Humanities desk
< September 29	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	October 1 >

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 30[edit]

Two Weeks of Hawaiian History: A Sketch of the Revolution of 1893[edit]

Is there anyway to research who the author of this piece is?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two Weeks of Hawaiian History: A Sketch of the Revolution of 1893. Honolulu: Hawaiian Gazette. 1893. OCLC 13504495.

You may have already seen this, but the whole book can be viewed online here, courtesy of the Hathi Trust. No mention of the authors though. Alansplodge (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have. I was wondering if a secondary source speaking about this source might possibly have researched and found the author. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I only found a reference to The Hawaiian Kingdom And Its Downfall published or republished in 2011, which apparently includes the text of Two Weeks of Hawaiian History and is credited to " Fred W Grantham; Ed Towse (b. 1867); Henry E Chambers (1860-1929)". Whether they were the authors or editors, I don't know. Alansplodge (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In U.S. divorces, which state has jurisdiction?[edit]

Imagine a reasonably common scenario: A husband and wife separate, and each establishes residency in a different state. They remain apart for at least the minimum time to qualify for no-fault divorce in either state.

Now, as I understand it, in the U.S., different states can have vastly different rules for deciding matters related to divorce - be it alimony, child support, division of formerly joint marital property, and custody and visitation rules for children of the marriage.

Now imagine the husband and wife each reside in a state where they feel the rules are more beneficial to them - or, perhaps, have established residency in the state in question for precisely this reason. They both separately file for divorce (including the accompanying things - property division, custody / visitation, alimony, and child support), each in their respective current state of residency. How would the courts decide which of the two states should hear and decide the proceedings? (More important than the physical location of the courtroom is the question, by which state's laws?) Is it simply a question of "who files first"? Does the state in which they last lived as a couple have any particular claims? The state in which they married? I'm sure this issue must arise relatively frequently, so what is the legal rule in deciding this question (conflicting claims to jurisdiction)?

(I think this question is general enough that it can be answered without any answers constituting "legal advice". Neither I nor anyone I know is in this situation, it's just a general question. If you disagree, please simply state so, rather than removing the question). 110.140.58.225 (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to LegalZoom, jurisdiction belongs to the state in which the divorce was first filed, provided the filing spouse meets the state's residence requirement for divorce filings [1]. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this lead to a "rush to file" in such a situation, then, with each party looking to get in before the other? Also, wouldn't such a sitation (of rushing to file in a favourable jurisdiction) worsen chances of reconciliation, due to a fear that the spouse will file first, in their own jurisdiction which favours them? This seems like a bad policy recipe. 110.140.58.225 (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be exactly what happens. But then, the person who didn't file has no legislators to complain to. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But what would be a better policy? Last to file? (But then what if the proceedings have started in the first state when the second one files? How long do you wait?) Force the spouses to go back to the state where they got married, even if it was in Hawai? The rule as described by Someguy at least is practical and can be applied. --Lgriot (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is governed by the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. See this summary from the Uniform Law Commissioners, which should answer your question. Neutrality^talk 14:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Godwin's law paradox[edit]

Wait, what does Godwin's law say is supposed to happen if you compare yourself to Hitler?[2] I had to ask. I'm sure it tells us something. 50.0.205.96 (talk) 08:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Godwin's law is satisfied in such a case. People frequently misquote Godwin's law as "The first person to compare the other side to Hitler loses", whereas the actual quote is what you can read from the article. However, if the frequent misquoted version were correct, then Godwin's law would turn Duterte's comment into a liar's paradox. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't think to look there. There's a "self-Godwinization" entry on the talk page mentioning that Tayyip Erdogan compared himself to Hitler earlier this year, i.e. ahead of Duterte. I left a note about Duterte. It's late here now but I might add the citations to the article tomorrow and see if they stick. 50.0.205.96 (talk) 09:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We actually have User:Mike Godwin on Wikipedia to consult for this one. I've been mulling over the idea of asking him to declare his law repealed in full, since from the concentration camps of North Korea to the genocidal atrocities of ISIS to the Russian targeting of aid workers and hospitals and the American justifications for torture, the behavior of the Nazis generally no longer seems so far out of the international mainstream as to be inappropriate for comparison. Wnt (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then, of course, there is the meta-Godwin's Law, which states that any meaningful discussion of actual fascism, Nazism, or Hitler himself ceases to produce any more useful discourse as soon as someone cites Godwin's Law. --Jayron 32 14:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His quote says nothing about inappropriate comparison. Just that the probability of such comparison approaches one. Sad as the state of the world may be, it actually bolsters the veracity of the law, in my interpretation. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright law[edit]

I've applied for a patent. In the body of the patent narrative I refer to a few pages of a 400 page book. The patent attorney asked me to provide electronic copies of those 6 or so pages to file with the application. I tried to scan the pages myself but the quality was bad, so I took the book to FedEx, which swallowed Kinkos in years past, and asked them to scan the pages. They looked at the copyright warning and refused. They also said nobody would touch it. Now the book has Copyright © 1988. Today is 2016, so the copyright for this book is 28 years old. I'm just curious, how long will it last? Perhaps it has already expired? Thanks --AboutFace 22 (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cornell's copyright chart is a great resource for this. Assuming you are concerned with US copyright law, and the book was published in the US, "70 years after the death of author. If a work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first". Someguy1221 (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copying the 6 pages to file a patent looks like a case of fair use to me, despite people overreacting to what appears a copyright infringement to them. See more about it at: [3]. --Llaanngg (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it's not considered legal advice if I suggest talking to your patent attorney about why you weren't able to scan the pages. He or she should at least have some familiarity with copyright law! --69.159.61.230 (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My impression from what I've read is that many large chains don't really care about fair use nowadays, probably due to fear of lawsuits if mistakes are made are a perception that the lost business is less costly than how much the lawsuits may be. If there's any sign of a work being copyrighted, they require permission of the copyright holder. See e.g. [4] "FedEx Office requires written permission from the copyright holder in order to reproduce any copyrighted work." Note that I'm not saying that what the OP is trying to do is fair use, simply that it's likely FedEx and most other large companies aren't going to care especially if you ask their staff to do the copying. Nil Einne (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I bet for what that guy charges an hour, it would be cheaper to buy a brand new scanner, maybe a professional grade SLR camera. Wnt (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. The book is published in the US, It is a mathematical compendium, translated from the Russian, most likely the authors (3) are dead. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The act of translation might create a new copyright. Presumably the 1988 copyright refers to the translation, and not the original. Though if not, that changes things. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but in any case Copyright law of the Russian Federation means that copyright of somewhat recent works is often 50 years or more. Nil Einne (talk) 05:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is it about the pages that makes them difficult to scan? Have you tried a standard copying machine? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A good cell phone camera can often do an adequate job. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a sufficiently good digital camera should do the trick. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably but maybe not. For a book, most commonly a halfway decent scanner shouldn't be that bad compared to a camera it can be better or worse than the camera depending on numerous things. Without further knowledge of why the OP isn't getting good results with the scanner, it's difficult to say for sure that the camera would work. As it's a thick book, they should try and press the end of the book down as much as possible if scanning pages in the middle of the book. If they aren't doing this, they may be getting bad results near the book binding, perhaps even close to the centre of the page depending on precisely how thick. However you would still generally expect okay results at the outer part of the page. If they aren't getting this then it would seem likely something else is wrong. If they are getting this, cameras given their lenses and design can tolerate are far wider focal depth so will do a good job even without pushing the page, but alternatively simple pressing the book near the binding to make it as flat as possible will normally be enough. Note that the OP didn't ask about this anyway so maybe they've already resolved the scanning issue. Nil Einne (talk) 05:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That could explain part of the troubles with the scanner. And I infer from his question that he didn't figure out how to do it. Maybe he'll come back here and engage in some dialogue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, some years ago I needed a copy of an A4 document I was about to post, and obtained a perfectly legible photo using a 35mm film camera. Today's digital cameras are much cheaper per image, and even if it took several pictures per page to successfully capture the required text, that ought to be acceptable for legal purposes.

As a former editor and researcher (in the UK), I concur that there should be no copyright objection to reproducing 6 pages from a 400p reference work for legal use, and FedEx were wrong. Could the OP access a public library, where scanning might to be available? I'm presuming there's some logistical reason why the patent attorney him/herself could not do the scan – could the OP not post the book to the attorney to be scanned and returned?{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.211.191 (talk) 09:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, does attorney-client privilege override copyright even when it is NOT fair use? I mean, how could a conversation with a lawyer be private if he had to go on and register for software licenses and access tokens? Wnt (talk) 10:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. Obviously my first reaction, after the attorney's secretary asked me for the pages, was to ask my son-in-law to help me. I held the book and he took the scans with his cell-phone. He then emailed them to me. I looked at the images-they were wavy. I sent them to the attorney's office. They politely rejected them. After that I decided that the new attempt should be done by a professional. That is when the FedEx lady read the copyright notice. It never occurred to me to even glance at it before. So, I read that paragraph. It is over-inclusive and you cannot copy anything under any circumstances. Since it is such a sensitive issue: a future patent (who knows perhaps it will be challenged one day), I decided to investigate every option and find out a legal way. First I thought perhaps the copyright had expired already. It looks like it has not. So, my next step will be either a letter or a phone call or email to the publisher. Their "contact us" information is on the web. Another possible option will be to buy an electronic copy of the book and send it to the examiner, if he ever decides to read it, which is not given. So there are ways although some are clumsy. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The book is a compendium of mathematical formulas, none of them the authors derived themselves. They all found them in various periodicals, so there is no originality in anything. To find the original publications for me will be next to impossible or very labor intensive. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are dealing with a patent attorney, they have obviously dealt with this issue in the past. Have you asked the attorney for a recommendation as to where you can get the pages scanned? Perhaps where other clients have gotten pages scanned? → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 20:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]