User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Help!/@comment-6032121-20181031153320/@comment-1432718-20181102025103

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Help!/@comment-6032121-20181031153320/@comment-1432718-20181102025103 OK, I found three different places that explain where we're coming from with regards to charity works, and there is a bit of repetition, but I'll list them here for anyone who wants to see the details.


 * Tardis:Valid sources - the first thing listed is charity publications, with the following comment: "Any fiction, by any author, where the copyright holder hasn't given permission isn't allowed. And no, it doesn't matter that the story was written by someone who has otherwise written licensed fiction. Or that the publisher did a nice thing and gave his or her profits to charity. Or that the work was almost published by the BBC."
 * Forum:Charity anthology short stories - this is the original discussion where the policy was formed, and it's instructive to note that User:CzechOut explicitly calls charity stories "no better than fan fiction", which of course is not allowed on the wiki per Tardis:What the Tardis Data Core is not.
 * Thread:199045 - this thread dealt with some of the Iris stories that were for charity, in which User:Amorkuz' closing statements included this point: "A story that isn't commercially licensed by all of the relevant copyright holders doesn't count."

Now that doesn't really answer the OP's question as to why we care about the licensing. We may not be copyright lawyers, but we do care about not violating copyright. I've no idea whether the BBC could shut down our wiki if we violate copyright, but it's always been policy on this wiki to respect copyright, which is why we have such rules as Tardis:Video policy, Tardis:Plagiarism and Tardis:Citation.

As for the OP's question in the third paragraph, I believe in those cases there wasn't the full copyright given, similar to the Iris cases. I'd like to know if there are examples on this wiki of charity publications that had full licensing given.