Humanities desk
< January 22	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 24 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 23

British money

I've been watching Mr Selfridge lately and in a recent episode he pulled some money from his coat. It was odd though and I'm wondering if you could tell me what I was seeing. He pulled out sheets of what I would think was tissue paper, if I didn't know better. It was white and had some writing on it. The sheets were about as large as a modern day Kleenex. Were these supposed to be some sort of bank script? Dismas|^(talk) 02:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen in old movies, British banknotes were typically that large. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the same note ...

Per the preceding question, when did banknotes shrink to their current size? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell from perusing the "Standard Catalog of World Paper Money Volume Two", large whitish Bank of England notes were printed as late as the 1950s, but there were quite different "Treasury Notes" in circulation in WW1, and "Emergency issue" Bank of England notes in circulation in WW2... AnonMoos (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bank of England note issues#£5 and here have something about the "white fiver". It seems they were issued until 1957 and were withdrawn in 1961. They were 212 by 134 mm. I remember once seeing one as a child. They were very unusual and my extended family had never seen such a large sum of money before. I don't remember it being like tissue paper, I think it was quite a stiff sort of paper. Thincat (talk) 10:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia different denominations were withdrawn on various dates in the 1950s and 1960s, e.g. "The old "White Fiver" was withdrawn on 13 March 1961."--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

British money has an interesting history. I was quite surprised when I learned that the first UK monarch to have their effigy on a banknote was the current one, QEII. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technically you're correct. George V appeared on the 1914-1927 10/- and £1 notes, but they were Treasury Notes rather than banknotes. QEII is indeed the first monarch on Bank of England notes. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I didn't think they were around that late. Interesting. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it was a white fiver, as suggested above. There was a famous attempt to forge them during WWII in order to undermine the British economy. See Operation Bernhardt. Paul B (talk) 14:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the responses! I didn't realize that it was in circulation so late. It's hard for me to imagine someone as late as the 1950s using a note that was so big. I'd think that somewhere along the line, when notes were more and more common, that they would have shrunk sooner. Dismas|^(talk) 22:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most people wouldn't have used a £5 very often. As late as the 1960s I remember my mum being given £5 a month to feed the family of five, for what we couldn't grow ourselves. Ordinary people usually only used £1 or 10 shilling notes. as one of the characters in Spike Milligan's "Puckoon" says: "Brown (10/-), dat's the colour of money!". -- Arwel Parry (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I remember seeing an old white £5 note in the 1950s, but my family never owned one (it was like a £500 note would be today). It wasn't Kleenex size, but currency notes have gradually shrunk in size since then. Dbfirs 10:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The average wage for a male manual worker in 1957 seems to be (if I'm reading it correctly) 241 shillings and sixpence,[1] or £12.07½ in modern decimal notation. The average wage in manufacturing or construction today seems to be about £30,000 p.a.[2] or £536 per week. Using that as a (probably highly inaccurate) scale, £5 would be worth, in terms of pay, roughly £220 today. Alansplodge (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The average salary is closer to 24k, I think, which would put this closer to £150 - but when you think how rarely you see a £50 note in the UK, it's still a pretty vivid image. (I think I encounter them about once a decade...) Andrew Gray (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my comparison seems to have had a subjective bias. (Our weekly family income at that time would have been under £5.) Dbfirs 22:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Measuring economic worth over time. Alan, I think that the power balance between boss and worker has changed in Britain since the 1950s, particularly in terms of availability of work, incomes other than wages from employers, meaning of standards of living to people. It is easier to say that the £5 note was primarily used by people outside of wage relationships, perhaps? What's a stake here is more the social meaning of a £5 note. This denomination of note also has famous feline nautical uses. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting standing orders

The doctrine of superior and general orders (e.g. [3] or [4]) seems to conflict with the doctrine of command responsibility. Are there any good authoritative or at least comprehensive references for resolving conflicting orders from different levels of one's chain of command in general commercial employment instead of the military? 193.138.222.55 (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[5] is the best I can find, but [6] has a general survey. [7] has some good advice but no operationalized solution, and [8] is an old description of the more general problem. In general, you have to negotiate with your entire management chain to make them all happy, and you can explore different ways to do that with e.g. http://negowiki.mit.edu Good luck! Tim AFS (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick question about Bitcoin's "creator"

According to our article on Bitcoins, it was first proposed by a Japanese who went under a pseudonym. Was the reason why he did so ever disclosed? If not, what is likely to be the reason behind his anonymity? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Satoshi Nakamoto is the pseudonym the creator chose to use in his original whitepaper; there's no particular reason to believe that the real person really is Japanese. Other people (some Japanese, others not) have been proposed as the real creator; I'm not going to name them (BLP tattle) but Google will find you some candidates easily enough. I don't believe "Nakamoto" has ever explained why the pseudonym. Some have speculated that it's because he didn't want to run afoul of money-laudering and banking disclosure laws. Others claim (again for BLP reasons I'm not linking) that the creator has a massive collection of bitcoin (obtained at the beginning of the currency's life, when mining for them was much easier than it later became) - if that's the case, Nakamoto is potentially exceedingly wealthy now. This is all uncharted legal territory (I'm surprised governments haven't tried to clamp down on Bitcoin); it's quite within the bounds of possibility that some ambitious prosecutor could try to indict Nakamoto with running a Ponzi scheme. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 14:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(maybe the governments in question have learned not to make unenforceable laws? :) SemanticMantis (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to read up on Ponzi scheme. If your claim is that because an early investor gets richer than later ones, or that investors into a business need future investors for it to grow, you've described every successful stock on the NYSE. That's not illegal, nor is it a Ponzi scheme. Most schemes are illegal because they involve fraud in some capacity. Shadowjams (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We'll never know for sure unless that person comes forward. But I'll add that the inventor has disseminated a tool that is very good at keeping financial transactions private and pseudonymous. Perhaps she just values her privacy! SemanticMantis (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who says the creator is a Japanese? Just because the creator calls herself "Satoshi Nakamoto" does not mean the creator is Japanese or even the creator is a male or even the creator is a human being. For all we know, the creator can be an alien from Alpha Centauri. 202.177.218.59 (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Type of architecture that is used to build the iconic schoolhouse or church

You may have seen it. It looks like a rectangular block with a few windows on the side and maybe on the front or back. There is only one door. Old-fashioned one-room schoolhouses are built in this style. Churches are too. Sometimes, there may be a bell attached in the steeple, sometimes not. 140.254.227.176 (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Carpenter Gothic. --Viennese Waltz 15:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Iconic" can vary depending on location. This might be helpful: Architecture Syles Guide ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest looking through the articles in Category:One-room schoolhouses. One-room schoolhouses come in all sorts of different architectural styles, and it is difficult for us to answer the question based on just the brief description given... we could do better if you could point us to a school that matches the specific "look" you are thinking of. Blueboar (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia Commons category page might be quicker; it contains the images for that category: [9] ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost certain the OP is referring to the kind of, typically wooden, pitched-roof buildings with a door at the narrow end, as seen in One-room school. Apart from the very generic "vernacular" I doubt there's a specific term. Paul B (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I think I can guess, this is exactly the sort of question where specifying the country or region that the question relates to would be very helpful. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, it is a carved in stone rule that on the interwebs "unspecified country" is always the good old US of A. Them yanks tend to forget they ain't the only people in the universe. ;) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what it's called, but note this school-crossing sign,[10] which when it was introduced where I live, the odd shape was explained as "the shape of an old schoolhouse". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh... interesting... I always assumed the shape of that sign was an arrow... indicating: To hit crossing children, aim vehicle this way Blueboar (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Milestones in Germany 2013 legislative elections

What were the milestones of Germany's 2013 legislative election such as youngest person to be elected, first black to be elected or first non-German to be given a cabinet portfolio? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.32.95 (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The youngest person elected in the Federal Elections was Mahmut Özdemir (b 1987), the oldest Heinz Riesenhuber (b 1935). Mahmut Özdemir, son of Turkish immigrants, has a non-German background. Commissioner Aydan Özoğuz, daughter of Turkish immigrants, has a portfolio. Karamba Diaby became the first African-born Member of the Federal Parliament. David McAllister, the former Prime Minister of Niedersachsen, who has British and German citizenships, lost his office in 2013. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sistine chapel restoration copyright

The modern ('80 -'90) restoration of the Michelangelo frescoes was financed by the Japanese Nippon Television Network Corporation. In exchange they got the exclusive filming and photographing rights. This raises some questions (no pratical concerns, jut out of intrest).

My first question then is: what exactly does this mean? Is every photo of the restored frescoes copyright by the Vatican and the Japanese Nippon TV? Why then does Wikipedia have photographs? What about the photographs taken during the restoration? Are they the exclusive property of Nippon?

The second question then becomes: what is the term of this exclusive rights, how long does Nippon (still) have the exclusive rights on the photographs and films? And more intrestingly: when the term finishes, do they have to release all photographs and films? Do they then become public domain? This would be particullary intresting to clear up some of the controversaries on the restoration (see here).

I cannot find solid answers to any of these questions. This article of 1990 says "its commercial exclusivity on photographs expires three years after the completion of each phase". Then this would obviously mean they do not have any more exclusive rights. What would this then mean in practice?

This article however seems to imply the copyrights still hold. This (unreliable) source states the copyright ends in 2019? As far as I can see, I cannot find any official statement about all this.

Does anyone have solid answers or pointers to answers to these questions?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.253.150 (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may find better answers if you ask at WP:MCQ, where Wikipedia's copyright experts hang out. Maybe User:Moonriddengirl may also be a good person to ask. --Jayron32 20:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you understand this isn't legal advice. I'm no Moonriddengirl, but I may be able to offer some clues.

First I think it's helpful to seperate the different elements. When it comes to simple photos of the artwork, they key issue is Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. Since that decision, the general belief in the US is that faithful reproductions of 2D artwork which are in the public domain aren't copyrightable. Based on the courts decision, the belief is that any reproductions which are solely trying to show what the artwork looks like lack the level of originality required to be copyrightable.

Partly as a result of National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute, the Wikimedia Foundation has made it clear [11] they believe we should ignore claims of copyright on such reproductions in other countries, this has been accepted by the community so that even in the Wikimedia Commons such cases are an exception to the general requirement that content be of a suitable licence in the country of origin and the US, Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag.

Now this case has a few complicating factors. One is the restoration. The reason why that probably doesn't affect things is because the intent of the restoration was to restore the artwork to how it looked originally. Regardless of whether this was achieved, it seems unlikely that the restores are going to say that there was any attempt at originality or creativity. Note that as per the decision, it doesn't matter how much skill or how much time or how difficult the restoration was.

In fact similarly to the decision, any arguement over the level of skill etc required to restore the artwork to its original condition will likely negatively affect any claim of copyright. Something like [12] let alone [13] are far more likely to have a legitimate copyright claim, even if in most ways involving less skill. (The question of how much you have to modify a public domain work [14] to be eligible for copyright on you work isn't of course always clear.)

So the artwork itself likely remains in the public domain even after the restoration in the US.

The second complicating factor is that as I understand it, the artworks are often on curved surfaces and sometimes use architectural details as part of the art. Because of that, in some cases a copyright claim could probably be made over the photographs because they exhibit the level of originality or creativity required for copyright. (Or as the page I linked earlier says "by virtue of artistic choices available to the photographer such as framing, lighting and point of view".) Our choices appear to partly reflect that, for example File:Vatican-ChapelleSixtine-Plafond.jpg doesn't claim it's in the public domain.

A point to emphasise here is it's only the photos (or videos) that are copyrighted. The artwork itself remains in the public domain so anyone else can photograph it and freely licence their work, as seems to have happened with my example.

Note that wikimedia mostly only concerns itself with copyright restrictions. In particular, as per Commons:Commons:Image_casebook#Museum and_interior photography the general belief is that even if photography is forbidden or you are required to sign a contract restricting how you may use or licence photographs, that's an contractual issue between you and the place involved which doesn't directly affect us (except we may lose a contributor). We don't encourage people to violate such contracts, but we don't forbid it either and if you've licenced your works under a suitable licence then we will accept such contributions. And since your licence is generally taken to be irrevokable, we will likely reject even attempts by you to have the works deleted at a later date. (We do of course remind contributors that in all case they should consider how their local laws etc may affect them.)

On the other hand, while I don't know what the Vatican rules for photography in the Sistine Chapel are, I'm presuming the 3 year thing means even they do allow photography in some cases now for people besides Nippon Television Network Corporation.

BTW in case this isn't obvious from what I said, in cases where these elements don't come in to play and it's a simple reproduction of the artwork, it doesn't matter who did the reproduction (took the photo) and what they may claim about what you can do with it. From both the wikimedia commons and wikipedia's POV, such reproductions aren't copyrightable so we can freely reproduce them.

Now as for photography and videos taken during the restoration, this is mostly a different issue. Except perhaps for those photographs primarily intended to show the partly restored work itself (although even these cases may be a bit complicated), as with the 3D elements, there is almost definitely going to be sufficient originality that a claim of copyright could be made. You'd need more info on the specific agreement between the Vatican and Nippon Television Network Corporation to know precisely what happened here.

I'd start with who took the photographs and videos. Was it people working for the Vatican or Nippon Television Network Corporation or both? Was Nippon Television Network Corporation doing the work for themselves, or were they doing it as a work for hire for the Vatican with an agreement they would have initial exclusivity? If Nippon Television Network Corporation were doing it for themselves, was the an agreement for a copyright assignment after a set period of time? Note that it's easily possible that Nippon Television Network Corporation were the primary ones documenting the restoration and they still have the copyright to their work. It's possible some people were doing it on behalf of the Vatican as well. It's also possible Nippon Television Network Corporation retains the copyright but they have an agreement with the Vatican that they can use that copyrighted work in some way.

Note that to get back to my earlier point, in any case it's very likely that the work documenting the restoration is copyrighted.

As for when it will expire, well I didn't bother to check Vatican law. But one thing to bear in mind is per Wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy for anything on any wikimedia foundation project (unless we're using the work under the limited circumstances allows by the projects EDP), we require that the work be under a suitable free licence or no licence is required i.e. the work is in the public domain in the US (well there are a tiny number of cases where there is some dispute but we allow them anyway). And since the US has no Rule of the shorter term, even after the copyright expires in the Vatican it may not necessarily have expired in the US.

Nil Einne (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]