Posted under Tags
BUR #3679 has been approved by @evazion.
create implication pixiv_request -> commission
Implicating specific commission type to general commission tag
EDIT: The bulk update request #3679 (forum #174334) has been approved by @evazion.
Updated by DanbooruBot
For those unaware, pixiv Request is basically pixiv's own skeb. It got released some days ago.
Might as well get this done prematurely so people won't be replacing commision with pixiv_request as apparently happened with skeb_commision.
166417 said:
Yes please, I have seen a user removing the commission tag on some posts and added skeb_commission in place of it.
I consider the tag pixiv_request unnecessary, since it is variety paid_reward. paid_reward no allowed for uploud.
The only difference is that payment is made before the image is created, and not in advance for a subscription or for work performed.
https://www.pixiv.net/request/send...
includes indication of payment.
https://www.pixiv.net/request/guideline
Fans who request or co-request a work have only private use privileges. They can do things like admire it privately or make it their SNS profile picture.
P.S. Perhaps, it is necessary to define differently the works distributed by the artist for such requests.
Dolmatov said:
I consider the tag pixiv_request unnecessary, since it is variety paid_reward. paid_reward no allowed for uploud.
Pixiv requests can be public too, though.
nonamethanks said:
Pixiv requests can be public too, though.
This, pixiv requests aren't necessarily paid rewards because the end work is just posted to Pixiv. It's just a way for someone to request a specific work from the artist, and it's no different from a commission in that sense, whereas paid rewards are explicitly behind a paywall you need to throw money at to actually see the picture.
nonamethanks said:
Pixiv requests can be public too, though.
I agree. As indicated above, a separation between public and non-public works is needed so that there is no circumvention of the rule for downloading paid works. For example, indicate explicitly in the tag description, or another tag name.
Dolmatov said:
I agree. As indicated above, a separation between public and non-public works is needed so that there is no circumvention of the rule for downloading paid works. For example, indicate explicitly in the tag description, or another tag name.
Why are you against such a tag if you agree? The tag is meant to identify commissions made through the pixiv request system, it's not a tag for paid rewards.
Additionally, I would like to point out that such requests for Pixiv are still quite new. At the initial stage, it can be difficult to determine the possibility of distributing works, although the rules of Pixiv themselves prohibit such distribution. I agree that this is a "commission" and not a "remuneration", although it is a paid job.
nonamethanks said:
Why are you against such a tag if you agree? The tag is meant to identify commissions made through the pixiv request system, it's not a tag for paid rewards.
There are doubts as to how much the tag itself is needed. Or, first need to determine the exact description of the tag and the rules for uploading such works to the site. Because of this, he voted negatively - the voice cannot be removed.
Its pixiv's variation of skeb commissions. Its a very recently created recourse but there are artists posting their requests (and it will certainly get more popular in the future). It doesn't work like paid rewards because the artist will post it if the commissioner wants it to be public, private request won't be posted anywhere, not even for who pay the artist's patreon or fanbox.
Edit: maybe a qualifier would be good for the tag, so it won't be mistaken for request tags like source request. It could be named as pixiv request (commission).
Updated
mongirlfan said:
Edit: maybe a qualifier would be good for the tag, so it won't be mistaken for request tags like source request. It could be named as pixiv request (commission).
That's how pixiv calls it so that's how i tagged it.
Also if it's tagged pixiv_request to begin with, that would heavily implicate that it is uploaded by a competent tagger who wouldn't leave the post without a source, so i would think that concern is unfounded.
The bulk update request #3679 (forum #174334) has been approved by @evazion.
