Forum:Charity Stories that are TECHNICALLY licensed...: Difference between revisions

Forum:Charity Stories that are TECHNICALLY licensed... (view source)

Revision as of 20:42, 25 July 2023

2,417 bytes added , 25 July 2023

no edit summary

Scrooge MacDuck

Tech, emailconfirmed, Administrators

38,018

edits

@@ Line 69: / Line 69: @@
 :::Look, I'll be honest, I don't even know what "commercial license" means in this context, it seems to have been placed there by Czech to stop a fan production that had an agreement not to make money but were actually licensed. Is this a real term of art? I can't find it as a general term, I can find "commercial X license" of various types. But not the specific term "commercial license". Seems kinda important for how we have these discussions, no? [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
-::::I still contend that it is of absolute importance that our rules say it might be a ''commercial license'', not that it must be a ''commercial license''. Indeed, we cover a lot of charity stories and I'd wager a good number of said material was only approved for one release, especially when crossovers were involved. We'll probably never see a new batch of ''[[Assimilation² (comic story)|Assimilation²]]'', so why does it matter? I'd say the logic here is quite well thought-out, really. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 19:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
+::::I still contend that it is of absolute importance that our rules say it might be a ''commercial license'', not that it must be a ''commercial release''. Indeed, we cover a lot of charity stories and I'd wager a good number of said material was only approved for one release, especially when crossovers were involved. We'll probably never see a new batch of ''[[Assimilation² (comic story)|Assimilation²]]'', so why does it matter? I'd say the logic here is quite well thought-out, really. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 19:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 But this just doesn't answer my criticism, that the term itself isn't obviously clearly defined, and was put there in a reaction to a fear that we'd have to cover a fan work. (Also, given that many of these charity stories we cover ''have been rereleased in some form or fashion'', I'm not sure I buy that. Not all, but, for instance, ''[[Time Crash (TV story)|Time Crash]]'', just off the top of my head. So especially the more modern stuff seems to be under a different agreement than what we're describing in my - hypothetical.) [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
+:: By my understanding, "commercial license" is not a specific term of art but is just being used as a "not-x" to the very-much-real notion of a "''non-commercial'' license" (of which the "creative license" granted to the ''[[Doctor Who Online Adventures (fan work)|Doctor Who Online Adventures]]'' is an example), i.e. a license to use intellectual property that is limited to strictly non-profit-driven aims.
+:: But Rule 2, it is important to remember, normally applies to the preexisting DWU elements used in the source under consideration; not to the subsequent licensing of ''the contents of the source itself''. That is, provided the blanket ban on charity releases were lfited, the question would not be whether the contents of ''Dimensions in Time'' itself are under a commercial or non-commercial license; but rather, whether its makers were in possession of a commercial license to the DWU elements included. Given that it was produced and broadcast by the BBC, who own the commercial license to [[the Doctor]] and the various companions used, this standard would be fulfilled, no matter the terms under which ''the footage itself'' was created.
+:: Mark that I do not say all this against the idea of a specific thread on ''DiT'' down the line. No matter what the present thread decides about charity releases with commercial licenses to DWU concepts, there will remain a factual question of what ''DiT''<nowiki>'s</nowiki> situation is, exactly, in that respect. For one thing, it remains an open question whether all the non-BBC-owner monsters were technically covered by commercial licenses actively held by the BBC at the time. We could talk of a ''Legacies''-precedent situation, maybe? They're pretty much just cameos… But if not, I suppose we have a problem: it'd be our first cold, hard case of a story that's commercially licensed to use the Doctor, TARDIS & Co., but ''not'' e.g. the Sontarans. There has been much speculation about Lethbridge-Stewarts and the Great Intelligence in NuWho, but nothing solid, so we don't actually have set policy on this… though I think it's fair to say we would ''not'' suddenly declare ''The Snowmen'' uncoverable fanfic even if we did get confirmation that the Intelligence's use was unauthorised. But it does all need to be formally discussed. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 20:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)