Humanities desk
< September 13	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 15 >

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.

September 14

Life rights

I came across this story[1] today and was surprised to learn that "life rights" was a thing. Do you actually need someone's explicit permission to write about them? Books and movies with negative portrayals like The Accidental Billionaires and The Social Network obviously didn't have their subject's permission so I'm wondering what's the difference here. Pizza Margherita (talk) 06:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Purchasing life rights will, within the limits of the specific contract, immunize the filmmakers from lawsuits regarding invasion of privacy and defamation. This is not so much of an issue for public figures like Mark Zuckerberg, who are much less well protected against negative portrayals. The life rights contract also often includes things that were not public before, such as private correspondence and interviews, but of course that's a business issue and not a legal one [2]. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Well, life rights is a redirect to film rights, but there is nothing in the latter article about life rights. Looking through the history of the latter page, someone wrote at one point that "Producers may also purchase the co-operation of a person (or others who know him or her well) if they intend to produce a biography on the person's life." However, that sentence was unsourced and subsequently deleted. So it looks like the concept of life rights is not actually related to permission to write about them, but is instead related to securing their co-operation. --Viennese Waltz 07:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the difference between "having the right to do X" and "having the resources or desire to defend the right to do X". Both factors weigh into the calculation of whether or not to use a person't life story without their permission. I'm reminded of movies like The Buddy Holly Story or Goodfellas, where real people (in this case Buddy Holly and Henry Hill) are featured in the story, but the names were changed for several characters (i.e. the real names of The Crickets in the former, and the real names of Hill's associates in the latter), depsite both being "based on a true story" movies, and both featuring real stories involving recreations of real events. Why producers would have chosen to change some names and not others is often based on what is convenient rather than what they are allowed to do. --Jayron 32 11:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The law about what rights a person has in relation to the facts of their life differs between different countries, but I would echo what's been alluded to above, that the media industry have their own shorthand ways of referring to bundles of valuable rights, which should be understood more as industry jargon than "actual" legal concepts. However usually if you analyse it closely enough it will be possible to map them to aspects of actual legal rights.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in this interview with Hollywood lawyer Lisa A. Callif about this topic. (Incidentally, her article is very promotional and was created by a banned PR editor. Hmm, may need to do something about that.) Blythwood (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spain's capital

What prompted Philip II of Spain to move his capital from Toledo to Madrid? --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because of its central location and relative obscurity.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can fathers legally be kept in the dark about the birth of their child?

I’m imagining a case where a woman gets pregnant as a result of a one-night-stand or a brief fling. Upon giving birth, are there any jurisdictions which oblige her to either name the man she believes to be the father, or in the alternative, sign a statutory declaration or similar legal document stating that she is genuinely not aware of his identity, as opposed to being freely permitted to keep mum on the matter?

If she does name a man as the father for the birth certificate, do any jurisdictions oblige that he be informed of the birth of his child (either by the mother, or more likely the registrar of births, it’s irrelevant) – the point is, does he have the "right" to know of the baby’s existence - or can the mother legally demand that the birth be kept secret from him? Do any jurisdictions automatically follow up such a "naming" by contacting the man, and asking if he acknowledges paternity, before finalising the entry of his name on the birth certificate?

Obviously, I’m talking about cases where the mother is not seeking child support or public welfare benefits. (I believe some jurisdictions do force moms to name dads in the event that they apply for welfare benefits, to stop the state from being made to pay to raise a child the dad should be paying child support for instead). And obviously, once the child becomes an adult, he / she would have the right to a copy of their own birth certificate, which would include the details of who his mom claimed his dad is (assuming she did in fact name a man).

Rather, I’m thinking of cases where the mother simply doesn’t care to have the father involved in the child’s life in any capacity (whether for valid reasons or selfish reasons), and wants to keep it secret from him that she’s given birth to his child, lest he seek custody or visitation. Yet by keeping the birth secret from him, she is obviously denying him those rights – the right to have a father-child relationship with his son / daughter. How do the laws work in this respect? Are there any jurisdictions which have enacted “father’s right to know of the birth of their child” laws? Or laws which, whilst not framed in such terms or with such explicit intentions, nevertheless have such an effect (such as the aforementioned practice of the registrar of births contacting the “named father” to see if he acknowledges paternity, thus alerting him to the birth of his child)? I’m interested in any jurisdiction which has sought to address this vexing question.

Also (separate question), if mothers do have the right to keep the pregnancy and birth secret from the father, has the issue ever been raised by fathers’ rights activists as a situation which should be changed?

I sincerely do not think this is a “legal advice” question, simply a "legal information" one, as per Wikipedia:Reference desk advice. But if you disagree, please simply state so, rather than removing the question. Eliyohub (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What have you found on the internet so far? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Here [3] is some information about paternity registries in various US states. Here [4] as an article about paternal notification surrounding adoption of a child. "This report describes State practices in providing written and oral notification of rights and responsibilities to parents who voluntarily acknowledge paternity." SemanticMantis (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crown of Tonga

Can anybody possibly help me find out any information on a crown (not the Crown of Tonga]) pictured in these pictures below of Queens of Tonga. It has a Star of David on it oddly enough and seems to be a consort crown since the first two wearer were queen consorts and the third (although a queen regnant) was a daughter of the first.

--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any information online; however, that is what I would call a tiara rather than a crown. Our own Queen only wears a crown at the annual State Opening of Parliament, but on other formal occasions, wears a tiara like this one. Alansplodge (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more searching found this forum thread about the fate of the Hawaiian crown jewels, but it seems to be more speculation than fact. Alansplodge (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mistress of the Robes

When was the office of Mistress of the Robes introduced at the English royal court? The article contains very little ans sketchy information and the list of office holders may be incomplete. Does any one know? --Aciram (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]