Forum:TV Comic & other periodical issues

Index → The Panopticon → TV Comic & other periodical issues

Spoilers are strongly policed here.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.

Opening post

The full cover of TVC 674.

A cropped version of the cover, omitting the Popeye strip (and, in my opinion, thereby being less informative).

Sure, it isn't Doctor Who Magazine, but come on. (BM 1)

Right, so a while ago, another user on this site went through various issues of TV Comic which featured Doctor Who-related content, and made pages for them. Admin CzechOut later decided that they didn't deserve pages due to not being released under the Doctor Who brand, and deleted the pages, redirecting them to a list of covers. Additionally, said list of covers only features the very top banners of these issues, with the article claiming that "Because of the lack of a need of Popeye content on this wiki, these galleries will mainly function to cover the top banner of the issue.". Personally, I quite strongly disagree. First off, in terms of a "lack of a need of Popeye content on this wiki"... we now have an overview for Popeye. And secondly, the full covers would allow the issues to be more easily identifiable (and be more in line with how issues of other periodicals are covered).

Additionally, the idea that the covers couldn't be featured on the site would also suggest that all non-Doctor Who-branded periodicals from TV Century 21 to BeanoMAX couldn't be properly illustrated either, at least for specific issues (although these do often advertise the DW content on their covers... but so does TV Comic!). Although the decision that TVC's issues couldn't have pages wasn't the result of a forum decision, I feel that a forum thread would allow this issue to be resolved if consensus is reached, as a single individual's choice generally cannot override forum consensus.

So, tl;dr, my proposal is as follows: any issue of a periodical which features licensed DWU content should be given a page, with its full cover shown (this may also apply to documentary-esque periodicals which could be useful for behind-the-scenes citation, but that's a separate issue). So, what are people's thoughts on this? Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 15:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Wholeheartedly agree with this opening post. Something a single admin decided years ago in a lost part of the Wiki without any input from other users, which not only doesn't hold up to current practise and, frankly, is therefore completely unenforceable under T:LOCAL RULES... we absolutely should official overturn this bizarre decision. Of course we should have pages on individual issues of magazines that contain DWU content; it's a step away from redirecting any anthology without DWU branding to the overall series page.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

15:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Completely agree with everything here, we should totally have pages for individual issues of stuff featuring DWU content. Aquanafrahudy 📢 15:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this. And it is frankly outrageous that a single user, just because this user is admin, can singlehandedly make a decision on whether something belongs on a wiki. Even more when other users disagree with that decision. Danniesen ☎ 15:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

It has always been my opinion that we should have pages on select issues not because they're DW material, but for pure navigational purposes. I, for instance, have recently bought a bunch of old issues of Marvel reprint publications. Because the wiki rarely has pages on these, I've often been forced to use the Marvel comic wiki. It's terrible. I hate the layout, I hate the search ability. I don't want to force our readers to use worse sites or even sites that don't exist (there is no TV Comic wiki).

I will also explain, for those interested in being able to revisit historical debates, that the discussion I had with Czech happened in the defunct wiki chat window. Thusly, there is no historical debate to revisit. At the time I asked that we have a forum discussion before he delete everything but he insisted that there was no point as he was simply correct and it would be a waste of my time.

I do think there is some kind of middle ground here. It is fair, in my opinion, that an editor on the Doctor Who Magazine has more of a right to have a full page on our website than the editor of BeanoMax issue one. So I think it's logical that we cover DWM more in the vein of "every collaborator to this publication deserves a page unless they don't want one", but that we still have navigational pages documenting reprint history and the like, otherwise the entire point of having reprint information documented in infoboxes is moot.

I will say that the TV Comic banner thing was my choice. I was very weary about uploading full pages of comics to the wiki, due to the fair use argument, and thus I chose to crop the issues. I don't truly care much if we keep this choice, but I always felt the most important part was always the banner. OS25🤙☎️ 16:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Gonna surprise everyone and agree with OS25 twice over. I'm not thrilled with Czech unilaterally dictating policy, I think this is a fundamental mistake, and I think the fair use argument for portraying an entire comic strip is probably quite weak. The first row of the strip might be sufficient for identification purposes, or perhaps the entire thing with a blur attached below the banner. I dunno off hand. But the full comic is probably not the way to go. Najawin ☎ 16:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

To be honest I doubt any copyright issues will arise over a cover-that-contains-a-comic from fifty years ago, especially as these covers are elsewhere on the internet and the people hosting them don't have issues. If we, in the unlikely situation where the copyright holders did object, blurring/redacting out parts of the cover would be my preference over cropping covers.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

16:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

Huh, I hadn't realised entire comics were shown on the cover (I'd assumed the cover story somehow continued inside). I mean, really it's their fault for putting an entire comic on the front cover of their magazine - just walking through a store at the time, you'd probably see the entire comic clearly on display. I'd personally still prefer to have the whole thing, but if people think that would run too large a risk, I guess some kind of compromise could work... Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 16:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Do I think they care? No. Do I think that we should be wary of this given both ToU and the fact that if they suddenly do decide they care I'm pretty sure we instantly fail three of the four factors of fair use? (I think harm to market would be hard to show.) Yes. Najawin ☎ 17:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we should play it safe in regard to the covers. Beyond that, I agree with what everyone else has already said, it was wrong for Czech to make a decision like that all on their own. These magazine issues should get pages. Time God Eon ☎ 01:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

As regards the full-comic-on-the-first-page issue, may I suggest that we simply upload at a low enough resolution that the comic isn't legible? That's how I've known a number of online resources to do it — the INDUCKS database of Disney comics, for example, gives a thumbnail of the first page of any given comic (including one-pagers), but the page as a whole is too small to make out any dialogue, while a single panel is extracted in higher resolution as a fair-use preview. See here, for example. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 13:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I strongly support the idea of having specific pages for issues of periodicals when those issues feature licensed DWU content. I'm agnostic on the front page / full comic / etc debate. – n8 (☎) 13:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Well personally, if it's a high quality upload of the banner OR a low quality upload of the full cover... I'd go with the former every time. A lot of these images are rare and hardly documented, purposefully using a low quality isn't ideal for me. OS25🤙☎️ 01:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, we could do both. The low-res full covers in the infobox on the issue pages, and the high-res cropped banners at TV Comic/Gallery, for example? Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 12:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, in the grand scheme of things, we should just allow the full front cover. If someone complains we'll reconvene. But I think it is fair use, it's basic documentation of info, and I am 100% sure we won't get in trouble. OS25🤙☎️ 17:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Politely, OS25, could you show me your 4 factor test analysis for allowing the full thing as fair use? I'm rather convinced it dramatically fails 3 of the 4 prongs. Najawin ☎ 17:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The 4 factor test is not a thing with fair dealing in the UK (as far as I'm aware as a non-lawyer), but I've looked it up and, assuming what I've read is correct, I don't think many of our images can be considered fair use. Fandom is a commercial site with ads so we fail the first factor. A large number of images on our site are from "imaginative or highly creative" works (e.g. works of fiction) so we frequently fail the second factor. Factor 3 seems a little more nuanced to me: with regard to screenshots and the like, we are only using a small portion of the full work. When we upload full standalone illustrations and promotional pictures, not so much. Factor 4 is also a little more nuanced. I don't think our use of many images is transformative, but some of them are from works long "out of print or otherwise unavailable", so this also depends. In summary, I don't really feel that we follow fair use anyway right now. Where we want to proceed from this, I don't know, but I'm not sure we want to delete a large quantity of our images. I do think that we should stop, or at least reduce the extent to which are, claiming that the images we upload are being used under fair use in any case. Bongo50 ☎ 20:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

As far as the first is concerned we have a leg to stand on here collecting data for archival purposes, even if it's commercial, is somewhat transformative. There's case law where if you collect too much it stops being fair use. Which is where my concern of screenshot of a tv show vs full comic comes into play. (See the comment about the Harry Potter encyclopedia here: https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/) But we don't immediately fail the first prong site-wide. The second is one we definitely have issues with often, yes. Factor 3 depends on the nature of the work we're considering a page for. A tv show? We're good. A single page comic or promotional image? We need to be very careful here. (But, I note, that for Factor 3 promotional images mean that Factor 2 is less of an issue for us.) And Factor 4 is something that is very case by case as well. Let's be very clear that out of print works only weakly support fair use. (If it's an orphaned work, I suspect that you're unlikely to run into any problems. But that's not at all the same thing.) There's case law that says potential markets count. If a copyright holder wanted to say that they were contemplating reprinting these things (or selling them digitally!), but market harm was generated by someone who uploaded out of print comics, those people would be on the hook. Showing the entire thing clearly is far more damaging to that potential market than showing the first panel, or a blurry outline. So site-wide it's blurry on 3, usually a fail on 1. For the comics, it's an instant fail on 3, blurry on 1. Najawin ☎ 21:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Realistically, if we were really considering fair use as our first and only criteria, we would only allow VHS screengrabs with noticeable quality issues. This is what Wikipedia does, with the argument being that a lower source of material proves that the use is not serving as a replacement. We have historically gone against this - actually banning VHS recordings of some sources. There has always been an expectation of our website existing as a fan project which relies on the unspoken good graces of groups like the BBC.

Second of all, I hate to posit myself as an expert on fair use. But in this case I likely have the most experience out of everyone here. The simple fact is that there is no consistent measure for how much tenants of fair use you have to accommodate for before it becomes justified. Something can fail 3 "factors" and still be fair use. That's just how it works.

Responding to Bongo's point, I think it's fair that we consider this wiki an American website considering that's what we've done when tackling other laws. (I can't remember the issue, but there's basically a law about websites based on children's properties, and our stance is that as Doctor Who is not for kids in America, we are not applicable to this).

But I will, for the sake of clarity, go through the three main pillars:

1. Factor 1: The Purpose and Character of the Use: This is simply how we are using the copyrighted content and if we serve to make a profit. In this case, we are attempting to upload the cover pages from these issues essentially for the means of preserving a process of navigating the contents of the individual issues in question. We make no profit from presenting these images, and indeed we are effectively providing a tool for those interested in buying these back issues.
2. Factor 2: The Nature of the Copyrighted Work: So hot take, but this one pretty much only exists in cases where the copyrighted source is a newsreel or the like. If I make a documentary about Michael Jackson, I can show a compilation of anchors announcing Jackson's death because of factor 2. In very few other cases does factor 2 actually serve a purpose to deciding fair use, which is also why fair use is not a process of checking "yes" next to all these topics.
3. Factor 3: The Amount or Substantiality of the Portion Used: This rule is the reason why, usually, it is better to upload one panel rather than one page of material. We strive as a site to not upload backups or archives of material because there is a difference between using 1% of a piece of media and 95%. So an entire page is more than average - but in my opinion the important factor is that these are not one-page comics, thus we are not even half of the material. If I were making a Batman documentary, there would be no viable argument that showing one panel of a Batman story is fair use, but showing one page is "too much," Factor 3 isn't so literal.
4. Factor 4: The Effect of the Use on the Potential Market for or Value of the Work: This is, very simply, "does the existence of this work negatively impact the original media by serving as a replacement for it." So, if someone makes a compilation of the TV Comic Tom & Jerry comics and releases it commercially, will our uploading of TV Comic cover pages cause someone to decide not to buy the compilation? The answer, in my opinion, is obviously that because we do not upload the interior pages as well. Someone who wants to read all of the TV Comic Tom & Jerry comics would not be satisfied just by the cover page, as it gives no resolution or punchline. Thus they would still buy the compilation, thus it does not impact the theoretical market.

So, do I think this would be fair use? Simply put, it's about as much fair use as uploading the covers to any other magazine. If File:DWM 595.jpg is okay, then I figure this is too. Sure, if you're buying up issues of Doctor Who Magazine just to stare at the covers, maybe it's not fair use to provide high-quality copies of the front pages. But more realistically, our DWM pages simply exist for navigation because most people do not buy publications to stare at the cover page (indeed, back in the day it would have been free to look at the front cover when you saw it at a newsstand!). Thusly, I would argue that it is absolutely fine to upload TV Comic covers in full, as we are not providing the same purpose, we are not replacing the original for the audience in question, and we are using the material in a semi-transformative fashion. OS25🤙☎️ 23:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

You certainly have the most experience of using copyrighted material that you argue to be fair use of anyone here. This does not, I note, mean that your view on what is actually fair use is correct. (I don't intend to single you out here, nor am I accusing you of any wrongdoing in particular, but we've all seem Tom Scott's video here, right? Just referencing it because it has a ton of examples that are relevant.) There are a lot of misconceptions related to copyright law where people think things are fair use but are decidedly incorrect. Even if they work with copyrighted media repeatedly! The DMCA takedowns filed all over social media and the rest of the internet by other companies are usually correct. Which, you know. I hate. But it is what it is.

The simple fact is that there is no consistent measure for how much tenants of fair use you have to accommodate for before it becomes justified.

This is certainly true! The only way for us to be sure would be to go to court. But I think a basic analysis of this issue should give us pause pretty quickly if we instantly fail 3 prongs and are iffy on the fourth.

I think it's fair that we consider this wiki an American website considering that's what we've done when tackling other laws

Also that's where the corporate entity is located, iirc. Now, that doesn't mean that the UK copyright owners couldn't try to force the content down in other ways, but it would have to do stuff like go to UK server owners or DNS providers.

We make no profit from presenting these images, and indeed we are effectively providing a tool for those interested in buying these back issues

We, the editors, make no profit. Fandom, the corporate entity that hosts this website, does. Moreover, see the case law I note above. Extensive verbatim quotes mitigate transformative nature here. It's likely a no for Factor 1.

So hot take, but this one pretty much only exists in cases where the copyrighted source is a newsreel or the like.

I can see how, given your background, (and I don't mean this in a disparaging sense, for the record) this is the conclusion you'd come to, but this isn't correct. This is a highly relevant factor for some disputes about, say, academic results being made public in certain ways.

in my opinion the important factor is that these are not one-page comics

Ah! This is actually relevant. If the comic isn't fully contained on that page, that would definitely be a factor! I'm still very skeptical, if it's, say, ~40%. But this wasn't made clear to me.

Given this context I think I'm still against, and consider it far closer to the line than the median picture on the wiki, but I do agree that it's not as cut and dry as I thought it was. I greatly apologize for my mistake. Najawin ☎ 23:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

One day I'll take part in a debate on this site without someone making a personal attack about my personal life. Wasn't today. Ah well.

To respond to your statement about issue 2, my stance is not that "Factor 2" is never useful for when something is academic, or historical, or the like. My point is that when it comes to analysis of pop culture it doesn't matter. Factor 2 is not important to this discussion at all - it neither furthers the case of fair use being a precedent here nor disproves that this would be fair use. Rambling about it further might imply some understanding of the topic but it has no consequence on the discussion at hand. OS25🤙☎️ 00:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

You've misinterpreted my comment. I did not do that. Indeed, I directly denied doing so in the comment. It's neither a personal attack to say that someone's views are potentially incorrect, nor that they have epistemological limitations. I neither expect, nor want an apology, but in the future, I'd appreciate it if you interpret my comments where I explicitly deny an interpretation as honestly reflecting my views. T:FAITH and all that. I'm a pedantic little shit, isn't that an easier interpretation than that I'm constantly trying to insult people. Najawin ☎ 01:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

…Look, not to put too fine a point on it, but the last couple of messages of back-and-forth between you two seem to me to only make sense in knowledge of certain details of Ottsel's personal life which Najawin happens to know about, but which Ottsel has otherwise very deliberately not made public. Though I do trust no malice was intended, this does make the suggestion of potential wrongdoing on Ottsel's part all the worse for the fact that it's all done through half-unstated implication, and that people not previously in on the shared knowledge here would either have no way of checking what activities of Ottsel's this is all referring to and making up their own mind, or be incentivised to look into Ottsel's identity for the same reason. That's… not good.

Admittedly Ottsel "started it" to a degree with "I likely have the most experience out of everyone here", but that's no excuse for going a more accusatory route with it. I dunno if it's NPA material, but it's for sure skirting the anti-doxxing policies and I'm very uncomfortable with the way the last few rounds of messages have gone… Honestly, this is not often invoked but to minimise damage I would be inclined to delete the last few messages and start again. I won't take it upon myself to do it unilaterally, but if Ottsel requests it — that's an option, let it be known.

Anyway, taking the privacy thing as said… look. Sure, it isn't "a personal attack to say that someone's views are potentially incorrect", but Najawin, you were discussing the (in your opinion, seemingly likely) potentiality of Ottsel breaking the law in the course of his job; how would you feel if Ottsel somehow found out what your job was, and then made insinuations that you were confused about some basic aspect of the legalities of that job, in a way which meant you'd potentially been breaking the law for years? Really now. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 05:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

(Actually, OS25 has made those details public on this site ages ago, effectively, and I called his attention to this fact on another wiki so he could get them removed by contacting Fandom, in good faith. With that said, feel free to do so. Fair enough.)

As for the issue of breaking the law, there's breaking the law, and there's breaking the law. My statement was that OS25 was technically incorrect about a civil matter that practically everyone is incorrect about, and that the civil matter is wildly counter intuitive and poorly designed for the situation as people currently exist. It's like, I dunno, if OS25 suggested that in the normal course of my job I regularly jaywalked and mistakenly thought this was legal (I mean, depending on jurisdiction). To your mind is this a personal attack? It isn't to mine. If OS25 is focusing on the illegality of it all and is upset solely for that aspect, fair enough, I apologize. It's just not something I ever contemplated that people would immediately associate a statement that technical civil offenses occurred with, well, personal attacks. (And it would be astonishingly hypocritical of me to frame things in that way, especially given my comments as to how I view copyright in the other thread. Let he who has never used scihub cast the first stone.) Najawin ☎ 06:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

“Actually, OS25 *has* made those details public on this site ages ago, effectively”

Inadvertently, and then he removed them again. This is how doxxing (practically) always work. Few doxxers are fiendish hackers getting access to encrypted data; humans are fallible creatures and doxxers tend to simply follow trails of careless breadcrumbs. It suffices that the information was not public in practice; that a dedicated investigator could, at any time, dig it up using cross-referenced 'public' data is trivial, since that's precisely what the doxxer's actions were. The infamous Amorkuz case was much the same.

And no, it's not the same as if "in the normal course of my job I regularly jaywalked" (unless your job was such that a fuss being kicked up about it was likely to get you fired/ostracised from said job). Whether the rule is ethically right or wrong, an unbreaking good-faith abidance by some understanding of the rule is a fundamental precondition of… the activity under discussion. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 06:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

No, this info is still there. (Let me emphasize that, again, I came across this info while looking for something entirely different and it actively causes me distress that it's still there, since to remove it properly requires fandom level perms.)

Whether the rule is ethically right or wrong, an unbreaking good-faith abidance by some understanding of the rule is a fundamental precondition of… the activity under discussion.

"Some understanding" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. In the hypothetical we could just say that so long as you don't run out in front of traffic and cause a car wreck the hypothetical field doesn't care about jaywalking. And, you know, I say this as someone who considers themselves friends with some people engaged in the activity in question. The statements I made are solely positive, not normative. But if the illegality of it all offended OS25, again, I apologize for that section. It was not, in any way, intended as a personal attack. Najawin ☎ 06:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

If the mere knowledge of its persistence in some out-of-the-way places "actively distresses you" then don't go around blabbing about it on wholly public threads! Land'sakes! Your apology for the attack-adjacent bit is appreciated, but please do also apologise for the privacy thing, please. (And consent to have the messages deleted if Ottsel takes me up on that proposal would be appreciated as a gesture of goodwill.) Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 10:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Well I certainly didn't indicate where it was. And I already did consent! Above, in the first response to you! And I do agree that the wording of my comment on the privacy front is unfortunate, but it still feels to me to be the only way to explain to OS25 how I objected to his characterization of his claimed expertise, and how it's slightly more nuanced. I could be vaguer still! But I felt that those responses would be curt and entirely unhelpful, and given the tensions between us in the past, I figured an actual explanation would be best, and tried both to be quite vague in that section, and to explicitly note that it wasn't directly referring to him in specific, but to characteristics of, well, large swathes of our society. Obviously this was mistaken. I apologize for that, and will adjust accordingly. Najawin ☎ 17:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

“And I already did consent! Above, in the first response to you!”

Aaah, I somehow misread "feel free to do so" as a suggestion that I should try to tell Ottsel the same thing you had, about getting the hard-to-delete details removed by Fandom, and see if I had any more luck than you. I didn't realise you were referring to my deletion suggestion. My mistake entirely.

The rest of the apology is at any rate appreciated. As regards the fact that continuing to discuss the privacy-skiritng info was the only direct way to reply to Ottsel's slip — well, yes. And I did acknowledge that he'd started in a minor way. But I think the right thing to do would have been to point Ottsel's slip out to him on his talk page and ask him how to proceed (i.e. whether he had really meant to put that topic on the table in a way that would bear further scrutiny), and only engage with the point with his assent. Difficult waters, of course, I'm not saying it was egregiously negligent not to think to do this or anything — but a combination of that and the NPA-skirtingly-accusatory nature of the discussion itself made for a bad mix. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 19:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I realised that this is relates to my question; would this proposal also apply to individual issues of Radio Times, both those that print DW comic strips and those where the show adorns their covers? As I mentioned elsewhere, the BBC now have a whole online archive for RT issues up to at least 2019, which makes getting specific issue numbers a whole lot easier. WaltK ☎ 18:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it would, yeah. Time God Eon ☎ 05:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

In regards to stuff like Radio Times, I think being able to cite non-fiction to specific issues would probably be a good thing, so people know what issue to search for the information provided. In terms of fiction such as comics, I see no harm in giving pages to issues that print it. (Although with non-fiction, I suppose it becomes a bit more difficult to figure out what's "relevant enough"...) Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 09:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, this all got very heated. With minds hopefully having cooled, are there any additional comments on the actual proposal? Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 12:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I guess my only note is that a front cover is a specific thing. It is designed, by its nature, to be seen by the public without the exchange of money. Back in the day, you could easily walk up to a comic stand, look at the full front page of a periodical, and leave without spending a single dime. Because of that, I do not humor any argument that uploading images of the front covers of these publications is copyright infringement, the point is that we can look at these covers. It's no different to someone saying that uploading the cover of DWM 555 should be banned because someone owns the rights to that picture of Tom Baker! (This debate is mostly over, I'm sure opinions like this have already been voiced) OS25🤙☎️ 23:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Does such a market currently exist? Were one to exist in the future, would the hypothetical person who wished to see the front of the magazine be drawing views away from that market place by viewing these frontpieces here instead? Would we offer the option to purchase the whole magazine here, while the market does? These questions are all relevant to this comparison, it's not quite as cut and dry as is being suggested. Najawin ☎ 23:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Returning to this months later... Yes, I think if an online market existed today for TV Comic to reprint and re-sell old issues, the front covers would absolutely be on display. If an equivalent magazine does exist, I'm sure the front cover absolutely is published on all online markets. So, yes, for the sake of clarity and archival work it absolutely would be fine, IMO, to show the front page. If, as a theoretical, I made a fan guide to collecting British comics and I had several pages dedicated to showing all these TV Comic fronts, that would fly in the current market as fair use. If we're being honest, the same can not be said of everything on this site we get away with!

The important part of this is that we are not using this material for the original purpose - we are not a Tom & Jerry Wiki, we are not republishing the full comics, and people are not coming here to read said work. People will be coming here to look up occasional confusions about periodicals. For instance - if you buy a TV Comic lot and the # is torn off a few issues, you can pop over to the Wiki and scroll through the covers until you find the one you have. (Obviously, you could figure out the issue number by studying the inside portions, but that's irrelevant to our purpose as a fan aide.)

Either way, the most important thing here is that we only seem to get invested in things like laws and specifically American legal defenses when it comes to new things we're changing on the site. Showing TV Comic covers is equally as legally justified as showing DWM covers - we could very easily get sued by Panini if they wanted it, but it's not going to happen. In the end, that's the most important talking point. It's not going to happen. OttselSpy25 ☎ 17:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced that the whole of the first page would be showed in the hypothetical new market. Nor do I think it's analogous to DWM covers, as those aren't comic panels. (I also think Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. RDR Books is substantially nicer to much of what we do here than you're suggesting, but, yes, we probably tread a little close to the line at times - most specifically wrt our coverage of IU non narrative stuff.) Regardless, I think we won't see eye to eye on this. Oh well! Najawin ☎ 19:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

As far as the original proposition to give pages to issues containing DWU content goes, I agree with the consensus that these should be allowed. Especically in light of the recently-closed Forum:Coverage: other TV magazines features Doctor Who coverage, this seems like a logical follow-up.

With regards to the cover images debate, I confess my feelings one way or the other aren't too strong but one thing which should be mentioned is that we aren't just talking about Popeye and Tom & Jerry comics here. For a few months in 1967, the front cover was the first page of the Doctor Who strip as well which is perhaps more pertinent to this Wiki. For another example which would come under this precedent, the TV21 cover stories would also be uploaded in full if complete front cover images are allowed. --Borisashton ☎ 20:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)