Forum:Use of Loose Cannon Reconstructions images

Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → Use of Loose Cannon Reconstructions images

This thread has been archived.

Please create a new thread on the new forums if you want to talk about this topic some more.
Please DO NOT add to this discussion.

Should Loose Cannon Reconstructions' images be used on article pages, a user has been adding several to various Hartnell era stories, all of them are currently uncategorised on the Special:UncategorizedImages (all the black and white ones are, I think Loose Cannon's).

While it might be good to have the pictures to illustrate some elements of the article, they're photo manipulations (or CGI recreations) of scenes. They're also (unlike The Invasion for example) not released by the BBC, so they're not official. I just think by allowing them we might be openning the door for any fan recreations of scenes to be uploaded as though they're real. --Tangerineduel 12:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I felt this needed to be resurrected because it didn't attract any answers from the community. It's kind of a "no-brainer" question, I think, but it'd still be good to get some kind of community confirmation. I don't think we can't allow LC reconstruction images because:

• they sometimes put in material from other TV and film of the era (The Highlanders, for instance, has imagery from other films about Scottish conflicts)
• what genuine telesnaps that are used are always of inferior quality to what can be found directly on the official BBC website.

Anyone else have an opinion about using LC imagery?
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">17:39: Fri 11 Nov 2011 

I believe the matter to be quite clear: Loose Cannon recons are unlicenced, and therefore are not a valid source per Tardis:Canon policy. — Rob T Firefly - Δ∇ - 10:08, November 16, 2011 (UTC)

My opinion's not changed in the 2 and a bit years since I wrote the original post.

Delete them. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:58, November 20, 2011 (UTC)