The tag implication #44362 wolf_(petruz) -> petruz_(copyright) has been rejected.

Reason: A Wolf model is owned by Petruz.

EDIT: The tag implication wolf_(petruz) -> petruz_(copyright) (forum #337444) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

We don't tag character owners, so we shouldn't tag model owners. They should either be tagged as the artist if they made the art, or mentioned in the description if not.

watsit said:
We don't tag character owners, so we shouldn't tag model owners. They should either be tagged as the artist if they made the art, or mentioned in the description if not.

Characters can swap owners, be abandoned, or any number of things that would separate the original owner from the character. No matter what, a modeler will always be responsible for the models they created. For the sake of searching, especially on the chance of a takedown request, I'm fine with this.

strikerman said:
Characters can swap owners, be abandoned, or any number of things that would separate the original owner from the character. No matter what, a modeler will always be responsible for the models they created. For the sake of searching, especially on the chance of a takedown request, I'm fine with this.

I thought we were against tagging character owners as copyright tags. The information in regards to who owns the characters/models can be added in the description or the tag wiki.
The only case that the modeller's name should appear on a post is if they have actively participated in the creation of the artwork, as an artist tag.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I thought we were against tagging character owners as copyright tags.

Modelers and character owners are separate entities.

strikerman said:
Characters can swap owners, be abandoned, or any number of things that would separate the original owner from the character. No matter what, a modeler will always be responsible for the models they created. For the sake of searching, especially on the chance of a takedown request, I'm fine with this.

That has never been stated as the reason for not tagging character owners. Besides which, didn't you say in that recent discussion on the topic, that these tags should be considered character tags anyway? i.e. if I had some 2D art done of Petruz's wolf character as a feline, it would be tagged wolf_(petruz)+alternate_species? What would make this different from a character tag implicating the character owner then?

watsit said:
That has never been stated as the reason for not tagging character owners. Besides which, didn't you say in that recent discussion on the topic, that these tags should be considered character tags anyway? i.e. if I had some 2D art done of Petruz's wolf character as a feline, it would be tagged wolf_(petruz)+alternate_species? What would make this different from a character tag implicating the character owner then?

i mean i also think we should tag the character owner but let's not get into that

My point is that someone who creates the model itself isn't just someone who owns the character (see: any model based on a copyrighted character), and they should be given the proper credit.

strikerman said:
Modelers and character owners are separate entities.

I believe modellers should be tagged as artist tags. Not sure what was discussed on the previous thread, but my last point still stands.
Modellers should only be tagged if they have actively participated in the artwork's creation, not because they had released a 3D model out to the public.
Credits can be given in the description in cases where their models are used by third parties.

strikerman said:
i mean i also think we should tag the character owner but let's not get into that

That's kind of the crux of the situation. We don't tag character owners, so model owners also shouldn't be tagged. If you think we should tag character and model owners, that's a separate discussion, but as the rules are now, this implication shouldn't go through because it's against how things are handled.

strikerman said:
My point is that someone who creates the model itself isn't just someone who owns the character

How is it different? Why should Petruz have the honor of having a copyright tag for the non-art stuff they create, but gasaraki2007 can't get a copyright tag for the non-art stuff they create?

Furthermore, this would break down in a very simple way: I make a drawing of it. It's no longer the model, I'm no longer using their content in the scene. But they'd still have the copyright tag on the image... because of the character design? As if it was simply a character owner being tagged...

watsit said:

Furthermore, this would break down in a very simple way: I make a drawing of it. It's no longer the model, I'm no longer using their content in the scene. But they'd still have the copyright tag on the image... because of the character design? As if it was simply a character owner being tagged...

that is an extremely fair point and i'm blaming myself for not understanding that sooner, sorry for the trouble

watsit said:
Furthermore, this would break down in a very simple way: I make a drawing of it. It's no longer the model, I'm no longer using their content in the scene. But they'd still have the copyright tag on the image... because of the character design? As if it was simply a character owner being tagged...

Does this still hinge on recognisable models not being considered characters?
If you draw porn of movie paddington_bear you're still gonna get slapped with DNP

Of course this implication can’t work because drawn art of one of Petruz’s characters would not contain any of Petruz’s own work, but I do think we should tag character model creators as artists - so any art using Petruz’s models should include their artist tag. I think of the model creator as more of an artist than someone who simply positioned their model, personally.

scaliespe said:
Of course this implication can’t work because drawn art of one of Petruz’s characters would not contain any of Petruz’s own work

By that logic wouldn't something have to be official_art to apply for copyright tags at all?

magnuseffect said:
By that logic wouldn't something have to be official_art to apply for copyright tags at all?

Except for the fact that individual character owners aren't tagged. It's always been the case that we implicate companies for the things they own, but not individual character owners like sexyfurry69420_(copyright). A drawing of a wolf_(petruz) would depict the wolf character, and not the be their actual model in the finished work, and an implication to petruz_(copyright) means Petruz as a character owner gets a copyright tag, when no other individuals do.

As it is, petruz_(copyright) needs to be invalidated. It's one thing to suggest petruz should be tagged as an artist when their models are in the image (though the admins have said not to do that if they didn't make the image), but a general copyright tag is certainly more than any other individual gets, and I don't see anything about Petruz that they should get such a special privilege.

I'm not really sure what side of this I'm on, but I do want to point out that "we don't tag character owners" is not always true, even ignoring big rights holders, like nintendo or sega, we do tag whitekitten on posts containing any of his characters. (although, that's still not an alias, so I guess it's kinda diffrent)

darryus said:
I'm not really sure what side of this I'm on, but I do want to point out that "we don't tag character owners" is not always true, even ignoring big rights holders, like nintendo or sega, we do tag whitekitten on posts containing any of his characters.

Do we? Or is that another character owner copyright that's slipped under the radar thus far? Given that there aren't any implications of their characters to them, it would seem to be one that's just gone unnoticed by the admins.

Is the tag in reference to the model or a character? If it's the model it makes sense, but if it's meant to be a character, it needs a separate tag for that.

magnuseffect said:
By that logic wouldn't something have to be official_art to apply for copyright tags at all?

Generally something has to be from something to get a copyright tag. If Petruz made a game or comic or animated video series or something utilizing his character models, the characters could then get a copyright tag for the series they’re officially featured in. The person himself would still not get a copyright tag, though.* And as standalone characters, there’s not really anything to imply.

^{*Exceptions are sometimes made in cases where there’s no official title unifying a particular franchise or series or whatever, and where it is an individual rather than a company who is credited for it. For example, J. R. R. Tolkien - The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, and The Silmarillion all take place in the same universe, but without an “official” title uniting them, they all simply imply the author.}

watsit said:
It's one thing to suggest petruz should be tagged as an artist when their models are in the image (though the admins have said not to do that if they didn't make the image)

From what I gather, the reason they object to that is because it should be possible to identify artwork actually made by the model creator separately from artwork not made by them but which features their artwork. I spoke with one admin about this a while ago (I think it was bitWolfy, but I can’t remember exactly) and suggested that we either create separate tags (in either the artist or copyright categories) specifically for modelers, such as petruz_(modeler) distinct from petruz which would be just for his own artwork; or, we create a tag similar to collaboration that identifies cases where an artist is using someone else’s model. That way, you could search petruz -3rd_party_model (just for example) to find only artwork done by the modeler himself. However, no progress since then has been made on this front.

I do think we need to do something, though, for two reasons:

1. 3D modeling is absolutely an art, and a difficult one at that. Failing to credit the modeler as an artist seems wrong to me. Sure, you can credit them in the description of the post, but this often isn’t done, and it’s not really monitored. It looks less official or less important than an actual tag, too.

2. Say you’re a fan of Petruz’s models. Say you want to find art specifically featuring his models. Say you don’t care who positioned or animated them. This is certainly plausible, as, being artworks, these models have a particular style and level of quality that are particular to Petruz. Without a tag for Petruz-as-modeler, there’s no practical way to do that. Currently, *_(petruz) may work, but only because Petruz happens to utilize very generic names like Dragon and Wolf rather than full names that don’t necessitate suffixes. Other 3D artists may use full names for their characters, making this a poor substitute for tagging modelers.

watsit said:
Do we? Or is that another character owner copyright that's slipped under the radar thus far? Given that there aren't any implications of their characters to them, it would seem to be one that's just gone unnoticed by the admins.

The admins have specifically given their blessing to the existence of the whitekitten tag. That, however, is because it has become a common blacklist term, and invalidating it would break a lot of blacklists. Look through the tag if you care to find out why.

That being said, it’s specifically for artwork commissioned by whitekitten, not necessarily any of their characters wherever they may appear; hence, no implications are in place.

watsit said:
Do we? Or is that another character owner copyright that's slipped under the radar thus far? Given that there aren't any implications of their characters to them, it would seem to be one that's just gone unnoticed by the admins.

I mean, it is whitekitten, so maybe it's a bit of a special case, but yeah, stuff with tala_tearjerk in is generally tagged with whitekitten even the stuff in Kandalin's Rise of Reason series. in the comments of this post whitekitten specifically stated that the post was not commissioned by him, and only contained Tala.

watsit said:
Except for the fact that individual character owners aren't tagged. It's always been the case that we implicate companies for the things they own, but not individual character owners like sexyfurry69420_(copyright). A drawing of a wolf_(petruz) would depict the wolf character, and not the be their actual model in the finished work, and an implication to petruz_(copyright) means Petruz as a character owner gets a copyright tag, when no other individuals do.

I found Scalespie's specific logic confusing because it's coming at this as if Copyright: was already a direct equivalent to Artist: by reasoning that there shouldn't be a copyright tag if Petruz didn't personally recreate the design, which conflicts with the function of what copyright tags we do consider valid.

It's always been the case that we implicate companies for the things they own, but not individual character owners

So I can take it as a given that it would be a complete mess if everybody who had so much as a single OC had their own copyright tag even before getting into the gritty details of who technically owns which copyrights.^{and in my opinion the nature of a layman's understanding of character ownership is the biggest argument against handing out copyright tags on this scale.}
But a corporation is still effectively an individual character owner, merely one with (typically) more legal gravitas than your average Xarda. There is a line somewhere distinguishing which entities can or can not have a copyright tag, and I'd rather someone come right out and say that line is has lawyer money or has commercial fanbase product attached than being something more like is a media property that is not wholly contained within The Fandom or it's just big enough okay.

scaliespe said:
Generally something has to be from something to get a copyright tag. If Petruz made a game or comic or animated video series or something utilizing his character models, the characters could then get a copyright tag for the series they’re officially featured in. The person himself would still not get a copyright tag, though.* And as standalone characters, there’s not really anything to imply.

^{*Exceptions are sometimes made in cases where there’s no official title unifying a particular franchise or series or whatever, and where it is an individual rather than a company who is credited for it. For example, J. R. R. Tolkien - The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, and The Silmarillion all take place in the same universe, but without an “official” title uniting them, they all simply imply the author.}

If that was fully how copyright worked here we wouldn't be tagging studios and publishers at all unless there was no other way to coherently group a single series setting.

If Petruz made a game or comic

What's your benchmark for what is valid enough to count?
https://www.furaffinity.net/view/46052954
https://www.furaffinity.net/view/44802445
I don't know if it needs to be distinguished that not all of Petruz' models are free.

I thought turning the Petruz models' tags to Meta would be a good possibility, because they're not characters in and of themselves, just assets that are used to build characters upon. True, as Strikerman pointed out, they have been used as generic characters, but this should mean they'd be tagged with being Petruz's models (in Meta?) and as "generic Petruz model character". After all, "generic Petruz model character" can be drawn without using the model itself.

magnuseffect said:
I found Scalespie's specific logic confusing because it's coming at this as if Copyright: was already a direct equivalent to Artist: by reasoning that there shouldn't be a copyright tag if Petruz didn't personally recreate the design, which conflicts with the function of what copyright tags we do consider valid.

Does my logic make more sense if we were to assume that this request was for petruz instead of petruz_(copyright)? I wasn’t meaning to comment on the existence of a copyright tag in that particular statement - only that an implication from a character to anything identifying Petruz as an artist or an individual would have been invalid.

So I can take it as a given that it would be a complete mess if everybody who had so much as a single OC had their own copyright tag even before getting into the gritty details of who technically owns which copyrights.^{and in my opinion the nature of a layman's understanding of character ownership is the biggest argument against handing out copyright tags on this scale.}
But a corporation is still effectively an individual character owner, merely one with (typically) more legal gravitas than your average Xarda. There is a line somewhere distinguishing which entities can or can not have a copyright tag, and I'd rather someone come right out and say that line is has lawyer money or has commercial fanbase product attached than being something more like is a media property that is not wholly contained within The Fandom or it's just big enough okay.

How about it’s actually from some kind of media and isn’t just a standalone OC?

If that was fully how copyright worked here we wouldn't be tagging studios and publishers at all unless there was no other way to coherently group a single series setting.

I mean that the individual is used as the tag instead of a studio or publisher or other company as no company exists to fulfill that role. Hypothetically, if Tolkien had another fictional world unrelated to LotR/The Hobbit/The Silmarillion, it would also imply him as the owner. But again, that’s content from a recognizable piece of media and not just some standalone OC like what you get with most furry art commissioners. What I meant to say is that we’d usually imply the company that owns the characters rather than some individual, and that individuals never get their own copyright tags unless simply no company represents them, as is the case with Tolkien.

What's your benchmark for what is valid enough to count?
https://www.furaffinity.net/view/46052954
https://www.furaffinity.net/view/44802445
I don't know if it needs to be distinguished that not all of Petruz' models are free.

If that’s an actual comic series (and not just a one-off or brief mini-comic) then an implication from the characters featured within to the name of the comic as a copyright tag would be perfectly valid. lady_nora_(twokinds) implies the comic twokinds but not the artist, tom_fischbach. As such, fanart of (Petruz’s character) would imply (Petruz’s comic) but not petruz.

clawstripe said:
I thought turning the Petruz models' tags to Meta would be a good possibility, because they're not characters in and of themselves, just assets that are used to build characters upon. True, as Strikerman pointed out, they have been used as generic characters, but this should mean they'd be tagged with being Petruz's models (in Meta?) and as "generic Petruz model character". After all, "generic Petruz model character" can be drawn without using the model itself.

This would be a good idea. The meta tags could then safely imply a petruz_(modeler) artist tag, or perhaps even just this copyright tag, while leaving the character tags separate to be used as generic characters based on the models, or in cases where the model isn’t actually in the image but whose likeness is still depicted (like a drawing of the model).

scaliespe said:
Does my logic make more sense if we were to assume that this request was for petruz instead of petruz_(copyright)? I wasn’t meaning to comment on the existence of a copyright tag in that particular statement - only that an implication from a character to anything identifying Petruz as an artist or an individual would have been invalid.

Perhaps once we get to the point of separating the character and the model asset into distinct tags, at which point only the model itself would potentially tie to Petruz' capacity as an artist.^{Which we wouldn't tag as a component of somebody else's composition anyway}
For the record I don't think it's useful to have the base tag be for the specific model itself due to the possibility of recreations, but the concept of the entities represented by some of Petruz' models even being considered coherent characters is apparently controversial.

How about it’s actually from some kind of media and isn’t just a standalone OC?

I mean that the individual is used as the tag instead of a studio or publisher or other company as no company exists to fulfill that role. Hypothetically, if Tolkien had another fictional world unrelated to LotR/The Hobbit/The Silmarillion, it would also imply him as the owner. But again, that’s content from a recognizable piece of media and not just some standalone OC like what you get with most furry art commissioners. What I meant to say is that we’d usually imply the company that owns the characters rather than some individual, and that individuals never get their own copyright tags unless simply no company represents them, as is the case with Tolkien.

Depends on what we mean by from and some kind of media.
We've got tags such as shrek_(character) and the_bad_guys implying Dreamworks despite neither originating from their licenced Dreamworks movies nor Dreamworks owning the characters.
There's also any of Ken Penders' Sonic characters which are from sonic_the_hedgehog_(archie) but are not owned by that property (several characters' chains implying archie_comics and sega who also do not own such characters.)
What seems to take priority over anything else is what a character or other element is most commonly recognisable as being from, rather than any tangible ownership, and that's what I don't like in the first place about the category being called copyright.^{The user tagging netflix on unaffiliated beastars art is still at it and there's still people tagging starbound on avali posts}

lady_nora_(twokinds) implies the comic twokinds but not the artist, tom_fischbach.

This is a whole lot less of a double-standard if we invalidate tags like j._r._r._tolkien and h.p._lovecraft and instead use the names of their works or settings. To my knowledge everything we care about tagging from Tolkien fits into middle-earth_(tolkien), and anything from Lovecraft that doesn't fit into cthulhu_mythos is going to have its own standalone title.

magnuseffect said:

Depends on what we mean by from and some kind of media.
We've got tags such as shrek_(character) and the_bad_guys implying Dreamworks despite neither originating from their licenced Dreamworks movies nor Dreamworks owning the characters.
There's also any of Ken Penders' Sonic characters which are from sonic_the_hedgehog_(archie) but are not owned by that property (several characters' chains implying archie_comics and sega who also do not own such characters.)
What seems to take priority over anything else is what a character or other element is most commonly recognisable as being from, rather than any tangible ownership, and that's what I don't like in the first place about the category being called copyright.^{The user tagging netflix on unaffiliated beastars art is still at it and there's still people tagging starbound on avali posts}

Those should be fixed then, no? I’d rather they only imply whoever actually owns them. I think there was even some debate over having the_bad_guys imply Dreamworks, wasn’t there?

This is a whole lot less of a double-standard if we invalidate tags like j._r._r._tolkien and h.p._lovecraft and instead use the names of their works or settings. To my knowledge everything we care about tagging from Tolkien fits into middle-earth_(tolkien), and anything from Lovecraft that doesn't fit into cthulhu_mythos is going to have its own standalone title.

Just because they are individuals and not corporations? I don’t see how that would be useful. More particularly with Lovecraft, I’d imagine it would be useful to have all his works tied to a single tag. But more importantly, I think it would actually be a double standard to imply a company who owns some sort of media but not an individual in the same situation.

But with that being said, I suppose it would be logical to have something like twokinds imply some kind of tom_fischbach_(copyright) tag - but since he doesn’t have any other series besides twokinds (that I’m aware of), such a tag probably doesn’t exist because it wouldn’t have been useful. It would be consistent with other copyright tags to create one, though.

scaliespe said:
Those should be fixed then, no?

please don't, I don't want to have to individually blacklist every Archie Sonic character manually.

darryus said:
please don't, I don't want to have to individually blacklist every Archie Sonic character manually.

I don’t think you would have to. They are still part of sonic_the_hedgehog_(series). The implication in doubt here would be from sonic_the_hedgehog_(series) to Sega, if it’s true that they don’t actually own all the Sonic characters. Unless I’ve misunderstood something. I know next to nothing about the Sonic franchise. All Sonic characters, whether from the games or the comics or anything else should continue to imply sonic_the_hedgehog_(series) regardless.

scaliespe said:
I don’t think you would have to. They are still part of sonic_the_hedgehog_(series). The implication in doubt here would be from sonic_the_hedgehog_(series) to Sega, if it’s true that they don’t actually own all the Sonic characters. Unless I’ve misunderstood something. I know next to nothing about the Sonic franchise. All Sonic characters, whether from the games or the comics or anything else should continue to imply sonic_the_hedgehog_(series) regardless.

why would I want to blacklist sonic_the_hedgehog_(series)? I love Sonic, I just have a specific dislike of the Archie comics run, and I know that that is not a sentiment that is uncommon among the Sonic fanbase, and I'm pretty sure there's a bunch of Archie Sonic fans that dislike the IDW run enough to blacklist that as well. Sonic fans are a very contentious bunch.

darryus said:
why would I want to blacklist sonic_the_hedgehog_(series)? I love Sonic, I just have a specific dislike of the Archie comics run, and I know that that is not a sentiment that is uncommon among the Sonic fanbase, and I'm pretty sure there's a bunch of Archie Sonic fans that dislike the IDW run enough to blacklist that as well. Sonic fans are a very contentious bunch.

Then what’s wrong with blacklisting archie_comics or sonic_the_hedgehog_(Archie)? Both would still work, no?

darryus said:
please don't, I don't want to have to individually blacklist every Archie Sonic character manually.

scaliespe said:
I don’t think you would have to. They are still part of sonic_the_hedgehog_(series). The implication in doubt here would be from sonic_the_hedgehog_(series) to Sega, if it’s true that they don’t actually own all the Sonic characters. Unless I’ve misunderstood something. I know next to nothing about the Sonic franchise. All Sonic characters, whether from the games or the comics or anything else should continue to imply sonic_the_hedgehog_(series) regardless.

It should be pointed out that it's more useful from any practical standpoint to keep such characters in the tag for the media they're from, and that the potential problem here is that even if a corporation owns that property they don't necessarily own everything in it. ^{As I understand, Archie/Sega not owning the characters was a surprise to them, too, and this caused Sega to restructure their licencing contracts}
Of course, the characters don't imply the corporations directly, it's just that the way implication chains work means that if there's an image where the sole element from that media is something that corporation doesn't own, the corporation is still tagged by association.

scaliespe said:
Just because they are individuals and not corporations? I don’t see how that would be useful. More particularly with Lovecraft, I’d imagine it would be useful to have all his works tied to a single tag. But more importantly, I think it would actually be a double standard to imply a company who owns some sort of media but not an individual in the same situation.

There is already the cthulhu_mythos tag, and does anything he wrote that would not be considered a part of that need to be combined with it?
It took three years for undertale_(series) to get a unifying tag while people fought around that, too. And Toby Fox doesn't have a copyright tag where that would have been useful,^{as there was no other tag to link things from Undertale and things from Deltarune} presumably because he's an individual and not a corporation.

magnuseffect said:
It should be pointed out that it's more useful from any practical standpoint to keep such characters in the tag for the media they're from, and that the potential problem here is that even if a corporation owns that property they don't necessarily own everything in it. ^{As I understand, Archie/Sega not owning the characters was a surprise to them, too, and this caused Sega to restructure their licencing contracts}
Of course, the characters don't imply the corporations directly, it's just that the way implication chains work means that if there's an image where the sole element from that media is something that corporation doesn't own, the corporation is still tagged by association.

I guess that makes sense. Again, knowing nothing about Sonic. I imagine this is the exception to the rule due to the unusual circumstance though, and that generally companies should only be implied by things they own.

There is already the cthulhu_mythos tag, and does anything he wrote that would not be considered a part of that need to be combined with it?

It doesn’t need to be, exactly, but it may be useful for Lovecraft fans, plus it would be consistent with the copyright tags we have for corporations, such as how the_elder_scrolls, fallout, dishonored and so forth imply Bethesda_softworks. I don’t see any good reason they should be treated differently.

It took three years for undertale_(series) to get a unifying tag while people fought around that, too. And Toby Fox doesn't have a copyright tag where that would have been useful,^{as there was no other tag to link things from Undertale and things from Deltarune} presumably because he's an individual and not a corporation.

…actually, a toby_fox_(copyright) tag would make way more sense. Deltarune, after all, is explicitly not Undertale, so the undertale_(series) tag doesn’t even really make sense. I’d support changing the tag to that.

The tag implication wolf_(petruz) -> petruz_(copyright) (forum #337444) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.