User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-31010985-20191101112654/@comment-6032121-20200111232425

An Eloquence of Time and Space is a reference book; more specifically, an episode guide. As such, like any academic work, it has some license to use images and imagery from what it is discussing, under fair use.

Also, not to be cheeky, but technically speaking, in terms of copyright, in what way precisely is the image of the TARDIS copyrighted? It is, after all, an image of a police box. That may well be why specific authorisation for the very unique image of K9 was sought, but not for that of the 1960's British police box. I don't know! (EDIT: I was right to be unsure; apparently for some arcane reason the BBC does control the trademark on the police box image at present? But bear in mind my next sentence.) Though again, I don't think that we can reliably "project [this] explanation to the stories at hand", because copyright for academic work and copyright for new fiction are obviously two very different things.

Consequently, I posit that the situation isabout equivalent to, say, About Time 9. It too is a reference book. It too features an image on the cover of something which, in context, is clearly a Doctor Who element (the vespiform from The Unicorn and the Wasp), but is visually identical to something from the real world, anyway — and thus of debatable visual copyright.

I don't think as well-established a publisher of licensed DWU fiction as Mad Norwegian Press would be indicted by this picture of a giant-wasp-implied-to-be-a-vespiform on the cover of a reference book. So why should the picture of a hovering-police-box-implied-to-be-the-TARDIS on a reference book indict Arcbeatle Press?

…Also, what is this focus on the OP being the one to give explanations? The OP was the one to raise concerns about a question, yes, but this isn't his fight or anyone else's in particular. It's a bunch of editors trying to get at the truth, not a personal trial. If anyone has evidence either way regarding Arcbeatle licensing, surely they should bring it up, rather than the burden lying solely with the OP.

Also also, I am, again, no legal expert but how does accusing a company (or indeed an individual) of using a copyrighted image without permission on the cover of an unquestionably commercial release (the TARDIS) not constitute libel? I'm not saying that you're intentionally trying to do something slanderous/unlawful here, to be clear. Not at all. But my advice is t be careful what you say about real life entities and individuals. Talk on the Internet can have consequences, not just for an individual editor but for FANDOM at large, and I'd rather Tardis and everyone within it remained very careful on this point and others like it. It is my understanding that T:NPA isn't just for other users on the Wiki, but also for people associated with behind-the-scenes Who.