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 19:40, 26 July 2023
, 26 July 2023→Discussion
No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
::::I mean, given it was you who [https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Tardis:Valid_sources?type=revision&diff=3029770&oldid=3029762 changed the policy] in 2020 surely this raises the question, did you intend for this to erase a previous implication of the policy that you were aware of or were you trying to elaborate on the reasoning behind the policy and incidentally retooled it in a way that inadvertently shifted it away from the original intent slightly? What was ''your'' intent here? When you were writing this did you actively intend for "''DWU'' concepts" to refer to DWU '''''concepts''''' ''specifically as a line of text in the policy in a way that disqualifies other forms of IP'', or was it meant as a clarification that we don't care about copyright infringement related to non DW related issues? The paragraph does literally begin: | ::::I mean, given it was you who [https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Tardis:Valid_sources?type=revision&diff=3029770&oldid=3029762 changed the policy] in 2020 surely this raises the question, did you intend for this to erase a previous implication of the policy that you were aware of or were you trying to elaborate on the reasoning behind the policy and incidentally retooled it in a way that inadvertently shifted it away from the original intent slightly? What was ''your'' intent here? When you were writing this did you actively intend for "''DWU'' concepts" to refer to DWU '''''concepts''''' ''specifically as a line of text in the policy in a way that disqualifies other forms of IP'', or was it meant as a clarification that we don't care about copyright infringement related to non DW related issues? The paragraph does literally begin: | ||
: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. | :: 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. | ||
| Line 108: | Line 108: | ||
:: 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) | :: 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) | ||
:::To be clear here, I don't think that Czech is as much concerned with likeness rights as he is the reproduction rights. The issue seems to be from my reading that literally nobody owns the full work in his view. But IANAL, so, you know, defer to your local IP lawyer here. (He also explicitly rejects that it's about ''the ability to be reproduced'', a la the FP audios, but the legal status of people signing away rights ''for the production''. Entire situation is a mess.) | |||
:::Look, here's the reality of the situation. [[T:WRITE POLICY]] applies. I think this should have waited for a forum thread, it's a big change, but if you're insisting that you really did want to enshrine the idea that only IP rights to IU concepts matter, well, alright. I think it was poorly done, but fair enough. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
