User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-31010985-20191101112654/@comment-24894325-20200111231817: Difference between revisions

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
m
Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7\2/\4-\3/\6-\5)
(Bot: Automated import of articles)
 
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7/-/-))
 
Line 1: Line 1:
'''User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-31010985-20191101112654/@comment-24894325-20200111231817'''
A quick response to Scrooge MacDuck's hypothetical in the immediately preceding post:
A quick response to Scrooge MacDuck's hypothetical in the immediately preceding post:
{{quote|why on Earth would [Arcbeatle Press] bother to acquire commercial licenses for some rightsholders but not other?|Scrooge MacDuck}}
{{quote|why on Earth would [Arcbeatle Press] bother to acquire commercial licenses for some rightsholders but not other?|Scrooge MacDuck}}
I do not know why but that is exactly what they did with images on the covers of ''An Eloquence of Time and Space''. They obtained a permission for K-9 for the back cover but did not obtain a permission (according to the book itself) for the TARDIS on the front cover. Thus, the strategy of obtaining licensing from some rights holders but not others is not a hypothetical anymore. Arcbeatle Press has employed this strategy in the past. I am sure the OP would soon explain how exactly it squares with the copyright law, after which we would be able to project his explanation to the stories at hand.
I do not know why but that is exactly what they did with images on the covers of ''An Eloquence of Time and Space''. They obtained a permission for K-9 for the back cover but did not obtain a permission (according to the book itself) for the TARDIS on the front cover. Thus, the strategy of obtaining licensing from some rights holders but not others is not a hypothetical anymore. Arcbeatle Press has employed this strategy in the past. I am sure the OP would soon explain how exactly it squares with the copyright law, after which we would be able to project his explanation to the stories at hand.
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude>
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20191101112654-31010985/20200111231817-24894325]]</noinclude>
Tech, Bots, Bureaucrats, emailconfirmed, Administrators
229,566

edits

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.