Talk:X-Men Origins: Wolverine

This talk page is automatically archived by User:MiszaBot I. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived to Talk:X-Men Origins: Wolverine/Archive 1. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives
May 2006 –

Legend

What is the legend about the Wolverine? do I put that in this article too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stunt Airman Amaha (talk • contribs) 10:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

What? Alientraveller (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Characters

Is it really necessary to go into that much detail on how much Jackman worked out for his role? Maybe just a note on the workout then link to the references. But it seems like a waste to go into all that right there in the "Character" section. 75.72.98.95 (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Considering that's been his main objective making Wolverine, I wouldn't call it undue weight. If Jackman had mentioned he'd done lots of research into soldiers and their combat styles throughout the past 200 years and we hadn't included that, there'd be a problem. Alientraveller (talk) 10:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

can we put how much deadpool sucks and deviates from the source material of the comic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.62.131 (talk) 03:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Workprint Leaked One Month Before Release

Not sure if it's worthy of mention, but the Workprint in DVD quality has been leaked onto the internet a whole month before the film's release.

One more issue - relevant to this one - is whether the plot synopsis should be updated in the Wikipedia article. The plot is now fully known due to the leak. Would it be inappropriate for someone who has watched the leaked movie to create a plot synopsis for the main article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.176.254 (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Deathbycheesedrum (talk) 02:44, 01 April 2009 (GMT)

The film is great! But the premiere will be ruined. In the post-credis scene Wolverine is in Japan and there will be a sequel if the movie has a good gross revenue. --Batman tas (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

April... Alientraveller (talk) 11:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, so it wasn't an April Fools' Joke, but I still gotta wonder why people put it in the wrong place... Alientraveller (talk) 12:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Placement looks good! Thanks for using Entertainment Weekly... sounds more reliable to come from them than from the bloggish SlashFilm. —Erik (talk • contrib) 12:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I was in the process of moving it but we got E/C'd... --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Happens! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 12:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The BBC have done a news article commenting on the peculiarity of this kind of workprint release. It reeks as if Fox have done it on purpose, as free and effective publicity.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That's really really unlikely - studios like control, there is no control in this action and it would lead them open to legal action from their investors and marvel (who get a percentage). From the BBC article, it appears it was leaked from the company doing the effects. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I subsectioned "Release" into "Leaked workprint" and "Theatrical run". At first, I did not think that the leak would be covered significantly, but I think that reports from various news outlets indicates that there will be more to it. In addition, the information being tucked away under "Release" led to accidental redundant additions on some editors' parts, so the "Leaked workprint" subsection should clarify in the TOC and the article body that the coverage exists. —Erik (talk • contrib) 12:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me - it's clearly a significant event in terms of the film and copyright, piracy etc. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Get that damn plot off the damn page. I only came here to scroll down to check a cast members name I forgot the other day and as I scrolled I caught glances of the plot which spoilt stuff for me. The plot should not be on the page until after the movie's official release date. Some of us actually like to wait til the movie's finished before knowing these things... I hate the damn idiot who leaked the 'workprint'. 82.3.88.240 (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Violation of creator's copyright

I removed content from the "Release" section that pointed to a place where readers could view material of the illegally leaked workprint. This is a violation of WP:COPYVIO since the footage is the property of the studio and was not intended for public attention, particularly in its unfinished stage. Wikipedia should not endorse linking to such items. Even if editors believe that this is acceptable, it is not appropriate for an encyclopedic article to say, "Hey, readers, check out this leaked footage that you've been reading about!" We are an encyclopedia, not a shameless blog. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No copyright laws have been violated. All that is shown on the external link are screencaps of the movie, which are deemed acceptable; and also a short 3 minute 18 second video hosted on Break.com which (as it is under 10% of the total length of 1 hour 46 minutes 48 seconds) is also deemed acceptable under the DMCA.

Control-alt-delete (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Screencaps that are released officially from the studio and screencaps from footage released officially from the studio are what are acceptable. The linked screencaps are from the unsanctioned release of unfinished footage. Even if we applied lenience to this matter, it is still unprofessional to encourage readers to go off-wiki to explore such leaked content. The article needs to focus on commentary surrounding the workprint and have nothing to do with the actual proliferation of the content. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

To follow up, WP:LINKVIO says, "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [1]). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors." —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Erik. ThuranX (talk) 04:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The site being linked to, however, does not "illegally distribute someone else's work" as I said in my first response. Screencaps are deemed acceptable and a short clip of less than 10% of the movie is also deemed acceptable.

Control-alt-delete (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If you were making a film and I got my hands on some footage, do you really believe that it is acceptable for me to show everyone screencaps from your film? A portion of illegally leaked content is still illegally leaked content. —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

again, agree with Erik. A rock of crack's illegal, even if it's just a tiny portion of the kilo brick of coke you bought. ThuranX (talk) 04:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Now you're comparing a screenshot to crack... nice going! ;)

Anyway, take a look at Fair use in copyright. The Fair Use Statute splits the work into four factors to determine if the work is being used fairly or not, with the fourth factor having the most influence.

Factor 1: the images are being used not-for-profit = fair;

Factor 2: the images may be protected by copyright = unfair;

Factor 3: only a small portion of the movie was screenshotted/video-captured (this actually goes back to my first point) = fair;

Factor 4: the images being on the site would have no negative impact on the potential market, or value of the movie = fair;

Therefore the images are being used fairly as it satisfies 3 out of 4 of the factors. Supposing it only satisfied 2 of the 4 but one of the 2 was factor 4, this would still be classed as fair.

Control-alt-delete (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent) While the images in question might very well qualify for fair-use, I don't really see any reason for us to link to the post. --aktsu ^(t / c) 14:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ThuranX, the drug comparison is a bit much. :) For the first factor, movie websites are not linking to the workprint or its samples out of their goodness of their heart. They are invested in getting traffic, and if they do the linking or hosting, this is profitably favorable for them. For the third factor, if this was true, clips would be immediately accessible. I checked on YouTube, and even "clip" samples of the workprint are being taken down. Break.com does not have any clip I could find, so I assume the DMCA claim is false. Lastly, for the fourth factor, the studio disagrees with you, as evidenced by the removals. In addition to these factors, what you wanted to link to would not be considered a reliable source (since it is a forum), and it would not be acceptable as an external link, either, per WP:ELNO #10. We can see that no reputable news outlet is going to give direct access to the workprint or samples of it, and we should strive for that professionalism as well. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's really not surprising the clips are being removed. The DMCA takedowns are rather automatic and doesn't at all take fair-use into account, see e.g. this (very interesting) article. If the case really "blows up" I don't see why we couldn't include a few images to illustrate the leaked version, but a link to a site with images is IMO out of the question. --aktsu ^(t / c) 15:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict again) What's going on right now is a "live" event, so it's questionable to illustrate the leaked version at this point. If we evaluated the leaked workprint historically, then illustrations could be acceptable if they were deemed significant. I imagine, though, that illustration of such retrospective coverage would have to come from a reliable source, anyway, and as we can see, no mainstream media outlet is hosting the content. From what I have read, though, I doubt there will be anything to illustrate about the workprint... there are other parts of the film that are more worthwhile to illustrate. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

@Erik I disagree that the website is "not linking to the workprint or its samples out of the goodness of its heart" - I made the post on that forum because nobody else has released something like that yet on the internet (or at least that I can find), and I do not plan to make a profit by doing so. Furthermore, that site is actually losing money due to server costs so more traffic would mean a higher bandwidth bill.

The clip I posted on YouTube was taken down after 6 minutes of being online (however as pointed out by aktsu, DMCA notices are being flung around left, right and centre with no regard for Fair Usage.

As for you not being able to find it on Break.com, it is actually at the bottom of the forum post with the pictures on and I uploaded it as soon as YouTube removed it - video link - I completely agree with aktsu that an image or two by hosted on Wikipedia instead of a link to that forum should be put up under Fair Usage.

Control-alt-delete (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia hosting any part of the workprint is far worse than linking to it. Even if we disagree about the factors, and I am happy to pursue additional opinions if you desire to continue the matter, your links are not reliable. Forums are self-published sources and not acceptable. Parading it as an external link instead won't work, either -- WP:ELNO #10 discourages links to forums, too. In addition, disregarding factors and reliable sourcing and external links for the moment, non-free images need to meet non-free content criteria, and no particular screenshot can be considered significant. WP:FILMNFI requires critical commentary for screenshots; no particular image has received critical commentary. If any is to be had, it will likely pale in comparison to significant screenshots from the completed product. What you want to add does not pass WP:LINKVIO, WP:RS, WP:ELNO, WP:NFCC, nor WP:FILMNFI. Why can we not focus on coverage of the leaking and the investigation? —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Why would it be worse? Unreleased media isn't more protected by copyright than released media. There are contracts and NDAs but Wikipedia (and I assume the editors) are not parties to those agreements so they do not apply. The workprint is a copyrighted material that's treated *exactly* the same as any other copyrighted material on Wikipedia, like the movie poster in this very article. As CAD makes clear, the screencaps easily fall under Fair Use. So there's no real reason to *exclude* the images under Wikipedia's own policies.

That being said, there's no real reason to *include* them either. There might be after the film's release as comparison to the finished product, but right now, there isn't. 66.208.17.254 (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No to images, no to hosting, no to linking. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent seeing as somewhere in the last few comments, it's been mixed up)

The original reason for this section in the Talk page was that I was being accused of breaching copyright law by posting the images on here. As has been proven by numerous people, this isn't the case and the images can be used fairly, in exactly the same way the movie poster can.

The idea of having an image or two in the article is to demonstrate what the workprint is link, in exactly the same way that you put a picture of a dog in a dog article (with a free image) or you put a Microsoft logo in a Microsoft article (non-free image). Now, does anybody have any backed-up arguments to me putting a couple of screencaps next to the Workprint section of the article? Bearing in mind what 66.208.17.254 said.

Control-alt-delete (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added a straw poll below, please vote in it for inclusion or exclusion of the screencaps

Control-alt-delete (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll for inclusion/exclusion of screencaps for workprint

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Commentary should be placed above, in the section marked "Violation of creator's copyright".

• There are no legal issues with including screencap(s) / Include the screencap(s)
  • GETTA GET (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Control-alt-delete (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • 66.208.17.254 (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC) — 66.208.17.254 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • 62.212.74.70 (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC) — 62.212.74.70 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• I feel there are legal issues with including screencap(s) / Exclude the screencap(s)
  • —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • ThuranX (talk) 04:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Alientraveller (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • IANAL, but I suspect as much. BOZ (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: Single purpose accounts will be tagged as such - this should help inform consensus, not operate as a form of ballot-stuffing. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that I never actually signed this poll. Also fair use does not cover the use of those images because usage would fail under WP:FUC #4 and 2. A straw poll cannot override our fair usage policies. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

And that ladies and gents is the coffin nail in using the image from the leaked file and basing plot summaries on it.

Now, are we done with this on this article and the articles for the related characters? Meaning that the info based on the leak can be pulled. Or do the articled need to be locked down until the first?

- J Greb (talk) 00:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Erm, plot summary does not seem to me to be covered under FUC. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Related characters articles

Be aware that people have been adding leaked, possibly false, definitely unverifiable info to character articles related to this film. Particularly affected is Deadpool, but keep an eye on Chris Bradley (comics), David North (comics), Emma Frost, Kestrel (Marvel Comics), and Silver Fox as those have already been hit. Oddly enough, Sabretooth (comics) and Wolverine (comics) are as yet untouched, nor are Gambit (comics), Blob (comics), Barnell Bohusk and William Stryker and other relevant characters, but keep an eye on those all the same. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I hardly think, at this point, that information from the leaked print is unverifiable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Professor X

He's in the movie in a scene. So are younger versions of some mutants. Including nightcrawler, storm.....and a few others.