User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-31010985-20191101112654/@comment-24894325-20200111231817: Difference between revisions
(Bot: Automated import of articles) |
(No difference)
|
Revision as of 13:42, 27 April 2023
User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-31010985-20191101112654/@comment-24894325-20200111231817 A quick response to Scrooge MacDuck's hypothetical in the immediately preceding post:
why on Earth would [Arcbeatle Press] bother to acquire commercial licenses for some rightsholders but not other?
I do not know why but that is exactly what they did with images on the covers of An Eloquence of Time and Space. They obtained a permission for K-9 for the back cover but did not obtain a permission (according to the book itself) for the TARDIS on the front cover. Thus, the strategy of obtaining licensing from some rights holders but not others is not a hypothetical anymore. Arcbeatle Press has employed this strategy in the past. I am sure the OP would soon explain how exactly it squares with the copyright law, after which we would be able to project his explanation to the stories at hand.
