Talk:Christopher Nolan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Christopher Nolan article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Themes 2 Batman sequels 3 Nationality 4 Picture of Nolan

[edit] Themes

So I've removed the themes stuff because it should be on a page about the film, not a page about the person. If you read a page about Chris Nolan, you want to know who he is, and what he does, which involves a sense of how he got jobs and what sort of thing he likes making. Themes was too much, so I've taken it off unless someone objects, in which case revert! I'll try and work the themes thing into the Memento page, although that needs a lot of work itself... Personaljesus 23:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Batman sequels

Do we have concrete information about whether he's doing the Batman sequels? From somewhere other than the tabloids?

[edit] Nationality

Is it really correct to refer to Christopher Nolan as just an English director? He holds dual citizenship in both the UK and US, and spent parts of his childhood living in both countries. BarqSimpson 16:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of Nolan

I just want to know if by using this image somewhere down the line someone connected to Mr. Nolan will say it is illegal to post this image. If you think that by posting this image that something like that will happen then I'll stop reverting back to the picture. However, If that's not the case then I think we should stick with the old image. I don't why it is, but for some reason at wikipedia stuff that's good gets replaced simply because it's been around for a while and replaced with something crappy.annoynmous 14:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

We can't predict whether or not somebody will bring legal action for use of a copyrighted image - it's not our place to try to predict the future. That's why we have guidelines and policies in place to prevent their use. Beyond that, the image you want to use doesn't specify it's source and is unusable for that reason. CovenantD 20:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is it so hard around here to get a straight answer to a direct question. Don't give me this guidelines and policy nonsense, that's an excuse, not an answer. I want to know what criteria make this image unacceptable and what makes the other image accepatable. Is it the source of the image and if so why. Also what source does the other image come from that makes it accepatable. If know one connected to Mr. Nolan has any serious problem at this point with posting this image than what's the big deal. If someone comes along and say's we can't post this image anymore than fine will take it down. Until then it seems rather silly to not post something just because there's a remote possiblity, which doesn't seem likely, that it might lead to legal action. This seems to me more like internal, bureaucratic nonsense than genuine concern of free or unfree images.

I get really like angry when people at wikipedia won't talk to me like a human being. Why does everyone who's been here a long time constantly talk like they have a rule book lamenated to there head.annoynmous 04:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You are attempting to use what is probably a copyrighted promotional picture in violation of federal copyright law and Wikipedia policy. Since we don't have a source, it's impossible to check. That alone makes it invalid for use. Your rationalizations are just that, rationalizations. The likelihood of getting sued is not relevant; the possibility is. Now, for the last time, don't use the promotional picture. Consider this your last warning. CovenantD 04:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

So what source info is there for the other image. You stated that it probably is copyrighted, meaning you don't know. How do you know the other image isn't copyrighted as well. I see nothing when I click on the image that makes any more reliable than my image. How do you know this image isn't copyrighted as well. annoynmous 05:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Because the licensing clearly states that photographer has released it into the public domain. You're being reported for vandalism. I see you've left it blank. That will forstall the report. CovenantD 05:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

What licensing where. I see nothing that makes this photograph more accepatable than the other one. Show me a link to where this image came from that proves this image is free. You stated in an earlier post that you weren't certain that the other image was copyrighted. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if something's copyrighted then doesn't it usually say so on the image itself. If there's no such thing on the image than reason stands to be that it isn't copyrighted and is therefore okay to use.annoynmous 05:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Follow this link (which, btw, you can get to by clicking the picture). Look below the picture, in the section labelled "Licensing". Inside the box is reads,

"I, the author of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide.

In case this is not legally possible:

I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."

I correct you. It need not state on the photograph that it is copyrighted. Often, images are pulled from websites that are copyrighted, which is why knowing the source is so important. If the source and thus the copyright can't be confirmed, then it can't be used. You are using faulty logic that it must be okay to use. CovenantD 07:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it, just because someone say's that there the author of this piece were supposed to believe them. There's a comment where the person say's they took it themselves and that they don't thinks it's licensed, why do you believe them just because they say so. If other image truly is not free to use outside of whatever promotional event it was originally intended for than surely someone would have contacted you by now asking it to be removed sense it's been in the article for a while now. If the copyright of the photo is 100 percent certain than fine. However, you've indicated to me that the fact of the article being copyrighted isn't certain. So it seems rather silly not to include something because it might be copyrighted. When your certain of something you do it. When your not certain you don't do it just because it might be so.annoynmous 07:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm trying to intentionally frustrate you. You seem like a nice person and I wouldn't want you to get that impression of me. It's just I'm confused as to the method wikipedia uses for posting photos. If the image truly was copyrighted then why did the person who wrote that under the link post it in the first place. It seems to me like neither image has any hard evidence to confirm whether or no there free or not. If so than this whole matter is one to with taste and I persoanlly feel the other image is better than this one.

I truly appreciate your patience in debating me. It never was my intention to purposely frustrate you.annoynmous 07:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The "fair use" of images is very tricky. Commons, the part of Wiki where this image originally came from, has it's own way of checking these things; I don't pretend to understand it. Maybe they check the negative :) The one you want to use, however, is clearly labeled promo and so the copyright needs to be assertained. Publicity photos are big business; either the photographer or the person in the photo or an ad agency or a studio or somebody else owns it. That gives them rights to decide where it appears. The only way that it could be used here is if a free image could not be obtained. For a living person, that's hard to prove. Theoretically you could go to a film fest or an awards ceremony or a shoot and take one. It's not just a matter of aesthetics; I wish it were. Anyway, I hope I've explained it well enough because I really need to move on to other things. If you have more questions, add {{helpme}} to your talk page with your question and somebody will be along to help you. CovenantD 08:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)