Tech, emailconfirmed, Administrators
38,225
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 18:55, 26 July 2023
, 26 July 2023no edit summary
Tag: 2017 source edit |
No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 100: | Line 100: | ||
:However, "''relevant'' copyright holders" is an important word. | :However, "''relevant'' copyright holders" is an important word. | ||
The other reading seems deeply plausible to me if we're doing textualist games, which I really wish to avoid. What precisely was your intent here? [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC) | The other reading seems deeply plausible to me if we're doing textualist games, which I really wish to avoid. What precisely was your intent here? [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC) | ||
:: I meant what I wrote. I did intend to clarify Rule 2 as applying exclusively to "<u>DWU</u> <u>concepts</u>", with both words being meaningful. The reason "DWU" is italicised and "concept" isn't is not that the "concept" part is optional, it's that I thought it went without saying. The fact is that I cannot think of another case ''than'' ''DiT'', ever, where likeness rights (or other non-DWU-license-related legal issues) were brought up in an inclusion debate. | |||
:: My thinking at the time was to codify the ''de facto'' policy I had observed across the Wiki by then, of us not caring about an unauthorised John Steed or the like. I later made the same point at [[Talk:Tara King]], pointing at the cameos in ''[[Party Animals (comic story)|Party Animals]]'', which were already a prominent example on my mind in 2020. But if you had asked me then where likeness rights fit in, I would certainly have said the same thing I say now. McCoy's face is not in and of itself a DWU concept any more than John Steed is; there is a widespread precedent that we don't care about the copyright to John Steed; therefore it is only logical that we not care about McCoy's face. | |||
:: Indeed, other aspects of the edit you linked bear this out. In the same "Rule 2" section, I added an explainer-box summarising a key aspect of the rule as "''A story has to exploit a lawful, commercial license to at least one DWU concept to qualify for coverage on this Wiki — invalid or otherwise''". I think this, again, demonstrates where I was coming from in that part of the redraft: that the concept of "commercial DWU license" in Rule 2 is synonymous with the thing that a spin-off needs to be shown to possess, if it is to pass muster in an inclusion debate. If ''having it'' would not be grounds for coverage, then ''lacking it'' is not grounds for exclusion. It seems only logical. And that reasoning applies just as well to Sylvester McCoy's likeness as to Special Agent John Steed. | |||
:: So, did I specifically realise I was overwriting that one old Czech closure (slash ruling out your default reading thereof)? No. But I did view myself as codifying an understanding of Rule 2 to which that ruling would have been contradictory; and having been pointed to your interpretation of that thread in 2020 would not have changed my wording, except perhaps in the direction of ''more explicitly'' ruling it out so as to avoid a conversation like this one. I would have viewed it then, as I view it now, as a one-off aberration that is clearly working from a different logic than how Rule 2 is otherwise applied across the Wiki — and part of the work of synthetising a policy page from a mass of closing posts and "current practice" is knowing when that means driving a stake through the heart of an old and narrow ruling that was clearly going against the tide of other rulings and precedents. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 18:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
