User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1432718-20200505204802/@comment-45692830-20200711192607: Difference between revisions
(Bot: Automated import of articles) |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7\2/\4-\3/\6-\5)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Aside from DiSoRiEnTeD1's point, I think the issue we're having is that "commercial license" isn't exactly a term I can find a precise definition of, it doesn't seem to be a "term of the art". So we're left with what the admins ''here'' think it means. If they grant the usage of assets to these writers, that would be a license. But if they then advertise (again, this is unclear if they do this in a commercial sense) using these comics, the BBC itself is no longer licensing the assets, as they're using them themselves, even if they're now using them for commercial purposes. So the commercial use doesn't necessarily imply the license of assets ''to the creators'' gave them the ability to use it commercially. | Aside from DiSoRiEnTeD1's point, I think the issue we're having is that "commercial license" isn't exactly a term I can find a precise definition of, it doesn't seem to be a "term of the art". So we're left with what the admins ''here'' think it means. If they grant the usage of assets to these writers, that would be a license. But if they then advertise (again, this is unclear if they do this in a commercial sense) using these comics, the BBC itself is no longer licensing the assets, as they're using them themselves, even if they're now using them for commercial purposes. So the commercial use doesn't necessarily imply the license of assets ''to the creators'' gave them the ability to use it commercially. | ||
| Line 5: | Line 4: | ||
That seems to me to be a ''somewhat'' analogous situation. And I don't think this analogous situation would count either. | That seems to me to be a ''somewhat'' analogous situation. And I don't think this analogous situation would count either. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20200505204802-1432718/20200711192607-45692830]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 13:30, 27 April 2023
Aside from DiSoRiEnTeD1's point, I think the issue we're having is that "commercial license" isn't exactly a term I can find a precise definition of, it doesn't seem to be a "term of the art". So we're left with what the admins here think it means. If they grant the usage of assets to these writers, that would be a license. But if they then advertise (again, this is unclear if they do this in a commercial sense) using these comics, the BBC itself is no longer licensing the assets, as they're using them themselves, even if they're now using them for commercial purposes. So the commercial use doesn't necessarily imply the license of assets to the creators gave them the ability to use it commercially.
By analogy. Let's say that the BBC decided to offer a bunch of props at their Cardiff studios for fans to make their own mini episodes. And they invited a bunch of people to try it out. Whittaker, Chibnall, etc etc. Not required, but asked. That said, understanding how much Doctor Who means to everyone, they jumped at the chance. A lot of these were garbage so they were thrown in the trash, but one or two were good, so they were put up and played on a loop in the studio next to the props, to "get the creative juices flowing".
That seems to me to be a somewhat analogous situation. And I don't think this analogous situation would count either.
