do I think that the popotan dance is particularly protected from infringement, or what have you. Not to say that the legal aspect of copyrights really has anything to do with the concept itself, but just using that as an example of scope.
Updated
0xCCBA696 said:
This. This is pretty much what I said, though I wouldn't require it to be a parody as such (homage or otherwise borrowing intellectual property should count as well). I don't think you can make a parody of a bottle of Heinz ketchup or a Pampers diaper.
What about *-tans? They're homage/borrowing intellectual property exactly. And yes, you can parody a product such as heinz, by embedding the reference in a setting that makes it humorous.
EDIT: I should probably also mention that I don't consider songs, dances, particular scenes, memes, etc. to be "copyrights", because they are not large enough in scope to be a "property" - I'd just consider them to be "patterns" which are repeated. For example, I doubt that kyoani or whoever could have grounds to claim that the pose represented in moe moe kyun! was their intellectual property, nor do I think that the popotan dance is particularly protected from infringement, or what have you. Not to say that the legal aspect of copyrights really has anything to do with the concept itself, but just using that as an example of scope.
Æh. No. The scope of moe_moe_kyun! is not at all comparable to the scope of poppippoo. The latter is a significant original work with very clear identity on its own, remarkably distinct from vocaloid as such. That's completely unlike the former, which is just a scene in a much bigger show. Songs are definitely copyrights, there's just no two ways about it. Dances could be, depending on their size and complexity and circumstances. Caramelldansen is a child of random memetic cross-polination, so it's definitely not one. Hare_hare_yukai and motteke!_serafuku are just, just big and intricate enough that I'd hesitate to say no. They have the "embedded in a bigger product" thing going against them, but if anyone made a dance on such a scale that was original and standalone, it'd immediately attain the status of copyright. Not to mention that, to go back to your legal example, they'd be protected by copyright[1].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_dance#Videography_and_Photography
The name of the tag category "copyright" was a compromise chosen in the absence of better suggestions. It was never intended to refer to the legal concept of copyright. Personally, I always thought it might as well have been called "series", but that word was avoided due to the existence of non-serial works (eg single movies).
Anyway, the usage of "copyright" up until now has been to cover the original work of fiction (anime/manga/game/etc.) on which a picture is based, and to which the characters belong.
Extending it to include all brands only serves to dilute the category's purpose. It's a pure loss.
What about situations like mcdonalds and kfc_(company) which are definately copyrights in the legal sense alone, but support true characters and have dozens of posts? I'd say not using the category for them makes no sense at all.
Actuslly, McDonald's and KFC are trademarks, not copyrights. Moreover, there can be characters that are not from any work of fiction, and that's usually the case with mascots. For example, fuuki-tan is a character, but she doesn't need a copyright:benifuuki tag.
In the case of McDonald's, I'd say you could argue both for and against making it a copyright tag. It might seem obvious if you're looking at a picture of Ronald McDonald's, but then we also have things like post #422346, post #340843 and post #332682. Would you say post #332682 is a crossover betwen Lucky Star and McDonald's?
0xCCBA696 said: 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?
Agreed.
I always found the use of the word "copyright" for the tagtype to be a bit awkward, and what it should really be taken to mean in almost all cases is "series", even if said series is a one episode OVA.
So I vote no for using copy: tags on anything but anime/manga/game/novel/etc series, the companies that make them (what few such tags we have), or, and I feel less strongly about this, other tags related to content (bands, artwork, songs). Copy: tags for brands of ketchup? Definitely strongly against.
RaisingK said: What is the point in tagging stuff like heinz and pampers? One post each. Just tag it with ketchup and diapers.
Oh and I completely agree with this too. There is zero reason to give these specific tags.
Anyway, long story short, the "copyright" tagtype doesn't literally mean "copyright" and should never be interpreted as such, although it's understandable why people would think so.
I'd like to note that only people (and I mean only) ever to mention copyrights in the legal sense were ones that said "but it's not the same as the legal definition of copyright!". No-one ever suggested they were. I gave a very clear and detailed reasons why I feel X and Y deserve to be copyrights while Z doesn't. You don't have to agree, but flying that strawman in my face time and time again is just insulting.
I can only assume you're responding to me, I guess?
葉月 said: I gave a very clear and detailed reasons why I feel X and Y deserve to be copyrights while Z doesn't. You don't have to agree, but flying that strawman in my face time and time again is just insulting.
If I didn't quote you (this is why people should always quote, and expect to be quoted, btw!) or even respond right below any of your posts (the only way I can assume you're replying to me), where do you get the idea I was responding directly and personally to you?
And how would this qualify as "time and time again" if I have visited this thread exactly once before now, and we've never discussed this topic ever before in any other thread? Isn't that a bit of hyperbole?
That out of the way - you misinterpreted my post. I can see how people, *in general*, would think it literally means copyright (or trademark/brand, which copyright is often mixed up with) in a broader sense and try to tag it for things completely unlike series names. As they have done, apparently, or the thread wouldn't have come into existence. Inappropriate things like, say, Heinz brand ketchup or Pampers brand diapers.
Copyright is a misleading word that, as others have stated, was chosen in compromise but has the unfortunate side effect of being open to a pretty broad interpretation, some of which really doesn't fit what I see being the intention and spirit of the tagtype. Yes, you proposed a nuanced reasoning for your position. I read it. I understood it. That doesn't mean I agree with it. And I do indeed think it's a definition that uses the "copyright" tagtype concept too broadly. I even think the "songs/bands/artwork" part I mentioned is really borderline.
Updated
Actually, no, I was responding mostly to 0xCCBA696 (this continues to be the most worsest nick ever), who invoked it enough times to sidetrack the discussion into what is and isn't copyright as legally defined (as evidenced by Shinjidude's and LaC's posts).
jxh2154 said:
That out of the way - you misinterpreted my post. I can see how people, *in general*, would think it literally means copyright (or trademark/brand, which copyright is often mixed up with) in a broader sense and try to tag it for things completely unlike series names. As they have done, apparently, or the thread wouldn't have come into existence. Inappropriate things like, say, Heinz brand ketchup or Pampers brand diapers.Copyright is a misleading word that, as others have stated, was chosen in compromise but has the unfortunate side effect of being open to a pretty broad interpretation, some of which really doesn't fit what I see being the intention and spirit of the tagtype.
On the contrary, I never got the impression the word "copyright" itself was any problem, at least not for anyone arguing for inclusion of non-series categories of tags. I don't think the OP was confused by that; rather I read it as "what exactly do we want to group under this tag type?". I know for sure I was never confused in the slightest, knowing the full history of the concept and albert's gripes over the precise word "copyright" which we chose because it was least bad, and still it's my stance that the above mentioned things do indeed fit the spirit of the tag perfectly.
Yes, you proposed a nuanced reasoning for your position. I read it. I understood it. That doesn't mean I agree with it. And I do indeed think it's a definition that uses the "copyright" tagtype concept too broadly. I even think the "songs/bands/artwork" part I mentioned is really borderline.
There's also another reason that hasn't been mentioned previously: I rely heavily on the colour-coding to ease and speed up my reading of tags. Thus I expect "things that have a specific identity" to be purple (or green), and conversely, expect the blue tags not to be things that are individually distinguishable.
Seen this way, those tags simply feel out of place when blue. It's very clear-cut for me and I've never had any doubts about how I perceive them. I'm positive it's not due to confusion or misunderstanding of the role of the tag group, it's simply my very unambiguous feeling. We can argue whether it is to be generally accepted or rejected as a desirable approach, but it's not "wrong" in that this area has never been really specified, so you can't really say it goes against the spirit. Recall that the term "copyright" was chosen over "series" precisely to avoid unnecessary exclusion "series" would cause.
The vast majority of images on Danbooru is based on works of fiction in the anime/manga/game medium. Unsurprisingly, two of the most important things we've always insisted on tagging are the characters that appear in an image, and the work they belong to; these two types of tags have even been given a different color to make it easier to notice them (or their absence!).
It seems that 葉月, and perhaps someone else, has been doing his own thing all along. I'm pretty sure it's a minority opinion, but let's look at the proposals objectively.
A) We have a special tag category for the work(s) of fiction a picture is based on. This makes it easy to answer questions such as "where is this guitar-playing girl from?" (very important when you're translating and need to look up a name), and to see at a glance whether a picture's source work has been identified (the lack of a purple tag is a red flag!), whether it's a mashup of several works, etc.
B) We have a special tag category for brands, or for all proper nouns which are not names of people. This makes 葉月 happy, but it doesn't have much to do with the purpose or scope of this site.
I think A is more useful for more people.
My impression of "copyright" tags was always that they're for things like series, OVAs, movies, novels and manga. Basically works that "contain" characters. By this definition, tags like heinz and pampers would not become copyright tags. Also, it could be argued that a tag like code_geass gives information about things in the picture whereas a tag like heinz gives informatoin about the picture itself.
However, I do see a very clear distinction between, for example, the tags heinz and blue_hair, in that heinz is a proper noun and hair is a common one. As we all know, this distinction is normally made by capitalizing the first letter of proper nouns, but we obviously don't have caps in tag names. The question that remains, then, is whether this distinction is important enough to warrant classifying tags like these as copyrights.
Edit: Essentially, what LaC said.
LaC said:
It seems that 葉月, and perhaps someone else, has been doing his own thing all along. I'm pretty sure it's a minority opinion, but let's look at the proposals objectively.
Ahh, unmistakable LaC style, sneaking in accusations and false dychotomies under the guise of objectivity. I like how you work, son. I haven't been doing anything "my own", since it's never been defined to begin with. There are a number of equally valid interpretations, and yours isn't more proper just because it's yours.
A) We have a special tag category for the work(s) of fiction a picture is based on. This makes it easy to answer questions such as "where is this guitar-playing girl from?" (very important when you're translating and need to look up a name), and to see at a glance whether a picture's source work has been identified (the lack of a purple tag is a red flag!), whether it's a mashup of several works, etc.
And how does that make things like, say, black_rock_shooter or poppippoo not "works of fiction" by your requirements? Is identifying references to it somehow less important than identifying references to something that's been aired in TV? Or to the vocaloid franchise in general? The latter is not even a "work of fiction", it's computer software, something very real and well-defined. You can make mashups of mcdonalds and burger_king just fine. In fact, the at-a-glance information of where the references come from are just as important, if not more, since they often tend to be more obscure.
I'm sorry, but aside from the vague term "work of fiction", which suffers exactly the same problem "copyright" does (its pre-existing, plain English meaning maps poorly to the concept we use it for), none of your functional requirements apply to TV series more than to other types of copyrights.
B) We have a special tag category for brands, or for all proper nouns which are not names of people. This makes 葉月 happy, but it doesn't have much to do with the purpose or scope of this site.
I think A is more useful for more people.
How about
C) You make a case that clearly demonstrates why tagging only series specially is more desirable, and how tagging other things in purple does harm. And it does so in terms of the functional requirements you outlined above, so that it's apparent why the distinction is important within the scope of the site and not just on some arbitrary philosophical level.
I think C and not presenting false dychotomies and strawmen combined is more useful to more people.
Soljashy said:
The question that remains, then, is whether this distinction is important enough to warrant classifying tags like these as copyrights.
IMHO, yes, because they have associated characters (cf. mcdonalds), can be parodied, referenced and remixed based on their identity and not their properties. We have two types of such tags: characters and copyrights. Since they're obviously not characters, the remaining option is copyrights. Or we could artifically introduce a third class, but that serves no real purpose and is just clinging to the pre-existing meaning of "copyright", which is silly, as it's a placeholder term for something we have no good word for.
葉月 said:
C) You make a case that clearly demonstrates why tagging only series specially is more desirable, and how tagging other things in purple does harm.
One thing LaC did point out is that this makes it quicker (for translators in particular) to see what series/etc a character is from. Of course, when there are characters from many different shows in a picture, this becomes less efficient anyway, since the copyright and character tags aren't directly tied.
Sorry I hurt your butt, 葉月. But seriously:
葉月 said:
And how does that make things like, say, black_rock_shooter or poppippoo not "works of fiction" by your requirements?
I have no problem with BRS being a copyright, since it covers appearances of at least one popular character. Actually, from a cursory look at the posts it looks like copy:black_rock_shooter might as well be replaced by char:black_rock_shooter_girl, but I don't mind either way.
However, don't take that to mean that all songs should get a copyright tag. This poppippoo thing doesn't have any characters of its own; I'd treat it no differently from loituma.
Is identifying references to it somehow less important than identifying references to something that's been aired in TV?
Vocaloid bullshit is almost as annoying as Toho bullshit, so I'd be tempted to say "yes", but in fact it's not. Both are important, both get a tag. It doesn't have to be a purple tag, though.
Or to the vocaloid franchise in general? The latter is not even a "work of fiction", it's computer software, something very real and well-defined.
But it has a cast of characters that took on a life of its own. Vocaloid may be a computer program, but I'm not: I'd rather keep a rule with judicious exceptions than extend it to the breaking point for the sake of having a simpler definition.
You can make mashups of mcdonalds and burger_king just fine. In fact, the at-a-glance information of where the references come from are just as important, if not more, since they often tend to be more obscure.
I'm in favor of adding an orange tag category for memes. However, I see McDonald's as just another visual element that shows up in images, like car or spring_onion. It has a hybrid nature because of Ronald, yes; still, I'd rather have pictures of Ronald with a blue tag than pictures of a fast food restaurant with a purple tag. Ronald's green tag provides enough identification on its own.
Updated