User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-26845762-20170222025243/@comment-5918438-20170307211322

The illustrations for Legacy can easily be compared to TV concept art. They originally served a function, in terms of the production of that video game, and now they're published in DWM as almost a sort of proof of concept: this is what Cinder might look like, based on what they've done in Legacy. I mean, let's be honest, that one started out as Paul Hanley's fan art on DeviantArt, which admittedly he did collaborate with George Mann on. "This may not be a BBC-approved design, but it IS author-approved, which is the important part for me. [in comments:] I'm currently working on a modified "2.0" version for the Doctor Who: Legacy game: fav.me/d7x3a37".

Now I don't want to disappoint Thunderush, but is even the final, "BBC-approved official art" actually an in-universe illustration?

Well, I'm open. If you want slightly separate rules for image validity, by all means suggest away. (At least we can be generally assured that illustrations are not pictures of the actors, by the way.)

Remember that those rules would have to make sense, given that, for example, screenshots from TV trailers would be strictly forbidden, and the cover to Doctor Who - Series 3 (soundtrack) is not an in-universe picture of the Doctor and Martha. What differentiates some of the images you'd like us to be able to use, and other promotional imagery? Can the same sort of logic apply to images of Bernice Summerfield, who has many in-universe depictions (and never looks the same)?