Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2006 August 26

< August 25	Miscellaneous desk archive	August 27 >

Humanities

Science

Mathematics

Computing/IT

Language

Miscellaneous

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 at one of the pages linked to above.

Copyright status of completing another person's work

I'm hoping some copyright experts could help me with the copyright section of unfinished work. What is the copyright status of work that was started by one person and then completed by another? Who holds the copyright, especially if the first piece of work no longer has copyright status? For example, if a novel is mostly completed but then the author dies and the book is finished by another person is it a joint copyright situation?

Cross posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use. violet/riga (t) 11:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lets call the original work A and the completed work A++. The author of A (or his estate) owns the copyright of A outright, and can do what it wills with it. The copyright of A++ is jointly owned by both authors (or their estates etc.). That means neither can distribute A++ without the permission of the other. If the copyright on A has lapsed, the author of A++ owns the copyright of A++ free and clear - but he doesn't own the copyright on the unmodified A. So I could write an "Illiad special edition (achillies vs the wookies)" and I'd own the copyright, but I'd have no case to stop anyone else printing copies of Homer's work. Now, if you're asking about cases where someone takes an existing PD work (like the Mona Lisa) and does stuff to it - do they then own the copyright over the product? The answer depends on whether that change has sufficient creative content to constitute a copyrightable work - merely importing it into photoshop and tweaking the colours probably doesn't, but artfully painting on a different person's face (in Da Vinci's style) probably does. Things get sticky when you get to Andy Warhol-style manipulations, where the threshhold of copyrightability largely depends on what the judge had for lunch. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've confirmed some of my thoughts about it, and given me some great details there. You wouldn't happen to have any relevant links that I could further research this do you? violet/riga (t) 11:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fundament of the matter is what is, and what isn't, a derivative work. http://www.publaw.com/publicdomain.html is interesting, in particular the "derivative work" section (the bit about Pygmalion). And http://www.lbl.gov/Workplace/patent/ch9.html has a thing about use of PD computer code in copyrighted programs. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A particularly entertaining case is the matter of It's a Wonderful Life - http://www.film-center.com/canishow.html -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're brilliant, thanks! The section in the unfinished work article has been greatly expanded and I hope that will help it in the FAC process. violet/riga (t) 12:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freighting

what is the importance of freighting?

See our article on Freighting. If you need anymore help, please ask a more specific question. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

15-digit Phone #?

Well in the middle of the night (at 3 AM) i got an amazing phone call (which didn't wake me up.) I found it very unique because my caller ID managed to pick up the phone number but it was even stranger to me (i've never seen this before). The # was 15 digits long and before the number was a '+' sign. Anyone mind helping me discover the strangeness of this? I'm interested in knowing who tried to call me too. (I tried googling this stuff but didn't get any answers). Thanks in advance! Edit: I'm in the process of reading this article too Telephone numbering plan and if it helps i live in the U.S. (if it matters. --Agester 14:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The + sign usually denotes an international call. For example, +44 is the UK (I believe). Usually most caller ID systems can't understand international numbers and thus don't normally display the number. violet/riga (t) 14:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i believe the first two numbers were 86. Any clue where that is from? (They called my cellphone which was able to record the number) --Agester 14:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

China, it would seem [1]. violet/riga (t) 14:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And at a wild guess it was someone in China trying to reach a mobile (cell) phone with a Chinese number. According to this Chinese mobile numbers start with 13x (within China, +8613x overseas), where x is 0, 1, 3, 5, 6. 7. 8 or 9, and according to the reference violet/riga gives the domestic dialling prefix in China is '0'. Assuming someone meant to dial 013095551234 but dialled 0013095551234 instead, the 00 on the front would mean "international access", and they'd get through to a North American number, 1-309-555-1234. Tonywalton | Talk 13:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a + at the beginning of a phone number means "the international direct dialing code for the country I'm in" e.g. 011 in North America, 00 in most of Europe. Most mobile phones know what the IDD code for the country you're currently in is, so you can store numbers in the memory in international format i.e. + followed by the country code, followed by the phone number but omitting the national direct dialling code (the leading zero in Europe or the leading 1 in North America). This means that if your phone is registered to roam internationally, you can hit the same number in memory regardless of where you are in the world. Nearly all the numbers in my phone's memory begin with either +44 or +353, so I can always get through regardless of if I'm in the UK or Ireland... -- Arwel (talk) 00:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coin ???

I have a coin, i think. It is marked on the back " MAGYAR USZO SZOVETSEC " *1907-1932*. On the frount are 3 men. Above them are 4 buzards. also the words GREFF LAJOS in very small print. Thanks for your time, Wayne 65.145.194.9 15:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well Magyar means Hungary, for a start. --Richardrj 15:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick google search reveals that "Magyar Úszó Szövetség" means "Hungarian Swimming Association" violet/riga (t) 15:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greff Lajos appears to be a name, so perhaps it's a medal and not a coin? violet/riga (t) 15:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Googling around it looks like Greff Lajos designed medals. Here is a closed eBay sale of one of his works. --Cam 19:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And for those who aren't aware of Hungarian name order, his surname is Greff and his given name is Lajos (kind of equivalent to Louis or Ludwig). JackofOz 05:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark chocolate

Can vegans eat dark chocolate? Thanks. 213.122.115.2 16:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. The really bitter, dark stuff has no milk in it. David Sneek 16:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usually. Most brands are made without milk solids, and there are also some vegan lines of non-bitter chocolate, like Sweet Williams and certain decks of Lindt. Taiq 16:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They can eat it of course. --Froth 04:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken-man

Who the heck is "Chicken-man"? I've seen the sentence "Never forget Chicken-man!" so many times on bumper stickers and mailboxes, but I have no idea who he is! -- TheGreatLlama ^{(speak to the Llama!)} 18:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you've forgotten him already? :) User:Zoe|(talk) 19:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some guy who died, it seems. David Sneek 19:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A 1960's radio comic super hero. See Chicken Man (radio series). Edison 23:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I believe he is "some guy who died". I followed the links from David Sneek, and I recognized the stickers shown there. -- TheGreatLlama ^{(speak to the Llama!)} 01:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No he was definetely a radio play super hero --Im in ur house 04:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ford GT vs GT40

Which car is faster- the brand new Ford GT or the 1966 Ford GT40 MkII? In terms of both acceleration and top speed. Jamesino 18:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at Ford GT and Ford GT40. The MkII did an average speed of 125.39 mph at Le Mans with the MkIV 10 mph faster. The top speed for the new GT is claimed at "...overr 200 mph ...". One of the external links on the GT40 may provide the top speed. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquiz possibilities?

I'm not sure where to post this,so I'll start here.If it's in the wrong bit,point me in the right direction and push!

I had an idea for a 'general knowledge quiz' on perhaps a weekly or fortnightly basis with maybe 50 or 100 questions. As these would be taken from a wide range of topics within Wikipedia(maybe including a special section with questions based on that week's featured articles/pictures),it should encourage Wikipedians to go exploring through a wide variety of articles to find the answers.

Perhaps there can be some sort of reward for the winner-maybe a small box with This Week's Winner displayed and some sort of small prize.

I would be more than happy to organize questions,receive and mark answers etc. So-is this feasible?Is it a good idea?Any suggestions as to how to improve this?

Contributions much appreciated :) Lemon martini 20:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds quite similar to the "Did you know" section on the Main Page, only put in the form of a question. Perhaps you could work with whoever does that segment. StuRat 21:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like fun! A word of warning though, your "correct" answer will never satisfy everyone as the truth. Not that it can't work, it's just something to consider. --bmk

You should be OK with strictly factual questions where there is no controversy. For example, asking JFK's age when he became President would work, but not who assassinated him and why. StuRat 08:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like something for the Wikipedia:Department of Fun, where you'll find quite a lot of this sort of thing going on already.--Shantavira 08:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, the ref desk isn't the only fun place on Wikipedia? :) DirkvdM 09:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There could be bonus points for discovering an error. DirkvdM 09:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the Wikipedia:Department of Fun sound freakishly like something out of 1984?! I do lots of pub quizzes and things like that,so I'm used to coming up with questions that can't start a mass brawl but are peculiarly interesting-when you hear the answer it's obvious! Lemon martini 10:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a lot of fun and something we could get started. I am ready to help you, or be the first player! — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

Super-do we know we does the 'Did you know' section?Or is there any other way of getting some sort of honorable mention on the main page to let as many Wikipedians know about it as possible? Would it be feasible to create a 'Wikiquiz' section/article somewhere? Lemon martini 15:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that Wikipedia, the famous encyclopedia everyone may have fun to contribute to, did begin around a Trivial Pursuit (R) game ? -- DLL ^{.. T} 19:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Long, Slow, Distance (LSD)

You remember that a jogging style that was popular in the 1970's was the "long, slow, distance," where one runs at a slow, constant pace? It was thought to improve the aerobic benefits of the exercize while being easy on the body.

Well, I run quite a bit, and before I set out today for a 6.5 mile run, I took several puffs from a marijuana joint. Within minutes that calming, slow feeling came over me and I found myself not running at my usual vigorous pace, but jogging in the "long, slow distance" pace popularized in the 1970s.

My question is that do you think the popularity of the "Long Slow Distance" type of running during the 1970s is in direct correlation with the greater amounts of marijuana consumed in that great decade?Courtney Akins 22:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Edison 23:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Response to Courtney) No, probably not and you shouldn't be taking hits of Marijuana anytime. Don't want to loose those ever important brain cells. :) Seriously though, I think you should overcome that, but hey, it's your life.. — The Future 04:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are really worse things people can do to their brain and their body legally than taking a few puffs of marijuana periodically. Cigarettes and alcohol are much worse for you on the whole (and a lot worse for society as a whole as well). --Fastfission 15:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

true, but killing brain cells never solved anything :) — The Future 21:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, if you lose too many you might forget how to spell "lose". --Daduzi ^talk 22:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you smoke pot while doing LSD ? (-: StuRat 08:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Were you standing on your head while doing that smiley? Tried the combination perchance?

When the effects of pot on driving skills was going to be tested in the Netherlands (on a cleared highway), The Dutch comedian Kees van Kooten let his hippy character do that test too. He found that while he was doing only 50 it felt like 100, so that supports your theory. Although the announcement of the test got some media attention, the results didn't, so I suppose they weren't exceptional enough. DirkvdM 06:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where to find specific tags

Where can I find tags that relate to American Authors and Non-fiction books? -MF14

Have a look through Category:American novelists they probably have some tags in there. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heels and Shorts

Does anyone have a handle on what approximate year and what philosophies came to the fore that allowed, once again, (the last time being the 1970s), that it became acceptable for women to wear high heels and short shorts at the same time? Courtney Akins 23:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it was a philosophy, it was probably popular culture; The Love Boat, Charlie's Angels or Three's Company. Anchoress 23:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A theory is that the better the economy the more prevocatively women dress. When the economy is not doing as well women tend to dress more conservatively. It's just a theory.74.12.154.122 00:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a philosophical schema for the fashion I would opt for Utilitarianism or The Will to Power. MeltBanana 00:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree with the economic theory espoused above. During the 1970s the economy was doing horribly. And its not doing so well right now, and I think there was a minor recession in 2001-02. Yet women dress more provocatively now than perhaps ever, in contrast to the 1980s, when the economy was in fever-pitch, yet what passed for "provocative" dress then (e.g. Madonna's outfits/videos) seem quaintly restrained now.

Furthermore, it is a fact that women dressed very provocatively in 1790's France (plunging necklines, and dresses fitted to a woman's body, in repudiation of the traditional hoop-skirt form) and not only was the economy doing badly -- performing much below the levels of the ancien-regime -- but the entire nation was in turmoil and upheaval. It was not until halfway through the Napoleonic Empire that the economy of France recovered to pre-revolution capacity.

Therefore, it might be true that women dress more provocatively during times of economic distress and national turmoil! (as in this decade, the 1970's, and Revloution/Directorate France. Any thoughts?Courtney Akins 01:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that bit about women's hemlines and the stock market isn't an economic theory. It's a frequently cited example of why correlation is not causation. To add to the bit about 1970s pop culture, let's remember dear ol' Daisy Duke. So far as I know, the late seventies were the only time when short shorts with high heels was considered acceptable (although far more common on television than in real life, as I recall, because few women have perfect legs). A related late seventies-early eighties fashion that more women observed was to wear high heels with designer jeans. Durova 06:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]