The bulk update request #1371 is active.

change category artist_logo (10139) -> meta
create implication artist_logo (10139) -> logo (16523)

Reason: It's currently a fairly underutilized tag, but it would be useful since many artists use a logo rather than a signature or a printed name. Those two tags are also in the meta category, so this should be as well.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1371 (forum #317285) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

Is this a necessary distinction from watermark?

watsit said:
Is this a necessary distinction from watermark?

A watermark covers some of the image, usually for the purpose of preventing redistribution without crediting the artist, or for advertising a non-watermarked version behind a paywall or something like that. Watermarks may be either artist_logos or signatures or artist_names; it’s not always a logo. The logos as used by some artists in place of a signature are often not watermarks because they don’t obscure anything. They’re most definitely not the same thing.

Certain artists do this with most of their work: they add a personal logo as opposed to a signature or printed name, but it’s not a watermark. Examples: vader-san predaguy fox-pop (sometimes) - among others.

Edit: it does appear that the watermark tag is often not used for this purpose, regardless of what the wiki says. It seems to be used to any text or logo or anything indicating the artist that happens to be partially transparent. But even so, a lot of the artist logos I’m referring to are not even transparent, and still would not be watermarks in this case. For example, the logo of fleet-foot probably qualifies as a watermark as well as it does tend to cover a considerable portion of the image, while predaguy’s logo is a good example of one that is usually not a watermark as it’s completely opaque and usually doesn’t cover anything.

Another distinction is the fact that a watermark can be for anyone or say anything. The word “sample” overlaid on the image is a watermark (ie. post #868544), as are 3rd_party_watermarks. The artist’s logo only identifies the artist.

Also worth looking at: https://e621.net/forum_topics/12896

Edit 2: that all being said, isn’t a better use for the watermark tag to identify posts in which actual content is being obscured? I don’t see the point in including, for example, things like post #2947074 under the watermark tag. It’s a tiny translucent signature off in the corner that’s not obscuring anything.

scaliespe said:
Edit 2: that all being said, isn’t a better use for the watermark tag to identify posts in which actual content is being obscured? I don’t see the point in including, for example, things like post #2947074 under the watermark tag. It’s a tiny translucent signature off in the corner that’s not obscuring anything.

Watermarks don't have to really obscure the image, it just needs to be present somewhere on the image to identify the source. There's distracting watermark and extremely distracting watermark for watermarks that actually obscure the focus of the image. And 3rd party watermark for a watermark that doesn't belong to the creator (DA's distracting watermark, ifunny, etc). If signatures don't count as watermarks, per topic #12896, that doesn't leave many other options beyond a logo (which can be plain or stylized text; I'd consider post #2946864 and post #2943978 to be logos).

A signature obscuring the content is definitely a watermark, but not all signatures are watermarks. post #2759258, for example, is both a signature and a watermark.

If watermarks are only for identifying the source, that necessarily includes signatures. But, according to the discussion on topic #12896, a watermark is specifically something placed over the image as opposed to something on the margin like signatures often are. So a watermark can be either a signature or a logo or basically any other text or symbol.

So, artist_logo is no different from signature, except that, well, it’s a logo rather than a signature. They serve the same purpose and are used in the same way. A watermark can be either of these things, or neither, and neither of these are necessarily watermarks. post #2864875 is an example of a logo that is not a watermark, while post #2759258 is a signature that is also a watermark.

I agree with the BUR, a watermark can be a signature, an artist_name or an artist_logo. So it should be rare when it has to be used alone

The bulk update request #1371 (forum #317285) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.