User talk:VivaVictoria

License tagging for Image:Media-Image-SCO-revenue-per-share-2002-2006.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Media-Image-SCO-revenue-per-share-2002-2006.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, I'm pretty new here and still learning. I attached copyright notices on all images. == Cleo == 05:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Court docs"[edit]

The question is, how can we trust that the site in question has not altered the court documents? This is not rhetorical - in the digital age it's trivially easy to change something around and barely notice it. The links in question are not to any accepted reliable source such as the court's official Web site, or FindLaw - they're to someone's personal site, which is unacceptable in a biography of a living person. We can't trust that they're unaltered copies and as such, can't link to them. FCYTravis 02:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, as much as wish it were, there is no public court web site which makes these docs available with free web access. Thanks for the findlaw suggestion. I'll be contacting findlaw.com since they don't happen to have these docs (I just searched). The way to get them is to get an account on PACER (which costs money). Several separate and independently run web sites went through these hoops to make the docs available on the net. 3 examples listed below. You're raising an extreme speculation here. The people who run thee sites have much more to lose by staining their reputations than what they hypothetically may gain by altering filings not to mention exposing themselves to serious legal trouble. Groklaw which you dismiss as a 'blog' is an extremely reliable source which won numerous journalistic awards for its integrity and depth of covering the subject. Yes, it provides commentary, but always while quoting the sources and publishing the original filings first. Please feel free to compare the docs on these three independent sites: == Cleo == 05:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tuxrocks.com

scofacts.org

groklaw on canopy vs yarro

File permission problem with File:Media-Image-SCO-revenue-per-share-2002-2006.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Media-Image-SCO-revenue-per-share-2002-2006.jpg, which you've sourced to users of the Yahoo! SCOX message board. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also the following images:

—Bkell (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bkell. Thank you for working on improving wikipedia, and sorry that these files are not in png format. Regarding copyrights: these charts are simply conveying facts taken from SCO's official financial filings with the SEC, they should also be covered by: Public Domain Non creative works (publicly published facts) [[1]]. SCO is no longer a going concern having recently gone through chapter-7. Anyway, it would be a shame to lose this piece of history given that the bankruptcy court trustee recently requested the court to destroy all corporate documents to save the ongoing fees of storage. What tag can I add to convey this additional copyright coverage? Thanks! VivaVictoria 17:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear that these graphs should be in the public domain. The information itself is not copyrighted (pure information cannot be copyrighted), but the expression of the information in the form of these graphs is likely copyrightable. It appears that you did not create these graphs yourself, so we need evidence that the original creator has agreed to release these images into the public domain or under a free license. Do you have a way to contact the original creator of these images? —Bkell (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I attest that I am the hamjudo2000 on the Yahoo message boards that collated the publicly available data used to create that chart and I release that into the public domain. Hamjudo (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Two concerns:

The file description pages credit these charts to "stats_for_all", not "hamjudo2000".
If you are the copyright holder, you need to follow the directions above: Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

—Bkell (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I personally created the charts, and image captures of the charts in question. They are completely free of any encumbrance what-so-ever. It is devilishly ironic that Copywrite concerns would be used to suppress the history of one of the most notorious bogus copywrite trolls of the modern era. I also note that someone has systematically sought to erase and destroy much of my public posting on the errors, illegalities and pecadillo's of the SCO crowd of thieves and scoundrels. --- stats_for_all // Panglozz // JWC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE26:50C0:217:F2FF:FE05:691A (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me emphasize again that we need the creator of these charts to send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. Simply posting a message here on this user's talk page is not sufficient.

Despite what you seem to believe, I am not trying to "suppress history." The goal of Wikipedia is to create a free encyclopedia of material that anyone can use for any purpose. We are not trying to suppress, erase, or destroy information—in fact, quite the opposite, we are trying to spread knowledge as widely as possible. In order to achieve that goal, Wikipedia must ensure that all of its content is actually free to use in this way. That's why we require evidence that the copyright holder has agreed to release the work into the public domain or under a free license. We cannot just accept images taken from other pages on the Internet. And that's why we need an e-mail from the original creator sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, so that we have a record of that permission. —Bkell (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said that unartfully and I am sorry you interpreted it as a personal attack. I have sent the requested permission email. The suppression which I decry has occurred on other forums and websites, and is unfortunate. I don't envy your task of dotting "i's" and crossing "t's" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE26:50C0:217:F2FF:FE05:691A (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]