Board Thread:Inclusion debates/@comment-1506468-20190827123101/@comment-6032121-20190907150328

I would agree with User:AthenodoraKitten that while 'loving' examples of the genre, the two Li'l Doctor Who comics would seem to fall within the realm of parody, and therefore fair use. (Anyone questioning that those are parodies should consider that the plot of the first story, whose title is Deep Breath concerns Clara challenging Missy to a breathing contest for the right to hang out with the Doctor. This is also all taking place at a version of the Time Academy which looks like a preschool, and where the Paternoster Gang and Clara are students alongside the Twelfth Doctor and Missy. The second story has Danny Pink and Journey Blue as the new kids at said school. …I mean come on.) Whether they're violations of copyright is therefore fairly debatable.

But even if they were, what bearing has this on the crossover short stories? Are you suggesting that because of that supposed breach of copyright, we should distrust Wylder's statements about having the proper authorizations for the crossover elements in the short stories? That seems really weird to me. Consider the debate on Legacies: there was a sentiment, though the debate seems to have moved away from it… I think?… that in this specific instance Candy Jar had overreached their legal rights, the specific story was not properly licensed, and therefore it shouldn't be valid.

But that didn't translate to distrust of other Candy Jar releases, because in those cases they had explicitly stated they had obtained all the relevant licenses, and that statement was not challenged. So let me ask you: how does this situation differ from Li'l Doctor Who vs. Rachel Survived? It's broadly the same situation where in one case, it's not clear that relevant copyright permissions were acquired, and the publisher certainly doesn't claim they were; and in the other, the publisher explicitly says they have the licenses.

So the question is: what reason do you have for arguing for the short stories' invalidity based on Li'l Doctor Who, that wouldn't also lead to us no longer covering the Lethbridge-Stewart series in the event that the Legacies debate ended with its deletion from the Wiki?

Bwburke94 wrote:

Amorkuz didn't actually mention Dawns within the post in question; it was entirely about Lil' Doctor Who, with Dawns only mentioned by implication.

But that implication's really the main thing, isn't it? This isn't a Li'l Doctor Who inclusion debate. Li'l Doctor Who is of interest to us here inasmuch as it does or does not change the way we look at Arcbeatle Press's legitimacy as a publisher of licensed DWU fiction.