Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 September 5

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 5

Suicide as a criminal act?

Help me to understand this law. Isn't it senseless?, that one who commits suicide, could never be judged for his/her "crime".--190.50.88.25 (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

See Legal views of suicide. Not really for several reasons.

• For much of history, legal codes were derived from religious teaching. Insofar as your life was given to you by the Creator, it is a crime against the creator's law to kill yourself, since it is, of course his life
• There are serious legal issues regarding assisted suicide; that is whether a second person can be held accountable in the death of someone when helping the second party kill themselves.
• There are concerns in civil law as well as criminal; many insurance policies may not pay survivors in the case of suicide, for example. There are consequences for many people beyond the dead person when they commit suicide, and those issues must be addressed in the laws.
• The discussion over whether or not attempting suicide is a punishible offense or not is largely an academic one, since in all but the most unique cases, it generally is not prosecuted at all, indeed in most juridictions in the Anglophone world, it isn't a crime at all anymore, though as mentioned, it may be a civil offense. --Jayron32 02:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)You may find Suicide: History of the penal laws relating to it in their legal, social, moral and religious aspects in ancient and modern times (1875) interesting reading, and we do have a (surprisingly short) article on Legal views of suicide. But the obvious answer would be yes, which is why most countries don't have it as a criminal offense these days (unless you can't do it yourself and need help, which opens up a whole new minefield --Saalstin (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Another reason not mentioned above is because making it illegal gives the law the ability to respond and to try and stop someone from committing the act. As it stands now, you can be forced to receive help against your will because the police are allowed to prevent you from committing a criminal act. If it were not illegal, it would be a lot harder for one's family, friends, and local law enforcement agents to do such things. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 02:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ironically enough, in the UK, suicide (or attempted suicide) used to be punishable by the death sentence (hanging). There is also a wealth of information to be found here, with some details about which countries still have laws related to suicide. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 03:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

On a similar point, it also makes it easier to consider assisting suicide illegal - if the act itself weren't illegal, you'd have a much harder time trying to make helping illegal. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It used to be quite popular to jump in front of speeding trains in Japan - a very reliable method and easily done considering most railways there have virtually no obstacles to approach. However, the government & railway companies conspired to pass legislation stipulating that the dead person's living relatives were responsible for footing the bills related to delayed trains, scraping brains off rails, etc. which often amounted to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Naturally, being polite to a fault and not wanting to impose such a hardship upon their surviving kin, suicidal Japanese quickly shifted to other methods. An interesting quirk of society, and a wonderfully simple & successful government policy. 61.189.63.208 (talk) 12:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Reasoning for making it illegal is so insurance policys would not need to be paid out ECT...Your well insured so you get pushed down the stairs and it is given as suicide your partner is know rich...the insurance is not paid thus stopping you getting pushed down the stairsChromagnum (talk) 08:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

World War III

Why does everyone think World War III will involve nuclear weapons? Can't anyone who participates in the war just not use such weapons? Jc iindyysgvxc (talk) 02:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The deal is, not everyone trusts their enemies to not use such weapons. Everyone says "None of my friends will use them, but I am not so sure about those guys over there..." Still, there are some serious historical arguements that say that nuclear weapons may have actually prevented World War III (see Mutual assured destruction, Brinksmanship, and especially Deterrence theory). --Jayron32 02:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"Oh, I know we're at war trying to kill each other, but I promise not to use these weapons that will make me win." It'd be like promising to not use a gun when someone is trying to kill you with a knife. It's both parties having guns that has potentially saved us, as Jayron32 said. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 02:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Right now, Tom Lehrer's World War III song is rattling in my head: "So long, Mom / I'm off to drop the bomb / So don't wait up for me ... I'll look for you when the war is over / An hour and a half from now!" However, that kind of thinking was based on conventional warfare a la World War II and the Cold War, influenced by Dr. Strangelove and so on. Some claim we are in World War III already, with 9/11 having been but one of its "battles". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

And as the other two respondents said, when you're in a war, you're in it to win or else your screwed (as we hopefully learned from Vietnam). So if nukes are "needed" to win, then they'll be used - just like in WWII. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Even if in these enlightened times such use would lead to MAD? -- JackofOz (talk) 05:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It all depends on what the consequences of losing are. If the war is just over a bit of territory on the border, or they are fighting over a 3rd country, then losing won't lead to destruction so it would be foolish to use nuclear weapons (other than small tactical ones, I suppose - the use of such weapons is rather controversial). If you are looking at a full blown invasion then you may be facing destruction anyway, so you may think along the lines of "If I'm going down, I'm taking them with me.". Another issue is what you consider to be "destruction". Someone like Kim Jong-il may well consider anything that removes him from power to be "destruction" so will be willing to use his nuclear weapons. The leaders of a western democracy probably won't use nuclear weapons unless they are facing the death of a large portion of their populations (although it is possible they will decide that life under occupation by their enemy isn't worth living for and it is better that a fraction of the population survive to live freely, but I doubt it). --Tango (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It used to be the case that WWIII was conceived as a war involving the US (and Europe) and the Soviet Union. The idea was that the Soviets had superior manpower, and would overrun Allied forces quickly, requiring the use of nuclear weapons if they didn't want to become Soviet subjugates. Nuclear weapons would probably start being used at a tactical level, but escalation would kick in and it would become strategic. Or something along those lines. Additionally, the uncertainty about WHEN you might be nuked might encourage you to try to be the country that would nuke first.

Now it's not necessarily true this would happen, even then. Even today it is not clear, if the nuclear states were not threatened with imminent, total destruction. There are also instances of MAD-like circumstances holding strong even when states felt they were close to total destruction. Hence the lack of use of chemical and biological weapons by the Western powers in WWII. Hitler could have used such weapons—he chose not to, knowing that the Allies would retaliate in kind. The problem is that such weapons generally don't make one win when both sides have them—they make both sides lose. (See, e.g., chemical warfare, WWI.)

Today a lot of this is up in the air—it's not clear how the lines of alliances would be drawn. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

If a war doesn't involve nuclear weapons, it probably won't be called World War III. Some people have called the Cold War or the ongoing "War Against Terror" WWIII, but the description hasn't caught on. Warofdreams talk 01:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You know what I think? Not that I would ever condone what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but the world probably needed an actual example (one would have been enough) in order to ensure it can never happen again. Now that many countries have nuclear weapons, nobody would ever be game to be the first to use them again, for fear of chain reactions (no pun intended). So the nuclear weapons that have been built up would only be used if someone else attacked first, and maybe not even then. They're a mutual deterrent. They're a bit like the reserve powers of the British crown - they exist but are almost never used, and neither should they be. In the meantime, wars go on and on, but nobody ever brings out "the big guns", and they're not going to start. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Rats

When I was little, I had this movie of some sort of mice/rats. I remember the rats being really mean and large. I think it was on another planet, as the rats/mice had cities and spoke like people. It isnt NIMH. I recall the rats as being kind of a pale pink. The movie was kinda derpessing. Does anyone know what this movie is XM (talk) 04:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Maus, maybe? --pma (talk) 06:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Not yet filmed, as far as I'm aware. It would help if XM specified the period a little more precisely than "when I was little" - was that in the mid 1990's or the early 1950's? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It was probablly around 85-87 or so. It was on VHS. XM (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

In that case, the 1986 An American Tail seems a possibility, though it's not extraterrestial. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Our Entertainment desk may be able to provide you with more answers than the Humanities desk. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

biker mice from mars? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

help

I want to know the historial back ground of Nutkani baloches? plz help me out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legal offender (talk • contribs) 05:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Our article on the tribe, Nutkani, lists this website as a source: nutkani.net, which includes a history section. I hope this helps, WikiJedits (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Corsican given names

I red somewhere in the web that Corsican (and Italian) given names are (or were) forbidden in Corsica. I mean, if you are a Corsican, you can't christen your children Ghjacumu or Giacomo, but only Jacques. Is it true? Does a specific law exist? Was it true in the past but not nowadays? Are Corsican names common in Corsica, or are used only in informal situations? --151.51.9.229 (talk) 11:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It may have been true in the past, but I am almost positive it is in no way true today. Italian given names are fairly common in cities such as Nice and other areas of French Savoy. I don't have any concrete examples at my fingertips, but I have certainly heard of people from southeastern France with Italian first names. --Jayron32 11:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC

A google glance hints that in 1803 France legislated given names and ordered civil registrars to allow only names appearing in French calendars (i.e. Saints spelled in French), ancient Greek or Roman names, and names from the Bible. [1]. French_names#Given_names continues:

"Much later, actually in 1966, a new law permitted a limited number of mythological, regional or foreign names, substantives (Olive, Violette), diminutives, and alternative spellings. Only in 1993 were French parents given the freedom to name their child without any constraint whatsoever. However, if the birth registrar thinks that the chosen names (alone or in association with the last name) may be detrimental to the child's interests, or to the right of other families to protect their own family name, the registrar may refer the matter to the local prosecutor, who may choose to refer the matter to the local court. The court may then refuse the chosen names. Such refusals are rare and mostly concern given names that may expose the child to mockery."

I wasn't able to access the pertinent references given in the article. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Complete nonsense. The two most famous novellas that take place in nineteenth century Corsica are Mateo Falcone and Colomba, which are the names of the main characters. Some other examples of Corsican people with a Corsican name include : Angelo Rinaldi, Petru Rocca, Santu Casanova, etc. --Gede (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The worst witch trial?

Which was the worst witch trial in history? by that I mean the biggest, with the largest number of people executed? I know Salem witch trial, is the most famous one, but was it also the worst one? I have heard about witch trials with far more victims in Europe, were the condemend were burned alive at the stake and not hanged. Which was the worst altogether? And: which was the worst in each country? --85.226.42.22 (talk) 13:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a large (and unpleasant) subject and I don't have time to go into in details right now (running late for a barbeque, ironically), but your suspicions are right that the Salem trials were not outstandingly large even by American standards, and persecutions in Europe were extensive - accurate numbers are difficult because official records were often not made (many trials/executions were less than regular) or preserved, but estimates of total victims of "the burning times" (as we Pagans call them) generally run into the low hundred thousands, sometimes higher. The penalties involved also varied from country to country, and depended on the actual charges involved. Many "witches" (I use quotes because a great many victims, probably the large majority, were almost certainly not really witches in any sense) were charged not with "witchraft" per se but with heresy, with the local Christian authorities' penalties being applied - without good details of the cases, such victims blur into those of religious persecutions aimed at "the wrong sort of Christianity". Others were charged with the supposed offense for which their supposed witchcraft had been used to carry out, rather than with "being a witch" in itself.

In England most victims convicted of heresy were hanged, but those convicted of treason (e.g. trying to poison the monarch) or petit treason (killing one's husband) were usually burned. In Scotland burning was more standard, but the victim could be mercifully strangled prior to ignition in exchange for a full "confession" (which essentially meant agreeing to anything the torturers' lurid imaginations could invent). I believe burnings were also particularly common in Germany.

Mass trials/executions were not unknown, either because (as at Salem) sequential torture caused ever-widening webs of implicatory "confessions/accusations", or because the authorities might decide that killing a whole village was easier, on the "God will recognise his own" principle - the general Christian zeitgeist was that the next life was more important than this one.

Remember too that a widespread procedure for "proving" witchcraft was to "float" the suspect: if they floated (something easy to manipulate) they were deemed guilty; if the sank they were not proven guilty, but might well be drowned. Others may have resisted "confessing" under torture but later died from their injuries. Yet others were simply lynched either before formal trial, or after being found not guilty. Are the "not-guilty-but-dead's" numbers to be counted or not?

I'll try to return with some more specific figures, and references, in the next couple of days or so. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The "kill them all" thing comes from the Albigensian Crusade, supposedly uttered by Arnaud Amalric. I don't think that was ever the point of witch trials (and may not have ever happened at all anyway). Adam Bishop (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You could do some research on this from Category:Witch trials --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The only reason that Salem is famous is because its witch trials were very well documented (in fact, Salem's court records in general are among the most carefully preserved in general in the United States, if I recall correctly—the witch parts are just a small piece of that). The Early Modern European witch trials killed many, many more people—somewhere between 12,000 people and 60,000. (Recommendation: if you go to Salem, avoid the "witch trial" museum, it is awful Wicca hucksterism, a total rip-off. Instead go to the House of the Seven Gables, it is quite wonderful, far more interesting.) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

According to Gustav Henningsen, The Witches' Advocate. Basque Witchcraft and the Spanish Inquisition (1609-1614), Reno, University of Nevada Press, 1980, the largest witch trial was the series of trials that occurred in the Basque country in those years. About 2.000 people confessed to being witches, of whom the majority was children of 14 years of age or younger, and 5.000 in all was suspected of being witches. Although only a fraction was actually executed (more died during their imprisonment than was executed), most were pardoned and the trials actually led to a reform of the witch trial judicial system, which made it harder to convict people of witchcraft in Spain. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

What I want to know is: which single witch trial resulted in most executions? Wikipedia is always being updated, so perhaps Wikipedia lacks some of them? Here, the worst seem to be the Trier witch trials, or the Würzburg witch trials. I have heard about (if I remember correctly) about witch trials in Basque in the 1510s-1520s (before the 1610s case), trials in Geneva in the 1520s, and in Toulouse, which was to have had hundreds of people being burned alive at the stake in each trial. Those trials may have been exhaggerated, but still, wikipedia may perhaps lack some big trials, so I am a little unsure. It would also be interestig to see which was the worst trial in each country. --85.226.40.201 (talk) 11:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have no special knowledge of the literature in this field. I can only refer to the articles Witch-hunt, European witchcraft, Witch trials in Early Modern Europe and death by burning, although far from optimal, they do provide a few good examples as well as some books that might be holding the answers that you are looking for. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It is unlikely that a single trial featured more than a handful of defendants. In Salem, for example, there were actually many trials, some running concurrently, and some with multiple defendants. If we consider a single "trial" to be one defendant or group of defendants standing before a judge & jury being prosecuted, then all those killed at Salem represented probably dozens of different trials. The entire episode at Salem is of taken as a single 'event' because of the concentrated nature of the trials. However, there were many places in Europe (see some examples above) where witches were tried, convicted, and executed on a more-or-less continuous basis, some by formal trials, others were merely lynched. Its actually a very complicated history, and answering the question comes down to first defining what is meant by a "trial" or an "outbreak" or whatever. --Jayron32 23:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

What I menat by "trial" was: one or several witch trials, which were connected and a part of the very same persecution: if one trial is followed by another, and this continues for eleven years, than this can be counted as one single event, as it was a continous and not interrupted persecution. Lynchings does not aply, only formal trials, verdicts and executions. --85.226.40.201 (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Early computer animation I dimly remember

This was played in a booth in the London Science Museum, in the late 80s I think. It was set to Bach's Air on a G String. The animation involved a cube: what else it involved, I'm less sure of, although I have the idea that the cube revolved, opened up, things came out of it, and somewhere in the sequence something morphed into the cube again and the whole film was recursive, with no definite end. (I might be wrong on that point, but it was definitely on constant loop with no pause between iterations.) I have an idea that one of the things that came out of the cube was a trumpet, that there was a castle sometimes seen in the distance, and that the whole thing was gaudily flat-shaded. It was in proper 3D, I should add, not just drawn on a computer.

Do you know what it was, or where there is a list of early computer animations, or a chronological list of digital artists? 213.122.1.156 (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you contacted the Science Museum [2] and asked them? --TammyMoet (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. I got an out of office reply, "a response will definitely be forwarded to you within 20 working days". Gee. They say they answer questions about objects in their collection, but perhaps being able to identify the object myself is a prerequisite to asking about it. 213.122.1.156 (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it is Saturday! --TammyMoet (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

They just got back to me, and the guy has diligently searched the inventory for me, but this produced only a lecture on virtual reality from the 90s, which wasn't the thing at all. Meanwhile I looked around YouTube a bit, and I found some 80s animations in a similar style by a company from Barcelona called Animàtica. None of them seem to be the right one, though. Oh well. 213.122.20.81 (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like it could have been influenced by the "Sea of Science" or "Only A Northern Song" sequence in the Beatles' Yellow Submarine film... AnonMoos (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Might this have been an animation of a tesseract, something like the one immediately below the infobox in our article (but an "opaque" one with images on the faces)? Deor (talk) 02:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

"Bach's Air on a G String" . . . with a thong in my heart? DOR (HK) (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft has a screensaver like that. Did you wiggle the mouse on the display? Googlemeister (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This was an unpublished animation custom created for the stand-alone booth for the museum. You'll never find it on the Internet or listed in a history of animation (unless the artist published it subsequently).
Sleigh (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

abortion support in private health insurance

An issue in the current U.S. health care debate is whether abortion services should be explicitly excluded. This led me to wonder: are such services generally included in private health care plans? in any? I'm especially interested in employer plans, since the vast majority of coverage is provided by them. --Halcatalyst (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Chickity check it out. According to that article, a survey said "87 percent of typical employer plans covered abortion in 2002" and another "in 2003 found that 46 percent of workers in employer plans had coverage for abortions." That looks like the majority of plans, and nearly half of workers. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 16:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

So, in effect, 87% of the people with health care through their employers are already paying for abortions with their premiums. But that won't stop many of them from going bananas if they suddenly are confronted with the possibility. Sigh... hooray for ignorance! --98.217.14.211 (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, no. It was 87% of plans from employeers. Only 46% of workers in employer plans had coverage, meaning (if I interpret their numbers correctly) that 13% of plans cover 54% of people, all of whom are not covered for abortions under their plans. Granted, those are two completely different studies, so the numbers could well be skewed. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 20:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, male employees' abortion procedures are not covered, except at Google. Tempshill (talk) 03:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Very funny. Now, I would suspect the disparity in the percentages is that abortion coverage is an option, and that only something over half of those actually opted for it, as each option adds to the cost, and a lot of folks would say, "I'll never use that, so why opt for it?" As for the national health care package, I would be very surprised to see an abortion option get through, as the Republicans would probably filibuster it to death in the Senate. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The other thing I guess is what is a typical plan? If for example, most 'typical plans' for executives included abortions but a number of key 'typical plans' for more ordinary workers did not it's easy to imagine such a skew. Particularly if a few important typical plans. For example if Wal-Mart, McDonalds, Starbucks low level employee plans do not include abortion, that would be a resonable percentage of workers right there I presume. Yet there could be only 3 typical plans there. Nil Einne (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you all for your responses. --Halcatalyst (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

French encyclopedic conventions (present/past tense choice)

The article [3] about Évariste Galois states Évariste Galois (Bourg-la-Reine, 25 octobre 1811 - Paris, 31 mai 1832) est un mathématicien français.. They use the present tense despite Galois passed away long ago. Why is that? Just about any other language uses the past tense. --Belchman (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Old mathematicians never die, they just get factored out. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be the French style. I looked at the French articles on Alexander Graham Bell and Freud just for comparison and, in each case, the opening sentence which describes what he is still (and that may be the operating factor) famous for is in the present tense. // BL \\ (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet strangely, it's not followed consistently. Perhaps a visit to the francais Oracle is in order... --Saalstin (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The use of the historical present isn't unusual in English, but it seems to be going out of style. It does seem more common in French. - Nunh-huh 21:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

yes, fr.wikipedia's Manual of Style dictates présent de narration or présent historique, even when the topic is dead. See fr:Wikipédia:Conventions_de_style#Biographies. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Often what has been written is considered to have passed out of time. The processes of thinking and writing remain in the past. Similarly with works of art: how does Ictinus make visual adjustments in the Parthenon? meaning how has he solved them. Lincoln wrote some notes on the back of an envelope. How does Lincoln use triple rhythms in the Gettysburg Address?--Wetman (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Does the copyright of a dead artist pass to his next of kin?

That's all. --bodnotbod (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It's property, like anything else, and can be bought and sold, left and given. The only difference is that it expires X years after the artist dies. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that remains to be seen. --Anonymous, 21:44 UTC, September 5, 2009.

Do you mean, "maybe it won't expire, because it will be extended"? That's true, though technically there is always an expiration date. Congress has the ability to change that date. But it still can technically expire... though the date can move. (Which I agree sucks, but that's not the same thing as saying it can't expire.) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless it says otherwise in his will, yes. The expiration rules vary from country to country (and from type of work to type of work), of course. I don't know of a jurisdiction where copyright expires upon death, though (some things expire X years after creation or publication and don't involve death at all, though). --Tango (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tango. Good to see you here my fellow Wikimedia UK member :o). Finlay, I appreciate it can be left, but the question is who does it go to in the situation where nothing is made explicit. Thanks for the rapid replies. I'm surprised neither of you have left the "I Am Not A Lawyer" (IANAL) caveat. --bodnotbod (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

First, obviously he might already have sold the copyright, in which case it's not his death that matters, it's the new owner's. But if he still owns it then in the absence of any explicit statement it's just part of his estate. If he had a will and it wasn't mentioned explicitly in the will, then it's part of the residuary estate. If there was no will, then it's a matter of whatever the local laws on intestacy are in the relevant jurisdication. Whether the next of kin inherits might depend on how closely they were related. This is, of course, general commentary and not legal advice. --Anonymous, 21:50 UTC, September 5, 2009.

In the situation where nothing is explicit, nothing special happens. It is disposed of in the ordinary way for all the properties of a decedent, as prescribed by the prevailing jurisdiction's probate and intestacy laws. The same is true for other intangible property too. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Elvis is one of the most high paid dead stars, who would gain the revenue created when the copyright runs out? out present it is his.....? Family?record label?.....Would the producers of the CD/Seller now gain the revenue?Chromagnum (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Shading

Does anyone know how I can produce a clean background by using the shading technique "scribble"? Thanks in advance. 76.230.7.71 (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC) P.S.: My medium is ballpoint pen. 76.230.7.71 (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to (cross-)hatching? Or perhaps to stippling? -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I mean scribble, or more precisely, a series of loops created without lifting the pen from the paper. 76.230.7.71 (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You'd need to aim towards regularity in the size and distribution of loops, which means scribbling slowly and carefully. Smaller loops would be less attention-grabbing, if that's what you mean by "clean". You'd also encounter problems at the edges of the shaded area, which could be solved by masking to get clean edges. 213.122.26.161 (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The loops of the scribbles have a built-in problem of light/dark distribution because of the buildup of lines where the loops touch, which could be partially offset by making sure the next line crosses the open center of the preceding loop. Wikipedia doesn't seem to have much on this drawing technique. A quick web search produced this from about.com, within which you can explore and then search for similar sites. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)