Forum:Is it still legal to..

Forums → Archive index → Reference desk archives → Is it still legal to..

This thread has been archived.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.

Licence secondary characters directly from the creators and make unofficial spin offs, or has the new series updated contracts and stopped that?

Please remember to sign all posts with ~~~~. Tardis1963 10:44, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that the only things that can be licensed separately are those co-owned by someone else (ie K-9, Daleks, etc). -- sulfur 11:36, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Well, K9 and the Daleks are specifically off the table, because the BBC owns the visual "look" of the characters (or, in K9's case, the look of the Mark I-IV, while Metal Mutt own the look of the Mark 2). So practically speaking, they could not likely be used by a third party without destroying the connection to the iconic design. And what would be the point of that? You could probably get away with doing a "Young Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart Adventures" series or a "Nyssa Gets Married Sitcom" —the BBC doesn't really own the likeness rights to the actors involved. But as for most creatures, the BBC usually has a stranglehold over the visual design, which practically makes them useless outside of a BBC production. The only time an author might have rights to the likeness is if they took the time to specifically note in the script precisely what they looked like, and if the BBC actually followed those notes. But it would take a court case to decide whether the BBC had ownership rights that could prevent the monster's use, in the form they appeared on TV, outside of a BBC production. And I'm certain in the current environment, the BBC would sue anyone in an instant for trying to use something the Beeb had any ownership of. In short, I think they'd go after anyone trying to pull a Bill Baggs these days. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 12:35, April 8, 2010 (UTC)