Forum:Validity: An Adventure in Space and Time: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Forum:Validity: An Adventure in Space and Time (edit)

Revision as of 22:12, 21 July 2024

7,313 bytes added , 21 July

→‎Discussion

Najawin

Trusted

8,503

edits

@@ Line 121: / Line 121: @@
 :: Oh, forgive a man a bit of hyperbole. The line may get fuzzy at the outermost edges, I just think ''AAiS&T'' is comfortably on the inside of that line. (Although R4BP cannot, actually, counteract a R1 failure.) --[[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 :::(Yes yes, of course. It's the title cards that do that.) [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
+:::: I've not got too much to say here that hasn't already been said, but I would like to question the repeated references to {{w|fair use}}. Fair use is a concept of the US copyright system. As far as I'm aware, there aren't any relevant US companies involved with AAiTaS. Therefore, fair use is not at all relevant. The closest equivelant in UK law is {{w|fair dealing}} which is much more restrictive and I'm pretty certain that AAiTaS could not qualify for protection under fair dealing. Hence, if we make the assumption that it was a legal production (which I think is a fair assumption for something that the BBC produced and released), it had a license to use the copyrighted content it includes so R2 should not be a concern. [[User:Bongolium500|<span title="aka Bongolium500">Bongo50</span>]] [[User talk:Bongolium500|☎]] 13:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
+I was going to respond by citing a pdf I found on Canada's fair dealing law, but just to be safe I looked at the UK's. Jesus Christ. I maintain, once again, that we in the States need to annex you because you live in a third world country. We will bring basic human rights, I promise.
+I'll agree that it's most definitely licensed everything involved, sure. I'm not sure this means R2 isn't a concern. We still don't have any clear indication that there's any ''DWU'' licenses in question. The one that's being discussed is 11 or 15. But 11 was ''never'' established as such as opposed to Matt Smith, and 15 is only established as such in a youtube video. Which is its own can of worms. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
+: The ''Americans''. ''Restore'' rights. (Cackles.) But we're really off the topic.
+: I don't know that fair use here is so much the point as the difference between using a copyrighted thing and referencing its existence as a point of real-world history. But regardless, I think "it's released under the ''[[Doctor Who]]'' label" still makes it qualify for the Dalek-annuals precedent — something which its inclusion in [[Whoniverse (BBC iPlayer)|Whoniverse]] only underlines; note our coverage of the Delia Derybishire documentary on the basis of its inclusion there. --[[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
+::But I addressed that above - it's just not analogous. The nature of the Dalek Annuals is such that it was inherently creating new DWU IP, which isn't the case here. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
+:::: We still don't have any clear indication that there's any DWU licenses in question.
+::: The Daleks and the TARDIS pop up all over the place, don't they? {{User:Aquanafrahudy/Sig}} 20:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
+:: @Najawin: I don't understand your argument. Could you rephrase?
+:: @Aquana, yes, but the argument goes that you don't need a license to depict a real historical event, even if that event happens to be "people in Dalek costumes filming ''The Dead Planet''". So as long as no diegetically real versions appear, you wouldn't strictly speaking ''need'' the license.--[[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
+:::They're being licensed ''as real world props'', not as ''IU versions'' of Daleks and TARDISes. Not even as IU versions of the props related to Daleks and TARDISes in the IU show. That's just not how they're being treated. Bongo has convinced me that under UK law I think you ''would'' need a license, because UK law is awful, but that's still not sufficient - these aren't ''DWU'' properties, in any meaningful sense.
+:::The Dalek Annuals case is one where the work has licensed all of the relevant IP - an empty set, but is generating new IP, intended to be in the DWU, ''because it's part of a larger anthology''. Which isn't the case here. Same as ''Fanboys'', or parts of ''Contributors''. But not this. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
+:: I don't understand what you mean by "generating new IP" that ''AAiS&T'' doesn't fulfill! Nor do I think the anthology thing is determinative. I think if BBC Books published a wholly original, and non-Rule-4-passing, novel, but marketed it as part of their ''[[Doctor Who]]'' line, i.e. using their license to the ''Doctor Who'' trademark itself as a ''brand'' — I think that would fulfill Rule 2 and we would cover that novel as an invalid source.
+:: Though even accepting such terms, again, [[Whoniverse (BBC iPlayer)|Whoniverse]]. As of 2023 ''AAiS&T'' has appeared as part of a wider, branded collection of stuff making use of a DWU umbrella title, and this is considered grounds for coverage of the Derbyshire documentary, so there you are. --[[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
+:::I think part of the problem here is that you're thinking in terms of R1-3 as being T:CS, and R4 as being T:VS, re:[[Forum:Rule 4 by Proxy and its ramifications: considered in the light of the forum archives]], which, you know, hasn't been adjudicated on yet, and is due to be spun off into other discussions along these lines. (No shade to anyone reading this, just a statement of fact.) I just don't think this way, I think that there's one rule, [[T:VS]], and what we ''cover'' is a messy issue that comes largely from reading that rule through precedent and [[T:BOUND]]. I don't think it's clear that there's a hard and fast line demarcating rules 1-3 as being T:CS, and rule 4 as being T:VS. As you know.
+:::I think my point about the anthology suffices to show the two cases aren't analogous. The unprecedented situation you're discussing is just that, unprecedented, and so isn't covered by the T:CS/T:VS distinction imo. We'd just discuss it at the time. (Hell, [[Deadline (audio story)]], probably the closest analogue, is valid! I think your idea that it would be covered as invalid is the least likely option, people would be very keen on seeing it as valid just from the branding alone.) Moreover, I'm not sure why adding it to a ''heading on iPlayer'' 10 years after the fact in any way impacts the point I'm making. It seems to just completely misunderstand it. Were it to have been originally published there? You know, fair enough. But to be added 10 years later?
+::::considered grounds for coverage of the Derbyshire documentary
+:::Funnily enough, I can't find any discussion of this one. Still not analogous, because one was released as a discrete product sold to consumers, the other was put in a heading on a website, while the website as a whole was given as a service to those who paid their fee. Under the latter model, I don't see how, for instance, if someone accidentally put Emmerdale under the tab, we'd not be forced to validate it. (fwiw, I think we should have ''covered'' that documentary when it was released, I just still think it violates R2, and that in itself doesn't mean we shouldn't cover it.) [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)