User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-5.2.105.85-20170222095120/@comment-4028641-20170224101557

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-5.2.105.85-20170222095120/@comment-4028641-20170224101557 Very strong defense, good show indeed.

But I think the "licensing" issue is what really has marked it down in recent years.

Because it was made to be aired once, Czech has argued that it isn't really owned by the BBC. Thus, the site has deemed that not only can we not cover it, but we can also not upload images from it; as we have no one that we can cite in the copyright section of the image uploads.

But the more I research into DiT, the less seriously I take these claims. For one, Doctor Who Magazine has used screen grabs from this story several times in the past. I think if there was any legitimate worries about not being able to cite anyone for having created the story, it would have effected an official BBC publication before it hit some crummy fan site. It's pretty clear that the BBC made it, the BBC aired it, and even if they can't put it on TV again the BBC owns it.

It's also been argued that because DiT had no DVD release, every person who uploads images from it must be uploading images from a bootlegged copy. Which... Right. What's your point?

Back when there was a huge gap in between the airing of a new series story and the homevideo release, we would have no problem with allowing off-air screen grabs. Those are just as much "bootlegs" as a copy of DiT. What, is your request that anyone uploading images from the story have their own VHS copy that they personally recorded off-air themselves?

I think I've made it clear in the past that I'm all-for including this story as valid. The authorial intent is there, I think most of the other excuses people make for it are silly, and most of all I think it's only invalid because people are used to it being so.

The fact is that our wiki didn't used to have a valid/invalid system. We had a canon/non-canon system. But when we changed names and banned the word "canon," we didn't bother to take a second look at stories that were "non-canon," but might still be valid.