Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment 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.
Does anyone happen to know the details of the relationship between Dani Klein and her bassist Dirk Schoufs, and what led to their falling out? It says in the article that they had a "close collaboration" but he left the band after a "serious falling out" and died a short time later from alcohol and drugs (and it's hinted in another article that his death sent her into deep depression) -- does anyone happen to know more? Also, was he abusing drugs before the falling-out (as I surmise he was) -- maybe she tried to get him to sober up, and that's what led to their parting ways? 2601:646:8E01:515D:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to this site, "On 24 May 1991, Schoufs died of an AIDS-related illness, which he contracted due to his heroin addiction. Even though they were no longer a team, Dani was very saddened ....". Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When we were young we had a toy that had an eyepiece like a microscope to look into and on the press of switch a real cinematic reel of film (much like an 8 mm projector film, without sound track and having "holes" on one side only )would start to move at the required speed of 24 frames/second (with usual spilt-second stops, of course ) so as to create illusion of moving pictures like cinema. Mostly it was a silent cartoon film lasting at most ten minutes. Can someone please tell what that toy, or game or kid-gadget was known as ?27.255.223.118 (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What time period are you referring to? When was it that you were young? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See if any of these look familiar. I have a memory of an item like the one that you are describing that showed a Chaplin film but I can't remember any details about it. MarnetteD|Talk 04:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This and this are a couple of examples from the mid-70's. "Hand (movie) viewer" seems to be a common term for them. Tevildo (talk) 07:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the U.S., at least probably not. According to Copyright law of the United States, the only works which are always absolutely 100% PD all the time are works created before 1923; I'm not sure he was doing much pin-up art at the age of 9. For works created after 1923, there are a whole series of complex questions that would need to be answered based on both when the work was created and/or when the creator died, rules would have changed at various times throughout the past century, so exactly which set of rules would apply would most certainly depend on what were the operating laws at the time the work was created. --Jayron32 15:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The mouse who writes laws in the USAIt's worth noting lots of things are PD in e.g. AU but not USA. USA has by far the most restrictive copyright/PD lawa smaller pool of PD than some other countries. But lots of us aren't in the USA and lots of us can still access the wonderful Australian fork of Project Gutenberg [1], which hosts e.g. The Great Gatsby and Animal Farm, which I think are not PD in the USA.
Anyway, here's some info direct from the estate of Gil Elvgren [2], and they say some of his works are PD. Here [3][4][5] are a selection of pages that claim to host public domain images of pin-up girls. Of course some of the might not actually be public domain. Whether something is PD (or infringement, fair use, etc) is never fully decidable unless it is decided by a court. Caveat emptor.SemanticMantis (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At least as far as use on Wikipedia goes, U.S. copyright law would apply, since the Wikipedia servers are housed in the U.S. and subject to that jurisdiction. --Jayron32 15:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, this is specifically covered at Wikipedia:Public_domain, but I didn't know what purpose OP might have, or where they may be. Of course, we'll probably have to give different laws in a few years, thanks to the all-powerful mouse. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The US does not have "by far the most restrictive copyright/PD law". Many other countries have the same creeping copyright term as well as sweat of the brow copyright and copyright on government-produced works. Fair use, which is broader than fair dealing, exists only in the US. The US's laws were far more liberal before it joined the Berne Convention; Peter Baldwin describes modern copyright as the triumph of the European model (see here). -- BenRG (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I spoke too generally and naively, sorry about that. I should have stuck to PD only. And now I'm not even sure of that. Let me ask this: is there any work X and country Y such that work X is considered PD by the USA but not in country Y? I thought the answer to that was "no", but if I'm mistaken I'd appreciate correction. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this true for any copyrightable work created before 1924 1923 by an author who was still alive in 1946? --69.159.61.172 (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So there is no proper way to get public domain pin ups?--Joseph 04:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if a) someone created them and released them into the public domain explicitly b) if they have passed to the public domain because they are no longer under copyright due to the rules of copyright when and where they were created, then they would be in the public domain. --Jayron32 12:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Today I contacted gilelvgren.com. They said the all the pre-1947 works of Gil comes under public domain. Then I asked for an official statement. They haven't replied yet.--Joseph 12:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:991joseph, please do update us if/when you get a response. To be clear, as for "no proper way". I think there is. I think for most uses I would happily download and use the images from the sites I listed above. If you wanted to do something like sell posters based on those images, it is conceivable that you might get in to trouble if some of the images were mis-marked as PD when they are not, and the copyright holder noticed, and they wanted to take legal action against you beyond a simple cease and desist letter, which is how these things usually start. But for most any other casual use, I personally would have no problem using those images that are claimed to be PD. I suspect the are almost entirely legitimately PD. It's related to WP:AGF - all the sites I linked take down content if its PD status is challenged, and they all seem to have made some effort to only host PD images. Our caveats are more about the (relatively rare) cases when you need to be absolutely 100% sure that the image is unencumbered by legal baggage. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I got a reply from them: there is no entity that can make that statement.. There is NO NONE with standing to ASK! Brown and Bigelow MAY have rights AFTER 1947. My intention was to design some postcards based on Gil's pin-ups for the use in Postcrossing.--Joseph 15:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the "Emo Pop" article is still available on wikipedia but it seems it is not linked to the artist anymore. For example, "Paramore" is a well-known emo pop artist. if I go on Paramore's Wikipedia page, the genre emo pop is not listed, only "emo" and "pop punk". It was there a year ago but it doesn't appear anymore now. There are many other artist like this with emo pop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:586:200:AC65:CBB:F678:564C:F947 (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can see a list of pages that link to emo pop by looking at Special:WhatLinksHere/Emo_pop. The page for Paramore uses an "infobox". In the moment, feeling WP:BOLD, I added 'emo pop' to the genres list in Paramore's infobox. I know nothing of the band, and only a tiny bit about Emo, but I respect compositional semantics, and I don't want to live in a world where a band is considered "Emo" and "Pop Rock" but not "Emo Pop". In general, issues like this are better suited for the article's talk page, or you can WP:SOFIXIT yourself, ideally using references like this one [6] that clearly is a real music publication that calls Paramore an Emo Pop band in print. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for introducing me to that term! Matt Deres (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The latter example is fine. But the former is a travesty, and an assault on the common dignity of the notion that words mean things. Anyone who says otherwise is a rogue and vandal of the worst sort, and I shall meet them at dawn for a genre duel! :) SemanticMantis (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See etymological fallacy, words can start to mean new things too. And have for 1000s of years. That's why we all don't speak grunts in caves anymore. --Jayron32 20:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Grunt Speak for yourself. Neither I nor any of my ancestors have ever grunted. (Unfortunately, all of my descendants have been known to. Where did I go so badly wrong!) -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 23:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved