Talk:Charles Anthony Pearson

Copyright
This article was originally written for Wikipedia and permission was granted for it's use on the Dunecht Estates web site under the terms of CC-BY-SA and the GFDL.

For the continued inclusion on Wikipedia and the avoidance of confusion the content published on the Dunecht Estates web site will be re-written as an original piece of work.
 * Hi. If permission was granted for the use of the material on the Dunecht Estates web site under the terms of CC-BY-SA and the GFDL under the terms of CC-By-SA and GFDL, I'm afraid that their publication of it under copyright notice is a violation of license. Among other terms, those licenses require that the content remain free for reuse. The reusers must release it under one or both of those same licenses. This is true even if they modify the material once they reproduce it. (That said, as the content creator on Wikipedia, you do retain copyright and do have permission to reproduce your own text anywhere else under any licensing terms you desire, so long as you do not attempt to withdraw the licensing allowance you've already made here.)


 * The issue that concerns Wikipedia, though, is that there is no way for us to prove whether it was published there or here first, and because this is a question of law we are not able to take your word for it (even though the fact that the website changed certainly supports you). Before we can publish this text, we do need clarification. The easiest way to handle this would be for the webmasters of that external site to acknowledge the prior publication of the Wikipedia article, either on the website itself or via e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation. Such a statement would be sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. It should include the URL of this article, the URL of the website. They should explain for the benefit of the agent who handles the e-mail that they are writing because of concerns that we are infringing their copyright and verify that the Wikipedia content preceded their usage. They can also set forth that their publication was separate license from the same content contributor. This letter may confuse the OTRS agent somewhat, since we don't usually get that sort of letter. If you let me know the letter has been sent, I'll try to intercept it, since I know the background. Alternatively, this note might help the agent who gets it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Moonriddengirl. I have been in touch with Dunecht Estates and asked them to send a message to the effect of copyright and permissions as you have suggested. Also thank you for you lengthy and considered input with this issue. I've no idea how you will intercept a message to lend your assistance there but I did include links to this page, the article and to the Dunecht web site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadagoodday (talk • contribs) 12:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am one of the individuals who answers e-mail for the Wikimedia Foundation in that queue. I will take a look and see if it has arrived. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not yet. The only letter in that queue is the one which you sent previously, to which I see you have not yet received a reply. (Sorry about that!) I'll keep an eye out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And it has arrived. Thank you very much! The article is restored. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)