Posted under Tags
Kommandant said:
I see in no way how that diminishes what he had told me when I had about that specific bikini.
But it does. I asked about the specific bikini without the beret - they've agreed, that she shouldn't be tagged as female commander when wearing it. If there was an alt of her wearing the beret or any other elements of her own G&K uniform - I wouldn't have a problem with it. So please, stop acting like you know about OC more, than the owner of OC themself.
Updated
evazion said:
If the only way to tell is from private conversations with the artist, then it shouldn't be tagged as Girls' Frontline. It should be evident from the picture itself.
The point of "tag what you see" is that you don't have to ask the artist. You tag based on what you see in the picture itself. If someone searches Female Commander, they should be able to tell it's a Female Commander just by looking at the picture.
That's the point. The bikini set in question has never appeared in any GFL-related official media nor in in-game costume shop. What Kommandant says about not-a-bot "confirming" that the bikini is a costume for their Commander - non-factor for tagging. Just because it is her own attire shouldn't be a valid reason to tag her as Female Commander.
sycer13 said:
Just because YOU know she originated from GFL, doesn't make that everyone recognizes her as Female Commander.
And just because she is BASED ON the female avatar, doesn't make her retain the connection with copyright. You can't tag a random person as arknights' Doctor or Kantai Collection's Admiral just because they originated from there, but lack any visual context.
The difference being between Termichan and those Doctor/Commanders/Admirals is that Termichan is created FROM GF, the others are created FOR AK/AL/KC. Just because others don't recognize a design from a relatively niche mobile game isn't justification to say that she can't be labeled from that game.
Kommandant said:
The difference being between Termichan and those Doctor/Commanders/Admirals is that Termichan is created FROM GF, the others are created FOR AK/AL/KC. Just because others don't recognize a design from a relatively niche mobile game isn't justification to say that she can't be labeled from that game.
That's where you are wrong. Niche status of copyright plays no role in this. If she lacks any recognizable element related to GFL (clothing/environment/characters in picture), than VISUALLY she is not a female commander. You KNOW what you know, while tags are put based on what you SEE. You have zero justification to tag her as female commander with no GFL-related visual context. Her body design is not a valid reason to cound her as commander.
And we are talking about her original bikini set, not about her design as a whole. Stop tag-warring over her bikini outlook, everyone here (except you) agrees, that she should tagged as just original.
sycer13 said:
That's where you are wrong. Niche status of copyright plays no role in this. If she lacks any recognizable element related to GFL (clothing/environment/characters in picture), than VISUALLY she is not a female commander. You KNOW what you know, while tags are put based on what you SEE. You have zero justification to tag her as female commander with no GFL-related visual context. Her body design is not a valid reason to cound her as commander.
So am I to label every character that I see that isn't wearing their official clothes as original? You keep saying "Tag what you see" and yet you get mad when I do.
Kommandant said:
So am I to label every character that I see that isn't wearing their official clothes as original? You keep saying "Tag what you see" and yet you get mad when I do.
You tag without proper visual context (her custom body outlook have zero weight in being a recognizable GFL commander without proper visual context). You were told that you're wrong (even with concrete evidence), when putting off-topic tags, and yet you persist with your rule breaking behavior.
Updated
This huge bubble of nothing can be easily solved as follows:
Is this a female commander OC that gets drawn in alternate clothes every once in a while? Then it's female commander (girls' frontline) + original, regardless of the existence of the specific character tag. No different than pokemon OCs or Miku OCs that show up every once in a while. Those still get their base tags because they are obviously the original character with a personal spin. And a character getting naked doesn't stop being that specific character, that's like saying we can't tag a naked Hatsune Miku because you can't tell it's her without the clothes.
Is this an original character that got drawn as cosplaying the female commander in one or two instances? Then the individual character tag suffices.
Is this originally a female commander that stopped being a female commander and is now a full OC? Given that the artist doesn't give a fuck about this whole stupid fight, this seems like the most likely option. In this case we'd just use the commander tag when it can be reasonably assumed it's about girls frontline, and original when it's not.
Note that even if the design is a derivative and not the exact one from the copyright, it still counts. I don't want to see pages and pages of dumb arguing like "it's exactly the GFL commander color scheme in her outfit but it doesn't count because technically it's microscopically different". You wouldn't argue that a spiderman with green stripes but everything else exactly the same is not spiderman because of minor modifications.
Updated
Double post, but after having looked into it...
and that skeb requests of not-a-bot state, that she is always commissioned as "Commander OC" (which I find a non-factor in tagging, because it's visual and does not provide context, if it is not attached to the artwork).
Well no, this is stupid. I see tons of commissions with the GFL beret, and the commissioner clearly intends for her to be a commander. She's clearly a GFL commander, wearing a bikini doesn't stop the character from belonging to a copyright. This reminds me of topic #18244. Original characters don't stop belonging to a copyright because you don't want to see them in post results.
As someone who has barely followed this whole debate, most posts in the search results look like the Female Commander. How much more proof do you want that it's her? You're arguing that two pictures with identical outfits, count as different copyrights because one has a post relationship that clearly shows the girls frontline outfit in the parent, and the other does not. That's grasping at straws. post #6332019 and post #6458676 are the exact same character. We don't have this kind of autistic arguing about pokemon OCs or Kemono Friends OCs, so I don't see why we should have special exceptions for this character.
Updated
Actually it's the other way around: the commissioner doesn't want her to be associated with the GFL copyright if she isn't wearing the uniform. These screencaps provide context (provided by sycer13):
First one directly addresses this topic.
Second one directly addresses the broader topic.
She is, like you mentioned, originally a GFL commander that is now a full OC used by their character for "tactical girl" pictures. This entire argument has blown out of Kommandant wanting to retroactively apply the tag to her regardless of whether she's wearing the G&K uniform or if she's wearing her new (post #5511433) outfit that has zero visual indicators that she's a G&K commander. And most of her recent images have her in this outfit.
More importantly, this argument has been going on in spite of the commissioner weighing in and telling us that they don't want the GFL tag where it would be inappropriate. If she's wearing the beret or the G&K uniform, yes, she'll be tagged as a commander; this is how it has been done until very recently when this argument spawned. I don't think the previous method was inappropriate, either.
Updated
winterless said:
Actually it's the other way around: the commissioner doesn't want her to be associated with the GFL copyright if she isn't wearing the uniform. These screencaps provide context (provided by sycer13):
First one directly addresses this topic.
Second one directly addresses the broader topic.
That's an odd way to interpret those screenshots. Those read very much like, "I don't really care, but I guess that sounds right." The artist doesn't care how we tag her, I don't know how you could read those and believe the artist specifically wants her to be tagged a certain way.
winterless said:
Actually it's the other way around: the commissioner doesn't want her to be associated with the GFL copyright if she isn't wearing the uniform. These screencaps provide context (provided by sycer13):
First one directly addresses this topic.
Second one directly addresses the broader topic.
She is, like you mentioned, originally a GFL commander that is now a full OC used by their character for "tactical girl" pictures. This entire argument has blown out of Kommandant wanting to retroactively apply the tag to her regardless of whether she's wearing the G&K uniform or if she's wearing her new (post #5511433) outfit that has zero visual indicators that she's a G&K commander. And most of her recent images have her in this outfit.
More importantly, this argument has been going on in spite of the commissioner weighing in and telling us that they don't want the GFL tag where it would be inappropriate. If she's wearing the beret or the G&K uniform, yes, she'll be tagged as a commander; this is how it has been done until very recently when this argument spawned. I don't think the previous method was inappropriate, either.
The only thing those messages are saying is "leave me alone, I don't care about this".
This argument for "non-GFL" vs "GFL" outfits would make sense if the commissioner's timeline wasn't full of things like https://twitter.com/xerbatt/status/1707387182179041401 or https://twitter.com/god284777/status/1709441902750343335, so I find it really disingenuous that you would try to spin this argument as tag vandalism when you tried to get the artist to sign pre-approved statements. To me it just looks that the commissioner has never thought nor cares about this.
That said, looking into the commissioned pieces with no visual reference to GFL, I see that the commission message makes no mention of GFL whatsoever: take for example https://skeb.jp/@DreadTie_tw/works/17 or the reference sheet in https://imgur.io/a/O09CSSc.
For the sake of ending this ridiculous discussion, in cases like these, we can discard the commander tag and just tag the character as OC, unless in the future new GFL elements should appear in this design.
For instances where the character was clearly thought of as a commander instead, such as the bikini + beret outfit, or when the commentary explicitly references GFL, or when it's tagged on pixiv, then it should get the commander tag, because that's what the picture is obviously representing.
nonamethanks said:
Double post, but after having looked into it...
Well no, this is stupid. I see tons of commissions with the GFL beret, and the commissioner clearly intends for her to be a commander. She's clearly a GFL commander, wearing a bikini doesn't stop the character from belonging to a copyright. This reminds me of topic #18244. Original characters don't stop belonging to a copyright because you don't want to see them in post results.
As someone who has barely followed this whole debate, most posts in the search results look like the Female Commander. How much more proof do you want that it's her? You're arguing that two pictures with identical outfits, count as different copyrights because one has a post relationship that clearly shows the girls frontline outfit in the parent, and the other does not. That's grasping at straws. post #6332019 and post #6458676 are the exact same character. We don't have this kind of autistic arguing about pokemon OCs or Kemono Friends OCs, so I don't see why we should have special exceptions for this character.
Stronlgy disagree. Not-a-bot has agreed with me, that termichan can be tagged as just original with no attachment to GFL when she is not wearing G&K uniform or derived from the uniform clothes, thus making her an OC with no attachments to GFL. And it was told here, that not-a-bot cares little about GFL connections, when commissioning his OC, so their skeb commission desccriptions are an iffy source of information fo tagging.
If we tag her as "female commander" on every post of her with zero to none visual connections to GFL, then it basically breaks the "tag what you see" rule, especially when OC owner themself confirmed, that GFL tags should be put only when it's applicable.
nonamethanks said:
The only thing those messages are saying is "leave me alone, I don't care about this".
This argument for "non-GFL" vs "GFL" outfits would make sense if the commissioner's timeline wasn't full of things like https://twitter.com/xerbatt/status/1707387182179041401 or https://twitter.com/god284777/status/1709441902750343335, so I find it really disingenuous that you would try to spin this argument as tag vandalism when you tried to get the artist to sign pre-approved statements. To me it just looks that the commissioner has never thought nor cares about this.
That said, looking into the commissioned pieces with no visual reference to GFL, I see that the commission message makes no mention of GFL whatsoever: take for example https://skeb.jp/@DreadTie_tw/works/17 or the reference sheet in https://imgur.io/a/O09CSSc.
For the sake of ending this ridiculous discussion, in cases like these, we can discard the commander tag and just tag the character as OC, unless in the future new GFL elements should appear in this design.For instances where the character was clearly thought of as a commander instead, such as the bikini + beret outfit, or when the commentary explicitly references GFL, or when it's tagged on pixiv, then it should get the commander tag, because that's what the picture is obviously representing.
Okay, that sound reasonable, except for pixiv tags, because there are cases of her being tagged as "female commander" with no GFL-tags, just original. Like bikini with no beret alt.
sycer13 said:
Okay, that sound reasonable, except for pixiv tags, because there are cases of her being tagged as "female commander" with no GFL-tags, just original.
Open the tags from the post in question on pixiv and see if you can remove them. If there's an X icon, they're added by random users and shouldn't be taken into consideration for this.
sycer13 said:
Now, can someone tell Kommandant to stop with off-topic tags? I don't believe they'll listen to me.
That's because it's not off-topic, especially the most recent one where it's just her wearing the Winter Shorts. If it wasn't for the fact that it was mentioned to be a commission for Not-a-Bot, you wouldn't be able to tell that it was Termichan
Kommandant said:
That's because it's not off-topic, especially the most recent one where it's just her wearing the Winter Shorts. If it wasn't for the fact that it was mentioned to be a commission for Not-a-Bot, you wouldn't be able to tell that it was Termichan
Stop assuming things, will you? Just because she wears her shorts does not justify the tags. By this logic we have to tag her tactical outfit as "female commander" and "girls' frontline" as well. I don't see any intended visual connection to GFL and tags on pixiv do not say that it's GFL artwork.
And if anyone has difficulties visually identifying her as termichan, then she will be tagged just original, because no one (except you) sees any intentional connection to GFL.
Updated
