User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-5442547-20130415215520/@comment-188432-20130416002404

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-5442547-20130415215520/@comment-188432-20130416002404 First of all, I think Big Finish would say, thank you for actually buying the more expensive version :)

Second, I'm not really sure that a separate license would make this situation too much clearer. I'm not saying no to the idea of adding another license, for it would be easy, but I'm a little worried that would be confusing for people. I think some people would think that the cover is the cover to the booklet and therefore, some of the cover images would end up with the cover license and some would end up with the booklet license. My initial thought is that just adding the word booklet to the current license probably makes the most sense, but if anyone has a strong argument for splitting the licenses, I'd like to hear it.

But I do think that, because it's possible to legally obtain these stories without the booklet, that it's incumbent on the uploader of the interior booklet images to say where it comes from in the notes field of Special:Upload. The current wording on just about all of our licenses says this, and it should especially be done when the source is not immediately obvious, as is certainly the case with these liner notes.