Jump to content

Talk:The God Who Wasn't There/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:The God Who Wasn't There

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BrianFlemming (talk | contribs) at 03:49, 1 August 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is a bogus copyright infringment claim. The author is Brian Flemming who I think posted this. The infringement claim is an advertisement for his movie. What is really happening here is that Christians are taking over Wikipedia and trying to block anything that doesn't agree with their narrow twisted view of the world. The did the same thing with my [Church of Reality] web site as well as Universialists. It's a form of electronic book burning. I'm beginning to wonder if we should start boycotting this site? --Marcperkel 19:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I did not write or edit this Wikipedia entry, but I DID write the plot summary in question. I am the director/producer of the movie The God Who Wasn't There and made a plot summary available free to all here. This plot summary was used, in part, by Microcinema, IMDb, Wikipedia and other sites. (Wikipedia also quoted some promotional text, but that text was put in quotes, appropriately indicating that that is how the film was marketed.) Additionally, this Wikipedia entry contains other material unique to Wikipedia. I strongly suspect the attempts to delete this entry are ideologically motivated, but, motivation aside, they are also entirely unwarranted. I request that the administrators re-activate this page and allow the Wikipedia community to edit it if there are improvements to be made. I freely gave the text in question to the public domain. This can be confirmed by contacting me through the film's official site. --BrianFlemming 19:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The guy who censored you is Doc Glasgow who is a raving theist. There's no doubt in my mind this is vandalism. He also seems to have failed to put a link back from the copyright violation page like he was supposed to. I had to dig through the page history to find who did it.--Marcperkel 19:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Is this kind of vandalism allowed here, or will Doc Glasgow be reprimanded in some way? --BrianFlemming 20:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

This conversation is a breach of WP etiquette - assume good faith and no personal attacks. The article in question was listed on Vfd. In my opinion it was wrongly listed for a Vfd- and I would actually have voted 'keep',. However, I genuinely believed that parts of it were a copyvio - and I listed it as a 'possible copyright infringement' (see [1] as is normal procedure. If it isn't a copyvio - and you can evidence that, then it will survive that procedure. If I was wrong about the copyvio than I am happy to apologise to you for my error - but my actions have been in good faith, and not driven by any ideological considerations. Ideologicaly I believe in free speech, and giving people the benefit of the doubt. --Doc (?) 21:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Copyright infringment is a serious charge and not to be made lightly. You found an ad for the movie and you just falsely used it to create an ovbiously fake charge. After your supposed mistake was brought to your attention you let the mistake stand. You also failed to identify yourself as the person who made the copyvio claim. And - this isn't a personal attack. You were caught. --Marcperkel 22:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
    • You've obviously not been around Wikipedia for very long. When material shows up that appears to be copied from another site, it is almost always a copyright infringement. The average person has little to no understanding of copyright, and will copy material from other web sites without a second thought. That dozens of such infringements show up on Wikipedia every day is proof enough of that. You are interpreting this as a personal attack rather than attempt to protect both Wikipedia and the original author. Doc glasgow acted properly, and seems to be doing a rather good job of putting up with unnecessary hostility from you. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

What does a copyright owner have to do TO SAY IT'S OKAY TO USE THE MATERIAL? I wrote it, it's in the public domain, this would be obvious to anyone who looked. I mean, one-tenth of the time people have taken trying to keep this entry from displaying would have revealed this simple fact. Yes, copyright violations are important to flag. But you should at least in good faith try to make sure they really are copyright violations before causing an entire entry to disappear. Where was the attempt to contact the person you sincerely thought was the owner? Where was this "benefit of the doubt" you speak of? It's very hard to presume good faith when you haven't even described any attempt to verify the alleged violation with the owner. You took a drastic action based on a suspicion that you did not follow up with even five minutes of obvious research. --BrianFlemming 03:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism Reversed

I reversed the vandalism. I pointed out the error to Doc and he didn't fix it. So I fixed it for him. He also didn't link to it on the copyright violation page as required by the rules. The author has already verified that this is not a copyright violation and the link points to an ad for the movie that the author wrote. Doc appears to be a Christian activist who appears to have done this before. --Marcperkel 21:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm a longtime atheist and I agree with Doc Glasgow that there is a copyright violation problem. I'm starting a rewrite. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

I have written a basic stub at The God Who Wasn't There/Temp, which is normal practice when salvaging copyright problems. Please feel free to add non-copyright violating text to it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

  • And where is the copyright problem? The author of the work has already verified that it is not infringing. We don't want you to rewrite it. --Marcperkel 23:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Reversed Again

The author of the movie - the guy who has the copyright to both the movie and the material in the ad for the movie has verifies above that he is the owner and that it is not infringing. His statement is above. I have received email from him personally verifying that this is all true. If you have a basis for an infringment claim other than a bare accusation them make it. Otherwise - quit vandalizing this site with false copyright claims. Under the DMCA a false copyright violation claim is criminal. --Marcperkel 23:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I think you are over-reacting to standard procedure. Standard procedure for possible copyright violations is to remove them from the article, list them on WP:CP, and request confirmation that it is not, in fact, a copyvio. If it is verified that the article is in public domain, liscensed under GDFL, or used with permission by the author, then the information will be restored. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 00:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • response - So if I falsely claim that your work violated a copyright and took it down then wouldn't you be more than a little upset? I consider it extremely insulting to the author of this movie that you - knowing that this has been verified as not infringing - continue to list it as maybe it still is. I just hope Brian Flemming talks about Wikipedia in his next movie. I'm going to write him and suggest it.--Marcperkel 01:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
        • The burden of proof is on those who accuse him of infringement. If you have a reason to believe it's infringing then state it. Otherwise - remove your accusation. --Marcperkel 01:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Before you are recruited by anyone to claim this is a copyright violation, please read Brian Flemming's statement on the discussion page. False copyright infringment accusations are illegal under the DMCA. This page has already been taking offline twice due to false accusations. False copyright violation claims should not be allowed to be a tool to block information that some people don't like. Brian Flemming can be contacted directly to verify this at His Web Site. DO NOT REMOVE THIS COPYRIGHT STATEMENT!!! --Marcperkel 00:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC) moved to talk page Kelly Martin 02:49, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_God_Who_Wasn%27t_There/Archive_1&oldid=20025176"