Talk:On Writing Tie-in Fiction (short story)

Deletion
See, I understand it shouldn't really be covered on pages like "The Doctor's TARDIS", but would this qualify as a "notable fan work" for "NOTCOVERED" coverage on Panda or a subpage? (Perhaps with this page as a redirect to an overall "Life on Magrs" page once it's made?) Cookieboy 2005 ☎  19:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I would personally say that the appearances were minor enough to qualify under the minor licenced appearances clause. It's also very ambiguous whether this is Paul, Panda and Socks in the actual Tardis or Paul, Panda and Socks in an imagined in-universe fictional version of the Doctor's Tardis or whatever, because the actual text is all about Magrs' writing for Who. My interpretation of the story was that Paul, Panda and Socks weren't actually in the Tardis, but it's a representation of the Doctor's fictional Tardis in-universe in Magrs (in-universe)'s mind, if you see what I mean. It's very complex, and may require an inclusion/exclusion debate. Aquanafrahudy   📢   19:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with your interpretation: looking at another panel, "Paul Magrs thought of monsters from a beloved franchise as he reflected on the nature of tie-in media" seems likelier than "Paul Magrs reflected on the nature of tie-in media while he and Panda were menaced by a Cyberman and a Zygon". But given that Magrs describes it as an "essay", I have a hard time reading this as a short story at all. Lest we forget, Bernard Socks is his real cat, and Panda his real teddy! – n8 (☎) 20:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * But Panda isn't stood as a teddy bear would be, and if you look at the pictures of Socks he appears to be personified. Aquanafrahudy   📢   20:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Come to think of it, perhaps (feature) would be a more accurate dab term? Aquanafrahudy   📢   20:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The TARDIS console is like 50% of the image which you picked as best representing the story. Meta gimmick or not, this is by no sane definition a minor appearance. The iconography is a major, integral part of the work of art (whatever genre we deem it to occupy). You could not sell this in print without the Beeb's permission, I mean, you just couldn't. You can't make a picture-book full of pictures of Daleks and get away with it by saying "oh but it's just a young fan daydreaming about meeting some Daleks, the Daleks aren't diegetically real, so I don't have to pay Terry Nation"! I just do not think this passes Rule 2.


 * (It would of course qualify for citation at Panda/Non-valid sources, so if/when this resolves it should be merged into Life on Magrs with the redirect retained, not deleted. Though as regards Bernard Socks I don't think he is relevant; as I said on your talk page I really, really do not think that "the real cat Bernard Socks drawn in a cartoony style" qualifies as a DWU concept. Panda's a character with a whole fictional, copyrightable personality that doesn't reduce to the physical toy as it exists in the real world. Bernard is… a cat…)Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 20:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * A particular fictional version of Bernard would be enough, probably, but unlike Fester Cat he doesn't really have that. Now, surely you would be able to sell a picture book full of people dressed up as Daleks? And note that this is more an essay than a story, the dab term was probably misleading, so surely you would be allowed to sell an essay with illustrations of Daleks there? (Although here, that would make the illustrations the fictional part, but the illustrations in context and the illustrations out of context are two completely different things). Might precedent here be The Diary of a Doctor Who Addict (novel)? (haven't read it but I believe it fairly extensively uses oou DWU concepts) Aquanafrahudy   📢   20:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * “surely you would be able to sell a picture book full of people dressed up as Daleks”


 * No! No you couldn't! Famously (and this has posed a big question for the Wiki) the movie Ted 2 had to get the Nation Estate's license just to have someone costumed as a Dalek in a scene set at a convention. Talking about Doctor Who as a TV show in prose is a little different, especially because it all boils down to mention, but you can't prominently use copyrighted imagery in fiction even if it's technically "not real". It's about marketing recognisability, not the nitty-gritty in-universe details.


 * (If it's an easier example — you can't sell a comic-book about a man dressing like Batman and pretending to be Batman, even if he isn't Bruce Wayne. "A guy dressed like Batman" is, legally, some variant of the copyrighted character Batman! If the character is usually normal and dresses up like Batman in two panels of a 64-page graphic novel, that might be considered a gray area and slip through the cracks, but you certainly couldn't do a whole thing that's about a guy dressing up as Batman without DC's permission; and ditto, Magrs would need the Beeb's permission for a commercially-licensed release of an illustrated… thingie… about him wading through DWU imagery even if it's symbolic.) Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 20:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Even for an essay thing? Cause you can sell reference books and such with the Tardis on the cover and nobody bothers you. Aquanafrahudy   📢   21:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Properly documentary/scholarly work is yet another kettle of fish, yes (though even then, including it on the cover is a gray area… and the TARDIS is even more complicated/controversial because it's trademarked, not just copyrighted). Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 21:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)