Trusted
8,503
edits
Forum:Charity Stories that are TECHNICALLY licensed...: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Forum:Charity Stories that are TECHNICALLY licensed... (view source)
Revision as of 01:41, 26 July 2023
, 26 July 2023→Discussion
No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
: I think there's two ways you can read that closing post. One, Czech just got it wrong — got muddled between two different meanings of something "being commercially licensed", and delivered a closing post which the policy he claimed to be citing simply did not support, and never has. Two, his thinking was more "the fact that the actor-likenesses weren't commercially licensed is not a Rule 2 breach ''in and of itself'', but if ''that'' wasn't licensed, we have no reason to think ''any'' of it, including the DWU concepts, was". I think #2 is more sensible in terms of broader precedent. (Though still arguably wrong on a different level i.e. the "it is ontologically impossible for the BBC to create something which is not commercially licensed to use things that it owns, for the same reason it is impossible for Magrs to write a story which is not commercially licensed to use Iris Wildthyme" thing on which this entire thread is founded.) [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 01:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC) | : I think there's two ways you can read that closing post. One, Czech just got it wrong — got muddled between two different meanings of something "being commercially licensed", and delivered a closing post which the policy he claimed to be citing simply did not support, and never has. Two, his thinking was more "the fact that the actor-likenesses weren't commercially licensed is not a Rule 2 breach ''in and of itself'', but if ''that'' wasn't licensed, we have no reason to think ''any'' of it, including the DWU concepts, was". I think #2 is more sensible in terms of broader precedent. (Though still arguably wrong on a different level i.e. the "it is ontologically impossible for the BBC to create something which is not commercially licensed to use things that it owns, for the same reason it is impossible for Magrs to write a story which is not commercially licensed to use Iris Wildthyme" thing on which this entire thread is founded.) [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 01:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC) | ||
::I mean, he said it ''twice'', both there and at [[Thread:125064]] at [[User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon I]]. I cited the other thread because I felt it summarized his point better than this one, which was a bit more all over the place. But this one is pretty close to when [[T:VS]] was written and Czech explicitly states that he's asserting his authorial intent on the meaning of [[T:VS]] on other parts of it. I'm enough of an [https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/beyond-aesthetics/art-intention-and-conversation/CBCAFAC60D4EB400B8C78609868A40B3 actual intentionalist] that this is pretty persuasive to me. Does this mean we have to abide by this going forward? Of course not. But we're definitely changing things in R2 imo, unlike what the OP contends. I think the intent of [[T:VS]] is against us here. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 01:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
