Talk:Metronome (film)

Copyright infringement
Copied from the talk page of ZarhanFastfire Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. You must not copy and paste text from sources you find on the web into articles as you did in the article Metronome (film), where you copied the synopsis verbatim. I have removed the infringing text, but the material you copied is subject to copyright, as is almost everything on the web, and when creating or expanding articles, you should completely rewrite the information from the source using your own words. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * @CwmhiraethReally? You had to call in an admin right off the bat? You couldn't have just requested that I make an effort to fix it first? Does it appear to you from my edit history that I would not have reacted/responded quickly enough? Now we have to wait while this is turned into a whole thing? I don't recall copying the synopsis verbatim; I remember quotes... I remember cites, with refs... but if I did okay, like I said, you could have just asked me to rewrite it.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it was basically identical to the source. Citing the source doesn't really help. Here are the quotes if they are of any use.  Hut 8.5  21:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@ Hut 8.5  Thanks. Two notes were removed as well. Could I have those back too? It's kind of frustrating to have to do the work all over again. I don't know what you mean by "basically identical"; I adapted as best as I could at the time, it's not a terribly straightforward film. I just wish I'd been given the opportunity to fix it. With all due respect to the process, it's a bit of an overreaction: this isn't the mid 2000s US legal system and WP is not "stealing" anything from a video not made for profit. It's not like Daniel Cockburn is ever about to sue Wikipedia for CI over a 500 word synopsis that appeared on here for a few weeks. This could have been handled better. Again, just my frustrated opinion, no offense meant to you or to the nominator. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * the notes are below. If it would help with the rewrite I am prepared to email you the contents which was removed (we don't normally do that with copyright violations), ping me if you'd like that. Complex or ambiguous cases are usually given some time for a rewrite but blatant cases (and yes, this was pretty blatant) are usually just removed immediately. Cwmhiraeth did exactly what the policy recommends. The chances of getting sued don't really enter into the question of whether something is or is not a copyright violation, it's not generally considered acceptable to break the law just because you're unlikely to get caught. And while I have no legal training whatsoever I suspect we may get into legal problems if the copyright holder found out that we knew about the problem and did nothing.  Hut 8.5  20:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * @ Hut 8.5  Thanks again. It was easy enough to go back to the original source for that part and make more of an effort to rewrite and cut this time around. It's currently in my sandbox. Would you mind having a look to see if it's sufficiently rewritten before I restore it? ZarhanFastfire (talk) 04:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * That looks a lot better, thanks.  Hut 8.5  11:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)