User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1432718-20200505204802/@comment-45692830-20200708215807: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
(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: | ||
Multiple people have called into question their licensing. Just because you and I think the idea is ludicrous doesn't mean it's a strawman. | Multiple people have called into question their licensing. Just because you and I think the idea is ludicrous doesn't mean it's a strawman. | ||
As for the rule 4 issue, it's not saying that the comics were owned or made by the creators, but it's the emphasis, it's how they were presented to people. Instead of "look at new Doctor Who stories made with this", it's "the writers used this tool, now you get to use it". Perhaps you don't get this emphasis from the statement, I don't deny that there's going to be some ambiguity in this type of wording. But the issue at hand is one of how the only description of these comics is thrusting the responsibility onto the writers, not the BBC. | As for the rule 4 issue, it's not saying that the comics were owned or made by the creators, but it's the emphasis, it's how they were presented to people. Instead of "look at new Doctor Who stories made with this", it's "the writers used this tool, now you get to use it". Perhaps you don't get this emphasis from the statement, I don't deny that there's going to be some ambiguity in this type of wording. But the issue at hand is one of how the only description of these comics is thrusting the responsibility onto the writers, not the BBC. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20200505204802-1432718/20200708215807-45692830]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 13:29, 27 April 2023
Multiple people have called into question their licensing. Just because you and I think the idea is ludicrous doesn't mean it's a strawman.
As for the rule 4 issue, it's not saying that the comics were owned or made by the creators, but it's the emphasis, it's how they were presented to people. Instead of "look at new Doctor Who stories made with this", it's "the writers used this tool, now you get to use it". Perhaps you don't get this emphasis from the statement, I don't deny that there's going to be some ambiguity in this type of wording. But the issue at hand is one of how the only description of these comics is thrusting the responsibility onto the writers, not the BBC.
