File talk:Kaled01a.jpg

Actually, I believe Terry Nation holds some form of copyright on Daleks.  Phantom Hoover  09:34, 17 January 2009 (EST)
 * But unlicensed fan-art used non-commercially is permissable. See .   09:58, 17 January 2009 (EST)
 * .....according to the people who run a website full of unlicensed fan-art? Not the best source, to me...TheoryOfPractice 10:01, 17 January 2009 (EST)What the hell is a "Dalek" anyway? Who is this Dr. Who guy?
 * Yes, I was pointing out that the BBC don't have the full copyright on Daleks. TOP, since you're mentioning Doctor Who, I assume you know something about Daleks.  Phantom Hoover  10:08, 17 January 2009 (EST)

TOP, since you're mentioning Doctor Who, I assume you know something about Daleks--> Only from looking at the link that the Weasel supplied, which mentioned the good Doctor in question. Otherwise, nope...TheoryOfPractice 10:22, 17 January 2009 (EST)
 * (EC) And the fun police strikes again. Why does RW need to be so fucking serious about this stuff all of a sudden? If a website "full of unlicensed fan-art" gets away with it, why shouldn't one that only contains an odd piece or two? If you want to research the copyright situation further, here is Wikipedia's article on the subject. 10:15, 17 January 2009 (EST)
 * he wasn't; he was just saying that on the image page it says: "dalek:(c) BBC" & he was saying it's also Terry Nation. Not querying our use of it. [[Image:Toast s.png|25px]] (Crumpets) and butter'' 10:18, 17 January 2009 (EST)
 * it was (I think) just a point of fact & a bit of a snark. [[Image:Toast s.png|25px]] (Crumpets) and butter'' 10:21, 17 January 2009 (EST)
 * OK, I misinterpreted Phantom Hoover's comment, but TheoryOfPractice was clearly suggesting that the fair use status is dubious, which I don't believe it is.  10:24, 17 January 2009 (EST)
 * TheoryOfPractice was suggesting no such thing, because TheoryOfPractice isn't a copyright lawyer and knows very little about the topic and imagines it's even more complicated given the fact these are probably British copyrights (it's a BBC thing, right?). TheoryOfPractice was merely suggesting that the website of the guy who may or may not be infringing copyright may not be the best source on information about the legalities of the practice. TheoryOfPractice could really care less about the whole thing after getting so pissed off in an edit war re: copyright images two days ago...TheoryOfPractice 10:31, 17 January 2009 (EST)