If I may make a minor adjustment, what about "robotic_trance?"

Hmm, sounds good.

I like it. Added a wiki page for it, and amended robotization's, so it no longer covers robotic_trance's turf. Feel free to touch it up if you have something to add I didn't think of.

I'm also going ahead with board_exclusive, under the assumption Operation Transport doesn't care to press their objection to it.
Not trying to pick a fight, though, so if they come out the woodwork I'm willing to talk about it.

It just feels like a tag that's hard to tag and hard to maintain. I still don't support it, but no one else seem to object to this tag yet.

Hard to tag as in how would someone other than the uploader know it's hypnohub exclusive? The tag (I feel like) implies that the uploader is the artist or commissioner, but if they were to upload without a source or without any evidence that they are either, then there is always a possibility that they are not, and tagging that would be wrong.

Hard to maintain as in that whenever a creator decides to uploads works somewhere else, the post on the hub no longer is exclusive. This means that ALL posts tagged with this would have to be checked periodically for any other uploads, which is impossible.

Instead of this tag, maybe something like "artist_upload" or "commissioner_upload/commission" would solve these problems, but of course they don't entirely satisfy your original objectives.

Regarding definitions for "board_exclusive", I think manips should not qualify for this tag, since the original work is not exclusive to the hub.

That is a good point. It's one I hadn't considered since I'm fairly perceptive and terminally on the hub, so I know of a bunch of local artists from comments and google searching for sources over the years.

I don't think that's enough of a reason to avoid the tag altogether, but it does warrant a warning regarding false positives in the description. Please contribute it if you have a good idea. I'll come up with one eventually, otherwise.



Valid concern for the original conception, technically, if a bit niche...what are the chances that an artist uploads the best version to image boards only, then sits on it for months or years before uploading it other places? And how does it impact us if it does happen? That sort of vigilance is not really warranted.

That said, it having been exclusive at the time of its upload is still useful information and descriptive of what it is.

In the current description, I have it written that if a Better version shows up anywhere, the old version can be canned, which is what we already do for every image anyway.



I agreed with you on that point before you said it. It's already in the description.

...Here's an idea. What if the "exclusivity" bit was done away with? It's not the only way to describe such an image. It's just what logan posited after he rebuffed the "endemic" name.

How about "direct upload"? That's Almost the same, but it no longer matters if it is only on the hub or not. They will very often be so, but that's neither here nor there.

I suggested above "artist_upload" and "commission". How about that?

oh geez, I must have stolen it from you without realizing. Yeah, those also work great.

And they do satisfy the original objectives closely enough. Since these images will very often be the only sources of the image, some false positives are acceptable when the goal is preservation. The community spirit benefit is basically the same either way. Same with the confusion on the lack of sources.

I think these would be much better tags. I'll start with direct_upload, and add commissioner_upload too, there is enough of the latter around to warrant it. Thank you for your help!

You're tagging direct_upload and not artist_upload? I feel like the name of artist_upload would be more intuitive than direct_upload.

Plus commissioner_upload is not a subtag of artist_upload.

I think direct_upload is more sensible since it covers both artists and copyright holders. The distinction between the two is really fuzzy, I would not be confident in maintaining it. Either way, it is coming "directly" from the creators, which is easily verifiable if you take the time to look.

A commissioner_upload cannot rightly be called direct, they may not have the copyright and verifying if they do or not would be a nightmare. It also has very different connotations, so I wholeheartedly agree it should be its own tag.



Yeah, I agree, that was a mistake I edited from my post before yours came along.

What do you mean by a copyright holder? You mean like a artist circle or something?

For instance.

But more broadly, I mean the legal term, as in "those who own the image".
Since copyright law varies by country, and the specifics of legal ownership are almost always discussed(if at all) in private channels between the person who makes the image and the person/group who gets it, trying to make that distinction is prohibitively hard. It's better to lump the two together.

Since we're lumping the two together anyways, wouldn't artist_upload still be better?

How do you figure? The copyright holder might not have touched a single pixel.
Also, what about content where no conventional artistry is involved, like ai images or manips?

Artist as a moniker has a sort of prestige. People might make a mess of the tag on the grounds those images do not deserve it. Even if that doesn't happen, the name wouldn't really fit.

I'm guessing by copyright holder you mean commissioner? I can't think of any other types of non-artist copyright holder that would upload on the hub.

For ai_art or manips, since their uploaders are classed as generators or manippers, and manips already have the tag "manip", in my opinion they wouldn't qualify for artist_upload.