Humanities desk
< January 2	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 4 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities 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.

January 3[edit]

Copyrights[edit]

As I understand it, copyright protection for items older than 95 years have become public domain on January 1, a practice which will continue every January 1 for some decades to come. My question is, what does that do to Wikipedia's restrictions on photos made during 1924. Previously, 1923 was the cutoff. Is there a page where this is being discussed? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't spend much time working in the area of copyright, but perhaps Wikipedia:Media copyright questions would be the best forum for your question. --Jayron 32 13:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And they've confirmed what I had assumed.[1] Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Note that the statement that it won't change for "some decades to come" is only an assumption. There might always be another Mickey Mouse Protection Act. --142.112.159.101 (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also: 2020 in public domain and Commons:Public Domain Day/2020 with examples of newly public domain works. Rmhermen (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hackers[edit]

I recall that in the early to mid 90’s there were a handful of “hackers” in the USA who were convicted of various hacker related crimes. Odd penalties were applied to these people, I recall one of them was ordered to not be allowed in the same room with any computer type device more powerful than a standard calculator. Where are they now? In the modern world it would not be possible for these people to function in the world without solitary confinement. Were these convictions overturned, or the punishments withdrawn? Or was this an urban myth or false memory? Thanks. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 11:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The most notable was Kevin Mitnick, who was arrested and convicted in 1995, served 5 years in prison, and was not allowed to use any electronic device more advanced than a landline telephone. Perhaps that was who you were thinking of. --Jayron 32 13:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[2] has samples of conditions imposed by federal courts in the US, the most stringent of which is "You must not possess and/or use computers (as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(1)) or other electronic communications or data storage devices or media." I'd note that both this, and the restrictions on Kevin Mitnick bar the ownership of or use of such devices rather than being in the same room, although since these are probation conditions and so violations of them may not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, I'd imagine many lawyers would urge caution regarding being in the same room as such devices unsupervised. This articles discusses the complexity of such limitations [3] which this from 2003 discusses controversy of limitations on internet usage [4]. I'd note that as these are probation conditions, they generally should not last forever, and if I understand the above article correctly while Kevin Mitnick's limitation was overturned anyway, it was only supposed to last about 3 years. That said, conditions on sex offenders may last beyond probation. I'm not sure if this extends to bans on owning computers, but there are well known cases like Julia Tuttle Causeway sex offender colony [5] and others [6] arising from residence restrictions Nil Einne (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found this regarding a successful challenge to a condition in West Virginia [7] prohibiting "possessing or having contact with any computer, electronic device, communication device or any device which was enabled with internet access." Although "having contact" (assuming that was really the language used) is more ambiguous than "using", the initial outcome does IMO illustrate my point about the risks noting in that case the computer was even password protected and the defendant said they did not know the password something which was not challenged. This [8] is about a successful challenge to a less restrictive condition. I'd note that both involved people convicted of sex offences. This is a complaint about what they argue is an overbroad use of a less restrictive condition (ban on internet use), somewhat similar to my earlier NY Times link I guess. This discusses the experiences of someone subject to such a restriction (ban on internet use) [9] although the podcast with the full story doesn't work. This discusses an overturned lifetime ban for a sex offender [10] / [11]. (As the later source makes clearer, technically you could argue this is a probation condition as it's condition on supervised released, but that supervised released is intended to last the defendant's whole life.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Aristocracy[edit]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7842305/Japans-royal-family-beam-laugh-pose-New-Years-family-portrait.html

In this picture, what are they doing, what are they looking at, is the green object an ashtray?! Western Monarchies would usually have themselves pictured in a more formal posture. Thanks. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 12:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the photos and considering the source, I'm pretty sure the Daily Fail reversed the order they were meant to be seen in in an effort to make the Japanese royal family seem less formal than they really are. The last photo in the gallery is extremely formal, and the rest appear to be Omake.

If you look at the gallery, you'll get the rest of your answers: the little critter figurines are ornaments representing the Chinese Zodiac, the green thing is a purse, and they actually can pose formally. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Mail article calls it a "mouse ornament" but I think Inrō might be a better description, although an unusually large one. BTW, Japan Today has only the formal team photo. Alansplodge (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't link to those odious fear mongers and purveyors of hate at the Mail. It will only serve to legitimise them. Fgf10 (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

US Hispanics with ancestors who lived in the US before 1848[edit]

Does anyone here know what percentage of US Hispanics have ancestors who lived in the US (as in, within the US's present-day borders) before 1848? Futurist110 (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's about 7 or 8 generations ago. A person has 128 direct ancestors in the seventh generation. Most people cannot document all 128 of those people, so it would be all but impossible to get that data for millions of people. --Jayron 32 02:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we use a different, more recent year as a benchmark instead? For instance, 1900 or 1910 or even 1940? Futurist110 (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Futurist110 -- the only areas of the territory handed over in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which had substantial settled populations of non-Indians and non-Anglos at the time were northern New Mexico, the San Antonio, Texas area, and the lower Rio Grande valley in Texas. Similar and related questions have been discussed many times before here, though the only one I can find with a quick simple search is Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2018 October 22#In the late 1840s, - AnonMoos (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]