requesting removal of copyright_notice tag.
reason: the (C) or copyright information is covered by the watermark tag already.
it's related term all_rights_reserved was reported sometime ago and was deleted.
edit: *bump*
Updated by jxh2154
Posted under General
requesting removal of copyright_notice tag.
reason: the (C) or copyright information is covered by the watermark tag already.
it's related term all_rights_reserved was reported sometime ago and was deleted.
edit: *bump*
Updated by jxh2154
From the watermark wiki: "Image containing text or logo that is /not part of the original image or by the original artist/."
This is the key difference. post #997147 has a copyright notice that isn't a watermark. post #67700 has a watermark that isn't a copyright notice.
(By the way, can somebody remove the implication of web_address -> watermark? Things like post #1042372 have a web address that isn't a watermark.)
From what I can see, watermark tag is currently used for all marks, regardless of who put them on the image. And I don't see a problem with that, especially considering that watermark is a visual element of the image and so tagging it anyway goes well with our "tag what you see" principle.
Perhaps it would be better to modify the watermark wiki and remove this limitation.
jjj14 said:
This is the key difference. post #997147 has a copyright notice that isn't a watermark. post #67700 has a watermark that isn't a copyright notice.
i see your point, however watermark is the only one defined and copyright_notice has none to have any meaningful comparison.
the useful meta-information in copyright_notice is already covered by our present tags: dated for the year; signature and watermark for the artist/studio/company; web_address for the url.
the only things left are the (C) symbol or spelled-out and the all rights reserved. the latter was already nuked.
with this and imho, i see no reason to have copyright_notice a separate existence from watermark.
however, i also believe the current wiki is too restrictive as pointed above.
Shinjidude said:
If it is handwritten onto a scanned copy, I wouldn't consider it a watermark.
and somewhat related to this, is our signature tag limited to the cursive script (western) and hand-written kanji (eastern)? what if the name of the artist/company/studio is typed/printed (neatly, probably digitally) somewhere in the image? i would think this would qualify as watermark but how about as signature? i'm not so keen in tagging it as artist_drop cf. title_drop.
So we're changing watermark's definition from "text/logo added by a third party" to "any text or logo that identifies the source/artist of the image"? I can live with that.
ghostrigger said:
what if the name of the artist/company/studio is typed/printed (neatly, probably digitally) somewhere in the image? i would think this would qualify as watermark but how about as signature? i'm not so keen in tagging it as artist_drop cf. title_drop.
Artist_name sounds good. I started tagging some posts with it.
Updated
Well, wait.
"So we're changing watermark's definition from "text/logo added by a third party" to "any text or logo that identifies the source/artist of the image"?"
In that case, where would we put images with third party watermarks (which is a "bad tag", something we -usually but not always- reject images for)?
bumping again for tag removal.
regarding the "bad tag" to use, perhaps third-party_watermark or obstructive_watermark? either hopefully will differentiate from the "good" one.
Watermark being obstructive is a rather subjective thing, so if we need to make a new tag for this, I would vote for third-party_watermark.
jxh2154 said:
copyright marks that aren't watermarks (say, on something that is part of the image). Not worth tagging, or no such images?
the only examples of copyright marks i could think of are ©, (C), and 'Copyright'. these are positively can be seen in our collection but i don't see the gain tagging as such. they just increase the number of gentags by 1 and they're not exactly the selling point of images.
if people want to look for images made by prominent studios or companies that have the indisputable right to put copyrights in all their creations, we have official_art and in most cases scan especially from megami and nyantype too.
and as Shinjidude said,
Watermark by itself isn't necessarily a detriment to an image, it's only when they are placed by 3rd parties that they become a factor when it comes to flagging or rejecting approval.
and as pointed too a few points above, people tend to use watermark for all marks regardless who place it there. these are generally harmless and the only time they're worthy of attention/flagging is when they're made by 3rd parties (like the large deviantart logo in the middle). we can institute the proposed third-party_watermark for these type of marks.
and in case this tag removal request gets approved, i will also request to remove the copyright_notice wiki. thanks.
edit: *bump*
Updated
As far as I'm aware there isn't, though I would support the creation of such a tag. I did tag an image with 3rd_party_watermark while it was pending in the queue not that long ago, I think using 3rd in the name instead of third is a bit more ideal in that it'll cause the tag to be toward the top of the tag list and hopefully make it stand out more.