I'm wondering if the creative_commons license tags would be better suited to the meta category? It is copyright and licensing related but they seem more like the type of information you'd expect to see in the meta tags.

public_domain as well, probably.

They're less about what the copyright relevant to a post is and more about how you can use the post within copyright law, and are based on outside information.

That makes sense. It sounds like a good idea to me.

The bulk update request #7161 is pending approval.

change category creative_commons (3394) -> meta
change category cc0 (77) -> meta
change category cc-by (83) -> meta
change category cc-by-nd (3) -> meta
change category cc-by-nc-nd (1839) -> meta
change category cc-by-nc (737) -> meta
change category cc-by-nc-sa (321) -> meta
change category cc-by-sa (261) -> meta
change category public_domain (795) -> meta
change category license_info (252) -> meta

Reason: Licensing information is external information and should be categorized as meta. Right now they are categorized as copyright tags which clutters that section, and doesn't really serve the same purpose as other copyright tags on the site.

This has been brought up before. People look for licenses in the copyright section, because they are copyright licenses. It should not be in meta.

Also, from a UI perspective, having these as meta tags would be confusing, it's not reasonable for people to know it's referring to a license at a glance. Even someone familiar with creative commons probably wouldn't know at a glance what it's referring to.

If it remains a copyright tag, it is very clear that it is referring to a license.

https://e621.net/forum_topics/36564

kyiiel said:
This has been brought up before. People look for licenses in the copyright section, because they are copyright licenses. It should not be in meta.

Also, from a UI perspective, having these as meta tags would be confusing, it's not reasonable for people to know it's referring to a license at a glance. Even someone familiar with creative commons probably wouldn't know at a glance what it's referring to.

If it remains a copyright tag, it is very clear that it is referring to a license.

https://e621.net/forum_topics/36564

It was confusing when it was just by, but it's not anymore, they all start with cc. On e621 when I think of copyright tags I think of series and source material, companies behind said source material, and occasionally things like holidays and memes. Not licensing information for a specific image, because that's just not the role the category usually fills.

Licensing info, to me, I would associate more with other things in the Meta category, such as aspect ratios, years, sourcing information and other external yet relevant to the post information. public_domain and creative_commons would fit better with tags like alternate_version_at_source and official_art than tags like nintendo or my_little_pony.

Multiple people also disagreed with you in that thread while you were the only one who insisted they should be in the copyright category.

the copyright category is generally for anything relevant relating to IP rights (rights holders, series of origin, branding, etc.) I feel like these fit in the copyright category more than the meta category.

sipothac said:
the copyright category is generally for anything relevant relating to IP rights (rights holders, series of origin, branding, etc.) I feel like these fit in the copyright category more than the meta category.

And holidays, for some reason.

votp said:
And holidays, for some reason.

holidays are kinda brands, they're just not owned by a single entity; they're at least very brand-like.