User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-31010985-20191101112654/@comment-24894325-20200111231817: 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: | ||
A quick response to Scrooge MacDuck's hypothetical in the immediately preceding post: | A quick response to Scrooge MacDuck's hypothetical in the immediately preceding post: | ||
{{quote|why on Earth would [Arcbeatle Press] bother to acquire commercial licenses for some rightsholders but not other?|Scrooge MacDuck}} | {{quote|why on Earth would [Arcbeatle Press] bother to acquire commercial licenses for some rightsholders but not other?|Scrooge MacDuck}} | ||
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. | 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. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20191101112654-31010985/20200111231817-24894325]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 14:32, 27 April 2023
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.
