Trusted
34,029
edits
no edit summary
No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
OttselSpy25 (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
::: Ah. Yeah, shouldn't happen. (Hm. At least regarding Ace. Reeltime [[Downtime (home video)|did use Victoria under license once]]: could this be a NOTCOVERED candidate, usable at [[Victoria Waterfield/Appearances]]? We should investigate. But ''prima facie'' I agree it should be treated as fanfic until proven otherwise.) [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 18:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC) | ::: Ah. Yeah, shouldn't happen. (Hm. At least regarding Ace. Reeltime [[Downtime (home video)|did use Victoria under license once]]: could this be a NOTCOVERED candidate, usable at [[Victoria Waterfield/Appearances]]? We should investigate. But ''prima facie'' I agree it should be treated as fanfic until proven otherwise.) [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 18:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC) | ||
:::: That's a very good question. It really depends on if the BBC's permission for ''Devious'' was a one-time thing or if it was more akin to the famous [[BBV]] "piece of paper", which gave permission for BBV to use [[Liz Shaw]] without a deadline. | |||
:::: Basically, it would be worth asking someone involved if they used Victoria under the belief that they had permission to. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 18:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC) | |||