Miscellaneous desk
< May 12	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 14 >

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

May 13

currency described as art?

On the main page, there is this photo: File:GEA-49-Deutsch_Ostafrikanische_Bank-200_Rupien_(1915).jpg. The license describes it as a photo of a work of art. Does this mean that it is not a photo of an actual banknote and is instead some artist rendition of it? Or does "art" mean something else in this context? RudolfRed (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The term "work of art" usually refers to a product of the fine arts, such as a painting. While the term is sometimes used figuratively ("Donald Trump’s pathetic, arrogant resignation from Screen Actors Guild is truly a work of art"^[1]), I don't think that is the intention here. Wikimedia Commons does not explicitly define the term; the closest I could find to a definition is contained in the phrase "a faithful reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art such as a painting", found at Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#The U.S. case of Bridgeman v. Corel (1999). But, basically, the idea of the verdict in this case was that the photographer does not hold a copyright because their producing a faithful reproduction involved no originality, which (INAL, but, IMO) should equally apply to any faithful (and therefore non-creative) reproduction of a two-dimensional work; only the copyright holder, if any, of the original work, can claim copyright. --Lambiam 10:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that insofar as someone had to make decisions about the design of the note, including the aesthetic elements, the choice of fonts, the word placement, all represents creative elements that would qualify it as art. It's not my taste, but you can't say that it's any different than, say, Banknotes of the pound sterling or something like that. Merely because it is functional does not also mean it isn't art. --Jayron 32 14:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies. RudolfRed (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm not a lawyer, I understand U.S. law is sceptical of logos and designs which are simply text or basic geometric shapes (made under wartime conditions, this would have been made up in printer's rule-basically cast metal ornaments or strip). This probably has just too much text content and ornament to hit that problem, but Wikimedia Commons contains corporate logos-for example, the McDonald's golden arches-on the grounds that they're below the threshold of originality. (In other words, if all your logo does is type out the company's name, that's not copyrightable.) So this looks to me a lot less copyrightable than banknotes with pictures on them. Copyrightability of the symbol is obviously different from trademark: the digital file of the McDonalds logo may not be copyrightable, but if I started selling burgers with it on I would be liable for imitating their product. (To anyone interested in the history of printing to make forgery difficult, I recommend this presentation by font designer Tobias Frere-Jones.) Blythwood (talk) 07:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rare Human Abilities

Hello, good day, I just want to inquire if Wikipedia has a currently-existing list of rare human abilities and/or neurological problems that are often positively considered "extraordinary" or "superhuman", such as ambidexterity, bilingualism, savant syndrome (which results the patients into having prodigiousness in plenty of artistic and academic skills), synaesthesia, hyperthemesia/photographic memory, etc.

Thank you!

Random mediocre person (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided links to items you mention, and as you can see, we have articles on all but one of them. One sticking point might be trying to find a rigorous definition of "rare". Left-handedness is "rare" compared to right-handedness, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have such a list. Your criteria are varied and rather vague, so another sticking point would be your idea of "extraordinary" and "superhuman". I wouldn't consider most of those items as either.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People growing up in a bilingual environment, estimated to be more than 40% of the world's population, naturally become bilingual; see Simultaneous bilingualism § Prevalence. So this is hardly a rare ability. Ambidexterity is indeed uncommon, with about a 1% prevalence; see Handedness § Types. Both are, nevertheless, acquired skills, like riding a unicycle but very unlike, for instance, synaesthesia, and it would be unencyclopedic to commingle these all in some same category. We do have a category Giftedness, listing articles (or subcategories) related to various extraordinary cognitive abilities. --Lambiam 09:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The OP might enjoy this old Cracked article. Matt Deres (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know what OP is going for, and I'd like to see a list too. "Super-recognizers" would fit. Temerarius (talk) 07:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on super-recognizers. For a list, we need, per WP:LISTCRIT, an unambiguous and objective selection criterion so that we can determine what should and should not be included ("the ability to peel an apple in one long curly strip"? "the ability to balance five eggs on top of each other"? "the ability to stay under water without breathing for over twenty minutes"?) – next to the general issue of demonstrable notability of whatever that list's topic is. --Lambiam 09:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems more like what's needed is a list of lists, though many of the items on the list of lists of lists are not our greatest work. You can find the occasional one that might fit the OPs concept, like list of oldest fathers, but you soon find the slippery slope. Matt Deres (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]