User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-31010985-20190928203157/@comment-24894325-20191015073141: 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: | ||
Beyond finding a publicly available proof of physical copies sold, there is a further problem of fulfilling [[Tardis:Official releases]] (emphasis from the policy): | Beyond finding a publicly available proof of physical copies sold, there is a further problem of fulfilling [[Tardis:Official releases]] (emphasis from the policy): | ||
{{quote|We consider something ''officially released'' when it is made available to the ''general'' public, in venues that are ordinarily and legally used for that particular medium.|Tardis:Official releases|T:OFF REL}} | {{quote|We consider something ''officially released'' when it is made available to the ''general'' public, in venues that are ordinarily and legally used for that particular medium.|Tardis:Official releases|T:OFF REL}} | ||
| Line 18: | Line 17: | ||
There is, of course, an additional common sense and legal rationale why neither should they be. Both modes of distribution are very hard to trace and even harder to prove in the court of law. Copyright holders have very limited recourse against those infringing copyright by direct personal communication via mail or by setting up a stall at a convention. | There is, of course, an additional common sense and legal rationale why neither should they be. Both modes of distribution are very hard to trace and even harder to prove in the court of law. Copyright holders have very limited recourse against those infringing copyright by direct personal communication via mail or by setting up a stall at a convention. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20190928203157-31010985/20191015073141-24894325]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 14:29, 27 April 2023
Beyond finding a publicly available proof of physical copies sold, there is a further problem of fulfilling Tardis:Official releases (emphasis from the policy):
We consider something officially released when it is made available to the general public, in venues that are ordinarily and legally used for that particular medium.
I do not believe that there are precedents of stories validated because they were sold to those who paid admission to a convention happening over a couple of days in one location (rather that to the general public).
As for direct mailing, this is the ordinary medium for selling fanzines and fan productions. One example readily coming to mind is Audio Visuals, a well known former producer of unlicensed Doctor Who audios. Direct mailing is not ordinarily used by professional book publishers, who trade their books either through a third-party distributor like Amazon (which, according to their website, is the ordinary route for commercial activities of Arcbeatle Press) or through their own website, which is the route taken by Big Finish Productions. While websites of Arcbeatle Press may provide free access to their stories, to the best of my knowledge, they have not provided a way to buy their stories directly from the website.
Since people keep trying to read things in my posts that were never there, let me be clear. If Arcbeatle Press engaged in direct mailing, it is not, by itself, a proof that their stories are fan fiction. It would, on the other hand, be further evidence that their business practices have hallmark features of producers of fan fiction while at the same time lacking some fairly universal features associated with professional book publishers (publishing under their own ISBN and, consequently, under their own name).
It should further be pointed out that T:OFF REL explicitly stipulates "venues ordinarily and legally used for that particular medium". As is evidenced by the same examples, direct mailing is often used to circumvent legal restrictions arising from copyright, tax laws, etc. Conventions are no different. Things sold at conventions often violate the same laws.
Once again, this does not mean that everyone selling things at conventions violates copyright. To state the obvious, conventions are not intended for commercial distribution of products, but rather for promoting products and interacting with fans, which is used by both professionals and amateurs. Therefore, evidence of things sold at conventions (even if such evidence were readily available)
- cannot be taken as a proof of a commercial license;
- does not constitute an official release according to T:OFF REL.
To summarise, things sold at conventions and through direct mailing are not "commercial releases".
There is, of course, an additional common sense and legal rationale why neither should they be. Both modes of distribution are very hard to trace and even harder to prove in the court of law. Copyright holders have very limited recourse against those infringing copyright by direct personal communication via mail or by setting up a stall at a convention.
