Board Thread:Inclusion debates/@comment-1432718-20200505204802/@comment-45692830-20200708204055

So let's refocus the debate here. What would it take for these comics to be invalid?

Licensing
It's certainly possible that none of these comics were licensed, as I don't know enough about copyright law to be certain. However, my assumption is that the assets in the comic maker are licensed for non commercial use for anyone who cares to use the comic maker. (EG: Creative Commons) (Arguably, since these assets are outright given to creators this is an example of an implied license, which isn't actually forbidden under wiki rules, and would also satisfy this requirement.)

Reuse of Assets
I think this argument is quite poor. Effectively this is a technical limitation of the medium, and as we all know, Classic Who had many technical limitations it struggled with.

Rule 4
And this is the one I think has the most interesting line of attack. The wording of the statement is "Doctor Who writers show us their stories created with Comic Maker". It is not "Look at the all new Doctor Who stories made with Comic Maker to inspire you to make your own". It's placing the stories firmly onto the writers, rather onto the BBC or Doctor Who. It's "their stories". Now, I'd also like to note, what matters for rule 4 is not just the writer's intent, but the copyright holder's intent. So even if the authors thought "oh, this is in the DWU", the wording of the statement we're given suggests that this is not how the BBC thinks of it.