Tech, emailconfirmed, Administrators
38,216
edits
More actions
→Fan Gallery and their licensing
PoolsideJazz (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 820: | Line 820: | ||
The brief for the fan fiction was that it should be as close to the episode of the tweet along so, regardless if certain creatives tried to manipulate their stories in order for them to be covered by this site, they were still intended for / tied to a brand that they had no real license for. [[User:PoolsideJazz|PoolsideJazz]] [[User talk:PoolsideJazz|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 12:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC) | The brief for the fan fiction was that it should be as close to the episode of the tweet along so, regardless if certain creatives tried to manipulate their stories in order for them to be covered by this site, they were still intended for / tied to a brand that they had no real license for. [[User:PoolsideJazz|PoolsideJazz]] [[User talk:PoolsideJazz|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 12:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC) | ||
:Poolside, that accusation borders on a [[Tardis:No personal attacks|personal attack]] on my person and those of any of the other authors under concern. I want to make it clear that there was no nefarious plan to "trick" the Wiki into covering my story — how ''could'' there have been, when, as far as anybody knew at the time I wrote it, the ''Fan Gallery'' stories were BBC-licensed, and, therefore, covered on the Wiki regardless? My choice to pastiche the ''FP'' "Evil Renegade"-style allusion was just that: a stylistic choice. It was completely unintentional on my part that leave my story in a different status on the Wiki from the majority. | |||
:It is, regardless, clearly possible for a story to be strongly ''tied'' to another on an artistic level, while having no particular legal or narrative connection to it. Mind you, we've never disqualified stories for being "intended for/tied to a brand that they had no real license for", either, or else all the BBV-type releases whose advertising freely said they were "from the worlds of ''Doctor Who''" would be in a bit of a pickle. The Wiki cares about the ''actual contents'' of the works. | |||
:However, as I said, I am empowered to rerelease ''A Better World'' in other contexts, and I probably will at some point; in the meantime the ''Lockdown!'' Wiki exists to house information about it and any other "edge-cases". So I don't see that there would be anything too terrible about a complete deletion of ''Fan Gallery'' stories for ''now''. If anybody cares to, they can create an inclusion debate for ''A Better World'' and any other such edge-case ''from the ground up'', possibly on the occasion of such stories being rereleased in another publication than the ''Lockdown!'' website. | |||
:(Once again: the above is a suggestion, not a ruling. You're going to need another admin to vouch off on these deletions, or on any retentions; I am ''not habilitated'' to make this ruling.) [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 12:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC) | |||