User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-31010985-20191101112654/@comment-6032121-20200111230927

Oh for heaven's sake. You appear to be overlooking the second part of the fan's question: "Do you think it's okay for people to include FP in things like fanfic even if they're very new to FP and don't know very much yet?"

- Anonymous

The fan isn't asking for legal permission to use a character in anything. They're starting with the premise that the people with the licenses won't mind that people write DW fanfic, and from that point on, the question is whether it's offensive to authors to use FP ideas without being that familiar to them.

Whether people can use FP characters in fanfics in general isn't the meat of the question; it is seemingly taken for granted by both sides that fans can and will put FP characters in fanfic. No question of "permission" for fanfic is even involved.

And this is where the alleged contradiction naturally resolves itself. That "free-for-fall" which Nate Bumber said he didn't want, it would be one where commercial licenses were granted to everyone and their mother; this is distinct from acknowledging that fanfic exists and being generally supportive of it.

Anyway, although Bumber cannot participate in this specific thread by FANDOM request, it would be trivial to ask him to clarify this point again in another Tumblr post (for your convenience and that of anyone to whom the wording of the original Tumblr post is unclear and by the way it's called a Tumblr blog, not a "tumbler feed" ).

As for the concerns below,…

Amorkuz wrote: A lot has been made from the fact that NateBumber confirmed licensing his character(s). Although, in principle, validity rules require commercial licenses from all copyright holders, the argument above, as I understand it: if NateBumber (and Niki Haringsma) licensed it, then all the rest must have also given a commercial license. I never understood this extension from two to all.

…this "extension from two to all" which you say is beyond your understanding. Well, let me elaborate what I think everyone who made or restated this argument has been thinking: if Arcbeatle Press were copyright-fraudsters, why on Earth would they bother to acquire commercial licenses for some rightsholders but not other? If they were going to break the law anyway, why would they bother to selectively get a couple of copyrights cleared but not others?

Or to put it another way, if we have compelling evidence that Arcbeatle Press isn't lying when they say that "DWU Thing X" is licensed, then for what reason should we doubt their words when they say "DWU Thing Y" is licensed too?

…

Oh, and once again, I'd like to remind you that licensing issues were already explored in the previous thread about these stories, and that the thread was closed by User:Shambala108 on Rule 4 concerns, leading to the stories being covered-as-invalid on the Wiki in the interim between that closure and the opening of the present debate. Aside from that Nate Bumber quote which I insist you're quite missing the point of, what new evidence do you have to reopen an area of discussion which was already talked over in the original debate, only for the closing admin not to deem it one of the concerns that would invalidate the story?