Posted under Tags
BUR #32087 has been rejected.
create implication photo-referenced -> derivative_work
The wiki for derivative work explicitly says it includes photo-referenced, and from the wiki history it looks like it has since it was created in 2009, so I'm not sure why it doesn't implicate it. I always forget to add it manually.
I'm not seeing any previous discussions on this when searching, so if I'm missing anything then IDK.
Updated by Confetto
I guess *technically* it applies, but adding derivative work to, for example, all high_school_girls_posing_for_google_street_view_(meme) posts just feels... wrong to me. I don't feel like I'd particularly be interested in such posts when searching derivative work.
The bulk update request #32087 (forum #309660) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.
ANON_TOKYO said:
I guess *technically* it applies, but adding derivative work to, for example, all high_school_girls_posing_for_google_street_view_(meme) posts just feels... wrong to me. I don't feel like I'd particularly be interested in such posts when searching derivative work.
Why not? It seems pretty in line with the other posts with that tag.
This tag used to be called plagiarism. It was renamed to derivative work to cover more stuff and involuntary or benign plagiarism.
I don't know if I'd call a redrawing of a photo a "derivative work" tbh. It feels like stretching the definition. Also most photo-referenced posts aren't currently tagged with derivative work: photo-referenced -derivative_work has 6k results.
i came across an item that should have these tags today so i wanted to confirm. essentially it's up to discretion of the user to include either one or both tags. if that's the case, what about adding a small comment in the wiki mentioning this? my personal opinion in this context is that any image that contains visual reference to create another image is a derivative, which could, or could not be photo-referenced.
