The tag alias #61568 drawfee_(copyright) -> invalid_tag is pending approval.

Reason: this looks like another unnecessary copyright tag, it shares a name with the artist and is on otherwise random images, some already possessing different copyrights, that don't seem to have any correlation between them. methinks whomever made this thought they needed to also tag a copyright for the artist's work.

Worth noting that "Drawfee" isn't a singular artist, it's the name of a youtube channel run by 4 artists. Should drawfee even be an artist tag then? Seems like we should tag the actual artists' names (nathan_yaffe, julia_lepetit, jacob_andrews, karina_farek) + collaboration when applicable.

Hmm actually, since Drawfee is a web show, maybe it actually would make sense as a copyright tag? All these images are from the show. The premise of the show is for each episode they have a prompt, set of prompts, or art game and they all draw something for it.

cloudpie said:
Worth noting that "Drawfee" isn't a singular artist, it's the name of a youtube channel run by 4 artists. Should drawfee even be an artist tag then? Seems like we should tag the actual artists' names (nathan_yaffe, julia_lepetit, jacob_andrews, karina_farek) + collaboration when applicable.

Hmm actually, since Drawfee is a web show, maybe it actually would make sense as a copyright tag? All these images are from the show. The premise of the show is for each episode they have a prompt, set of prompts, or art game and they all draw something for it.

if that's the case, then i'd instead have this and the artist alias to drawfee_(show) or something similar, since it didn't make any sense as it was used on e6...

cloudpie said:
Hmm actually, since Drawfee is a web show, maybe it actually would make sense as a copyright tag? All these images are from the show.

Not all of them. Some are tagged for fakemon that someone made on the show, or for a character created by someone on the show, but the image itself isn't from the show. And if the other images are from the show, that would fall under screen caps and should be deleted.

watsit said:
Not all of them. Some are tagged for fakemon that someone made on the show, or for a character created by someone on the show, but the image itself isn't from the show. And if the other images are from the show, that would fall under screen caps and should be deleted.

Oh by "from the show" I meant the drawing process was recorded on the show. The finished pieces are then posted elsewhere after. As for viewer fanart of characters/fakemon created on the show, doesn't that actually strengthen the case for a drawfee copyright tag? (although I did misspeak earlier, you're right)

cloudpie said:
As for viewer fanart of characters/fakemon created on the show, doesn't that actually strengthen the case for a drawfee copyright tag? (although I did misspeak earlier, you're right)

If the characters or species are created and owned by a company, we'd tag the company that owns it. Although, unlike a drawing itself, characters and species aren't assumed copyrighted by virtue of existing; they have a much higher bar to pass to get copyright protection, so we shouldn't assume the company legally owns the fakemon or characters that came out of the show. If Drawfee is a company and the company has legal ownership of the fakemon and characters, then it would make sense to have their company tag for copyright and have the characters/etc they legally own imply the company. The company wouldn't be tagged for what they don't actually own, regardless if one of them drew it or not (e.g. I severely doubt Drawfee legally owns litten variations, any more than Blotch would legally own pikachu, so they'd only be tagged as the artist, not copyright).

watsit said:
If the characters or species are created and owned by a company, we'd tag the company that owns it. Although, unlike a drawing itself, characters and species aren't assumed copyrighted by virtue of existing; they have a much higher bar to pass to get copyright protection, so we shouldn't assume the company legally owns the fakemon or characters that came out of the show. If Drawfee is a company and the company has legal ownership of the fakemon and characters, then it would make sense to have their company tag for copyright and have the characters/etc they legally own imply the company. The company wouldn't be tagged for what they don't actually own, regardless if one of them drew it or not (e.g. I severely doubt Drawfee legally owns litten variations, any more than Blotch would legally own pikachu, so they'd only be tagged as the artist, not copyright).

there's precedent for tags to be categorized as copyright tags even if there's no literal copyright involved. like mythology, holidays (christmas, halloween, valentines_day ect), even the fakemon tag that you mentioned is a copyright tag.

and personally, i prefer it that way. there are just some unifying themes or characters out there that are special in interest enough that warrent special attention like that, setting it up to be so literal just feels like an exercise in pedantry

i do think that having both the artist and copyright tag is redundant, i say axe the artist tag and keep the copyright tag just to account for the art of characters made from drawfee like sprigatito_(karina_farek)

cloudpie said:
Worth noting that "Drawfee" isn't a singular artist, it's the name of a youtube channel run by 4 artists. Should drawfee even be an artist tag then? Seems like we should tag the actual artists' names (nathan_yaffe, julia_lepetit, jacob_andrews, karina_farek) + collaboration when applicable.

See also topic #30165 where I tried to invalidate buns_with_cinnamon, which isn't an artist itself but a Fur Affinity account that multiple artists post to. People wanted to keep it.

dripen_arn said:
there's precedent for tags to be categorized as copyright tags even if there's no literal copyright involved. like mythology, holidays (christmas, halloween, valentines_day ect), even the fakemon tag that you mentioned is a copyright tag.

But those aren't owned by anybody. That's simply for categorization purposes of common cultural themes (which some people do object to being in the Copyright category, FWIW). We don't give copyright tags to individuals/collaborators (e.g. we don't have a blotch_(copyright) for characters created by blotch, even for characters they created drawn by someone else ). If they're a company, they can have a copyright tag for the company, but that tag would only apply to things the company has IP ownership of, not for things their artists drew once that other people wanted to draw too.

dripen_arn said:
and personally, i prefer it that way. there are just some unifying themes or characters out there that are special in interest enough that warrent special attention like that, setting it up to be so literal just feels like an exercise in pedantry

Sure, but I don't see drawfee as being special interest enough to warrant it. Especially when their drawings are based on preexisting ideas and concepts (their About tagline says "Welcome to Drawfee where we turn dumb ideas into even dumber drawings!"), such that the things they're drawing may not even originate from them. There's no common theme to it, no cultural interest, other than one of their artists drew something like it once that some people wanted to emulate.

dripen_arn said:
i do think that having both the artist and copyright tag is redundant, i say axe the artist tag and keep the copyright tag just to account for the art of characters made from drawfee like sprigatito_(karina_farek)

This is precisely the issue. Neither Karina or Drawfee have any rights to Sprigatito. They drew a stylized/fakemon-esque version of one. It's not even a character, but a more general species, which is clearly based on the Nintendo-owned pokemon (more closely resembling floragato or meowscarada, rather than sprigatito, incidentally). We don't tag a species' creator for depictions of the species (e.g. sergal, tetton, protogen, synth_(vader-san), etc, don't imply their creator as a copyright). Nor do we tag a characters' owner. We tag companies when they legally own its IP.

siral_exan said:
The tag alias #61568 drawfee_(copyright) -> invalid_tag is pending approval.

Reason: this looks like another unnecessary copyright tag, it shares a name with the artist and is on otherwise random images, some already possessing different copyrights, that don't seem to have any correlation between them. methinks whomever made this thought they needed to also tag a copyright for the artist's work.

I agree with CloudPie and most particularly Dripen Arn. Having both tags is redundant I've said this much on my alias request for the kekeflipnote tag.
However, if multiple artists are involved then "drwafee" is not an artist per say, so the aliasing would be better the other way around, OR drawfee has its tag status changed from "artist" to "copyright" and then, because it is redundant, drawfree_copyright gets aliased to drawfee only then.

I promise to change my vote from neutral to positive if drawfee has its status changed first. Either way, this pair of tags should not be here together.

watsit said:
But those aren't owned by anybody. That's simply for categorization purposes of common cultural themes (which some people do object to being in the Copyright category, FWIW). We don't give copyright tags to individuals/collaborators (e.g. we don't have a blotch_(copyright) for characters created by blotch, even for characters they created drawn by someone else ). If they're a company, they can have a copyright tag for the company, but that tag would only apply to things the company has IP ownership of, not for things their artists drew once that other people wanted to draw too.

Sure, but I don't see drawfee as being special interest enough to warrant it. Especially when their drawings are based on preexisting ideas and concepts (their About tagline says "Welcome to Drawfee where we turn dumb ideas into even dumber drawings!"), such that the things they're drawing may not even originate from them. There's no common theme to it, no cultural interest, other than one of their artists drew something like it once that some people wanted to emulate.

This is precisely the issue. Neither Karina or Drawfee have any rights to Sprigatito. They drew a stylized/fakemon-esque version of one. It's not even a character, but a more general species, which is clearly based on the Nintendo-owned pokemon (more closely resembling floragato or meowscarada, rather than sprigatito, incidentally). We don't tag a species' creator for depictions of the species (e.g. sergal, tetton, protogen, synth_(vader-san), etc, don't imply their creator as a copyright). Nor do we tag a characters' owner. We tag companies when they legally own its IP.

It is a collaboration channel, not a single artist, though. So, either drawfee as a whole should be nuked and each respective artist are tagged individually or it should be copyright because they still own those animations on YouTube.

By the way, I accidentally hid my own comment earlier, sorry for bumping the post twice. Why is "hide" right next to "edit" anyway?

wolfmanfur said:
It is a collaboration channel, not a single artist, though.

Which would make it like blotch, hooki, r-z, elronya, sluggystudio, flair projects, tsunkat, team penny, etc. Artist tags that are a collaboration of two or more other artists, tagged on images they created under that name, but not on characters/species one of them drew one time.

I feel like the fact that it is a web show might make it different from blotch. IMO Drawfee is less of a team name (most of the art pieces they make on the show aren't even collaborations, they're drawn by one person out of the four) and more of the name of a show, similar to game_grumps, vinesauce, etc.