User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1432718-20200505204802/@comment-6032121-20200505235918

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1432718-20200505204802/@comment-6032121-20200505235918 That there isn't a clear invalidity rationale? Like, what is the precedent for what you are proposing? If there's no question of Rule 4, and it's Rules 2 and 3 that are in question, then either we err on the side of "probably wasn't properly licensed" and do not cover them at all, or err on the side of "it was on the BBC website, good 'nuff", and we cover them as valid. But what possible rationale per T:VS would there be for a weird compromise of "we're going to cover this thing but because the copyright is slightly unclear it's invalid"? What are you even talking about?

The only precedent I can think of is noted charity work Dimensions in Time, which is invalid not because of Rule 4 reason, but because it's a charity work of questionable licensing — hence infringing Rule 2 — but which is just too important a part of Doctor Who’s history to just ignore the way we do most charity works. But that was, I'm pretty sure, a very specific grandfathered-in decision, not something to base precedent around.