Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 January 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< January 1 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 3 >
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.


Contents


[edit] January 2

[edit] Phillip Roth's libido

Why is Phillip Roth apparently so obsessed with sexual themes in his novels. He has certainly written some interesting books and he seems to think deeply about his subjects. Despite this he seems to me to use sex scenes for little more than titillation, in The Dying Animal and Everyman for instance. It’s an odd contrast, especially compared to other postmodern writers like Don DeLillo and Thomas Pynchon who always say something with sexuality. --S.dedalus (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Edit to add. Any sources or critical reviews of Roth would be especially good as I can use them to develop the article. Thanks, --S.dedalus (talk) 06:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is this illegal?

If a woman asked me to kill her husband for $20,000 and I agreed to it provided she paid me first. But once she gave me the money, I refuse to kill her husband and I also refuse to give her back her money. Have I committed an illegal act under the eyes of the law? 202.168.50.40 (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I’m sorry we can’t give legal advice here. See the notice at the top of the page. --S.dedalus (talk) 03:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Check with someone here if you are seriously concerned. Perhaps BP has their own legal department as well. -- kainaw™ 03:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I assume this is a hypothetical question and not a request for legal advice. I see two three possible crimes here. Taking the money in that situation might be considered fraud, and there might also be a legal requirement to report the woman's actions to the police. Further, making an agreement to commit a crime, even with no intent do to so, might be considered conspiracy to commit that crime. Since every country, and in the US every state, has its own criminal code, the answer might well depend on where you are. In Canada's criminal code, the basic definition of fraud is that "Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service" commits it; and in a quick look I can't see any exception for the case where the fraudulent promise is to commit a crime. Conspiracy doesn't seem to be defined; presumably it has an accepted definition in common law. --Anonymous, 04:26 UTC, edited 06:28 UTC, January 2, 2008.
I suppose this is research for a book ? It's not a very original plot line - it was done at the end of Series 2 of Phoenix Nights, to give just one example. Regardless of whether "you" would have done anything illegal here, it seems unlikely that the woman would take any legal action. What she might do is find a less scrupulous hitman and tell him that you now have $20,000 of her money. The best thing to do would be to invest some of that $20,000 in a false identity and a motorhome. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
According to a long-ago lesson in UK contract law, a contract for an illegal act cannot be held binding. However the woman may have another sum which she might be willing to pay another person to persuade you to reimburse her! 62.30.217.57 (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Remembering that per Anonymous, above, you would be entering into a conspiracy to murder, yes, there is illegality involved. If you were interested in the merely contractual element, then as 62.30 noted, the contract is not enforceable. But what about the $20,000 supplied as consideration for that non-enforceable contract? It looks as if there is no practical legal avenue open to the woman to recoup her funds. Discounting further illegality on the part of the woman, is it really the case that there is no means by which she could recover the money? What happens to consideration when the contract is unenforceable? --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll just note that the act might be fraud even if the contract is unenforceable. --Anon, 02:31 UTC, January 3, 2008.
I think the point is that although she could probably legally compel you to pay her her money back, this would require her to tell the courts she paid you to kill her husband. Since this would involve incriminating herself, it's probably not something she would be willing to do unless she had already pled guilty to the crime for some reason. However as others have pointed out, it's entirely feasible the woman might just pay someone either to help her get her money back or to do the job you were paid to do and throw in a bit extra to finish off the idiot who thought he/she could 'fuck' with a crazy lady who's willing to hire hitmen. Nil Einne (talk) 11:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Anecdote: A worker at American Express told me of an American client who, while in Paris, charged the services of a prostitute to his card, and then refused to pay on the basis that it was an illegal contract. AmEx pointed out to him that prostitution is legal in France! Rhinoracer (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Awesome, Wikipedia's getting its own party van! --ffroth 17:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) - Carbon [Nyan?] 22:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The above might be of some value if it indicated which user and which post it referred to. --Anon, 02:31 UTC, January 3, 2008.
YOU ARE NOT ANON --ffroth 16:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE YELLING ABOUT —Keenan Pepper 16:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Spend more time on the internet, less on wikipe-net. --f f r o t h 01:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
O hay guise, it r caturday!-Dureo (talk) 08:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Identification of a musical instrument or style

Annoying problem bugging me. In this film at about 1:45 on there is a short score? of music played is on an instrument. I suspect a woodwind, but is there a specific one that could be identified by the sound or tone? Also, is that an older work they appropriated, or just something that was made for that particular use? Thanx. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like clarinets and flutes together. The melody is quite trite, and it would be surprising if it hadn't appeared in any piece before, but I believe that the music in the video was composed specially. The hippie electric bass part is a dead giveaway. --Milkbreath (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Haha, "trite" is a very good description for most of the "films" from those producers. I suspect NASA wishes it never had its hand in that... 68.39.174.238 (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spinet Grand Piano

I recently purchased a Spinet Grand Piano, Manufactured by Mathushek in New Haven or New York. I can find no date when it was made. The Model No. is 84909. I'm interested in it's age, original quality/price, and an estimated value according to age. Can you help me find out more information? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.166.38.15 (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This might help. Corvus cornixtalk 19:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Culture differences and effects on Wikipedia developement

I'm wondering about the differences in the different language Wikipedias. For example the French language has more than double the number of native-speakers compared to the German language, yet the German Wikipedia has slighlty more articles than the French. Does this reflect something of French vs German culture? ----Seans Potato Business 15:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Claiming that it reflects anything more than the popularity of Wikipedia in Germany and France is just a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. France has a slightly betterr broadband internet access and Germany is a little larger population-wise. Of course, not all German and French speaking people are in Germany and France. So, limiting this to discussions about the two countries is not very accurate. -- kainaw™ 15:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but what is it about French-speaking vs German-speaking cultures that affects the popularity of Wikipedia in their respective countries. It's a pretty large difference. I notice that it's a very different story if you compare Wiktionaries, with French taking the lead even beyond English. Perhaps it has to do with the size of the undertakings between Wikipedia and Wiktionary. ----Seans Potato Business 15:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Consider where half the French-speaking people are from (see French language). With no feasible Internet access, how do you expect them to contribute to Wikipedia? -- kainaw™ 15:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
That explains it! ----Seans Potato Business 16:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, you are also assuming that Wikipedia will be relatively popular based on a fixed population. I see no reason to assume that. Wikipedia's popularity in the English-speaking world took off in a major way only after getting attention in major media sources (the Seigenthaler controversy, for example, greatly affected the number of people visiting the English wiki per day). Now you could attribute such an effect to "culture" but that's pretty nebulous, and it isn't an issue of "national culture" in the sense that is usually meant (e.g. that being over litigious is a part of American "national culture"). --24.147.86.187 (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that it only needs a good bot-writer and some Census data to flood a WikipediA with 1000s of articels. I don't know but that may have happened on de (Or will happen)... 68.39.174.238 (talk) 05:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pakistan Muslim League(N)

You know how the article "Pakistan People's Party" says that they are popular in the provinces of Sindh and Punjab. How about Nawaz Sharif's party, the Pakistan Muslim League, which provinces of Pakistan do they gain popularity from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.29 (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In the 2002 election the Pakistan Muslim League (N) won 19 seats and only 9.4% of the popular vote, so they aren't really that popular at all. However, among the seats they won were Sheikhupura-II, Lahore-III, Lahore-III, Lahore-V, Lahore-VI, Sialkot-I, Faisalabad-VI, Faisalabad-VIII, Faisalabad-X, Faisalabad-XI, Multan-IV and Multan-VI, all of which are in the Punjab. Rockpocket 05:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What Colonial Emperors Were There?

I know:

  • Haiti
  • Mexico
  • Brazil
  • India
  • Central Africa
  • Ethiopia

Is that all? 24.255.11.149 (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at the frankly gigantic article on Emperors we have. From your list the big one I would instantly think of is Roman emperor. I've no idea if the addition of colonial makes a difference, though. ny156uk (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by colonial emperors? Do you mean colonial Empires? Do you mean empires (or emperors) that colonized? or those that were colonized? Wrad (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about de jure empires, in that these were headed by an emperor, in the colonies of European nations. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'm not sure Ethiopia is one. That nation managed to stay independent throughout colonial times. Congo had an empire that was overtaken by the Portuguese. Wrad (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy was declared Emperor of Ethiopia in 1936. Perhaps this is what the original poster was referring to. john k (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Does Empire of Vietnam qualify? Corvus cornixtalk 19:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The Central African Empire was an interlude in the Central African Republic, so not really a colonial empire proper. Xn4 10:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Too bad Clio is on vacation. bibliomaniac15 00:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] If the United Kingdom attempted to abolish the monarchy

If the Houses of Parliament passed a law that abolished the monarchy wouldn't the monarch have to give the bill royal assent, and effectively say, up yours im not going anywhere? --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 18:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that if parliament and the people were both persistent, that attitude would only go so far and eventually the monarchy would end. Wrad (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Obviously that's the risk, since they are the highest power in the country but as Wrad says it's unlikely that any publically backed abolition of the monarchy would be rejected by the monarchy (particularly in its current state). I think the last time the monarch used their power to deny a bill was 1708 (at least according to this reference: http://www.nriol.com/welcome2uk/politics-in-uk.asp) ny156uk (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I do hope no editors are considering an act of treason felony. DuncanHill (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • According to the article it isnt a treason felony to kill the queen. And I for one would never dream of doing that; I love the queen, she's great --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 20:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Killing her would be high treason. DuncanHill (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, it is quite literally the oldest law in the (Statute) book. -- Arwel (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Not quite literally, as some parts of the Statute of Marlborough (1267) are still in force, including the Distress Act 1267 and the Waste Act 1267. Xn4 13:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Many countries have, of course, abolished their monarchies, including England in 1649. Then, the Rump Parliament passed An Act declaring England to be a Commonwealth, creating the Commonwealth of England. As the King had just been liquidated and his successor wasn't around, no one was in a position to veto this remarkably short Act. In the modern world, the way the job is often done is by a referendum - and if anyone thinks a constitutional monarch can ignore the will of the people, then there are a number of precedents for that being quite a bad idea. Xn4 20:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
It's theoretically possible she might say "up yours" and refuse to sign the bill, but her own words suggest otherwise. In 1999, Australia had a referendum on whether or not to become a republic. If it had passed (it didn't), it would have removed all reference to the monarchy and the governor-general from the Constitution of Australia and created a President as head of state; effectively an abolition of the Australian monarchy. Four months later, while visiting Australia, the Queen of Australia stated her belief in the democratic rights of Australians on all issues including that of the Monarchy:
  • "My family and I would, of course, have retained our deep affection for Australia and Australians everywhere, whatever the outcome. For some while it has been clear that many Australians have wanted constitutional change ... You can understand, therefore, that it was with the closest interest that I followed the debate leading up to the referendum held last year on the proposal to amend the Constitution. I have always made it clear that the future of the Monarchy in Australia is an issue for you, the Australian people, and you alone to decide by democratic and constitutional means. It should not be otherwise. As I said at the time, I respect and accept the outcome of the referendum. In the light of the result last November I shall continue faithfully to serve as Queen of Australia under the Constitution to the very best of my ability, as I have tried to do for the last 48 years."
The Queen is separately and equally monarch of 16 different Commonwealth Realms, including the United Kingdom. It's hard to see how she would be so willing to allow the people of Australia to make these decisions for themselves, but not consider the people of the UK to be at least as constitutionally mature. This brings me to the point that the UK parliament could hardly pass such bills in secret overnight session, or in any way without involving the people. They would be passed with overwhelming popular support, or not at all. The people having spoken, the Queen - who publicly dedicated "her whole life" to serving her people - would sign the instrument of her own constitutional demise with perhaps a tear in her eye but with no regrets or hesitations. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I heard that the royal family actually give more money to the governemt/people in the form of all their real estate or whatever, than they actually get back in terms of their fixed budget (which has a special name). Thus any financial motive for abolishment of the monarchy dissolves immediately. Do we have an article that discusses this? --Seans Potato Business 20:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a simple bookkeeping; one can make the argument fall on whichever side one wants merely by changing the assumptions. For example, when the monarchy is abolished, would the (deposed) monarch keep his or her "private" income (the Privy Purse)? Would the heir to the throne continue to reap the income of the Duchy of Cornwall? I would think it would depend on how resolute the abolishers were at eliminating residual hereditary privilege. There's no question that one could pass laws that would make it profitable to eliminate the monarchy if one were willing to strip the present monarchs of property gained merely because of their hereditary roles as head of state. On the other hand, if one were to cede everything they hold as "the Crown" to them personally, it'd clearly be a losing proposition. Anyway, the Royals have various forms of income: the Civil List, Grant-in-Aid, the Privy Purse, and their private income. The first two are untaxed, and are used for official expenditures. The Privy Purse deducts any official expenditures from its income and pays tax on the rest, and the queen pays tax on her personal income. King George III surrendered the income from the Crown Estates to the government in exchange for the Civil List. The income from the Crown Estates far exceeds the expenses of the monarchy; it is probably this argument that you have heard...but since the government already has the Crown Estates income, it's not really an argument that could be applied to an attempt to abolish the monarchy now. - Nunh-huh 21:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The parliament of Nepal is currently abolishing that country's monarchy, and several years ago took away the king's veto power (presumably ignoring/compelling his veto). --Sean 12:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
If the monarch refused to sign legislation which the people judged necessary, they might judge it necessary to alter or abolish the governmental structures which made such assent necessary. There is a history of such behavior in the world. Edison (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Germans: rudness vs openness/honesty

I was wondering whether it would be considered rude in Germany for one to suggest that another person changes their

en-3 This user is able to contribute with an advanced level of English.

to a

en-2 This user is able to contribute with an intermediate level of English.

?

Seans Potato Business 20:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for German people, but I do think it would be somewhat impolite. It's not really any of your business, is it? --Richardrj talk email 21:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
If the babel userboxes aren't supposed to accurately reflect as users abilities, then what is their purpose? ----Seans Potato Business 22:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you, but my point is that it's not your place to point it out if it doesn't give an accurate reflection. --Richardrj talk email 23:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Possibly the user is able to contribute at an advanced level, but chooses not to? Or perhaps the user's command of English is so advanced that you do not understand it? -Arch dude (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I have a near-native level of English, but grammar can be tricky. When someone points out my mistakes i get really annoyed, but it has made me more careful. If this user is really, really hurting Wikipedia then tell him, no matter his nationality, he'll sure be offended and might become an insecure editor. There's no smooth way of telling someone "your english sucks", it's really your call Potato, just try not to bite too hard or be too uncivil.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 23:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that a clear statement on the user page is appropriate. It should be:
  • polite and civil (as Yamanbaiia says above);
  • refer to three or more examples, where the user´s application of the language is analysed to indicate the communicative problems;
  • offer help to the user when they require it.
Of course, a non native speaker may simply not be aware of the syntactical bumbles and fuzzy semantics of her/his edits.
As my fellow Viennese, richardrj, implies, this is the English WP and is primarily dependent on the capacity of the editors to use one single tool: the English language.
Seans Potato Business, being a highly creative and non conformist editor of absurdist wit will surely find the words of the Funniest Joke in the World and sneak it into the user page of --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, you should be polite, but it might be worth noting that Germans tend to be more willing to give their true opinions about things than Americans are. A German will generally tell you if he thinks your wallpaper is ugly, while an American might tell a white lie so as not to hurt your feelings. Of course, those are stereotypes and don't apply in all cases. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of native speakers with a poor command grammar. I think you ought to be nice about it, and offer to help. AllenHansen (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC) AllenHansen (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they are not referring to their proficiency in composing English, but rather in understanding it. For example, I guessed my level of French is "3", but I certainly can't conduct a conversation or write anything substantial. I can read it though, so I can use French sources and the French Wikipedia when writing in English. But if the person is contributing to the English Wikipedia then that is a problem (I don't contribute to fr:, myself). Adam Bishop (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
personally, i know that my grammar could be better. Nevertheless I understand English perfect thus near native. Before Wikipedia I never was really forced to actually write in English. I guess most not native speakers think that way. I would say it is extremely impolite to change another persons userbox in any country. It is his user page and you are not his teacher. Especially considering that you lack any serious command of a foureign language it is not appropriate.--Tresckow (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
My lack of command of a foreign language is immaterial since I don't contribute to foreign-language Wikiepdias. --Seans Potato Business 17:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Why the limitation to native German-speaking users? That I, as a German, do consider as somewhat impolite (or at least confusing, pending some explanation). Dorfklatsch 17:12, January 6, 2008
As a matter of fact, it seems to match a common stereoptypes of Germans: blatherskite and pretentiously superior. 217.168.5.50 (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] German XXII Corps(es?) in 1939

Some Polish sources state that Warsaw Armoured Motorized Brigade fought with German XXII Panzer Corps during Battle of Tomaszów Lubelski in Polish September Campaign. Yet List of German corps in WWII doesn't have such a corps at all; there are XXII Infantry, Motorized and Mountain ones. I wonder if somebody could find out what either what German corps fought at Tomaszów, or which Corpses with numeral XXII existed in September 1939? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of Ghits for the XXII Panzer in the Polish campaign, e.g. this. This one even lists the component divisions (2nd Panzer Division, 4th Light Division and 3rd Mountain Division). The article on Paul Ludwig Ewald von Kleist says that he was its commander during the campaign. Looks like the list is just incomplete. P.S. The plural of corps is corps. Corpses are something else. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have an answer to your question, Piotr, but just wanted to let you know that the plural of Corps (pronounced Kor) is Corps (pronounced Korz). English isn't very user friendly.  :) Corvus cornixtalk 17:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] stocks and bonds

i am trying to find a stock from 1987 or 1988 the same year wayne allyn root the sports handicapper put his stock on the market .how do i get a list of stocks from that year that were just starting out??????????and is there a way to find out if only a hand full of stockbrokers had the originnal stock or would it of been country wide from day one ???????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicpole (talk • contribs) 21:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What happened to the tribes in Rwanda during the Rwandan Genocide?

Were they attacked too? 64.236.121.129 (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

According to Rwandan Genocide, almost the whole population was involved in the genocide, either as targets or accomplices, although not necessarily actively. The Hutu/Tutsi tribal division had become confused over time with the nobility/peasant description, so most Rwandans of non-noble heritage were classified as Hutus. It also implies that those not wishing to be involved in the conflict were also targeted. Steewi (talk) 03:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why do paparazzi not require model releases?

Model release says that "the issue of model release forms and liability waivers is a legal area related to privacy and is separate from copyright". Later, talking about model releases, it says "the business need for having releases rises substantially if the main source of income from the photographer's work lies within industries that would require them (such as advertising)".

Why should advertising require a release but not journalism? They are both an invasion of privacy, and both lucrative. Is the importance of journalism considered to outweigh the need for privacy?

Is there somewhere where it is stated what industries require releases? Thanks --Jon186 (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that if you went too far then regular journalists wouldn't even be able to publish photos of important events. Wrad (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I probably didn't quite get the tone right in my question. I didn't mean to sound like I was arguing a point either way; I would just like to understand this apparent contradiction. --Jon186 (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
It increasingly appears to me that journalism is an industry which does not require model releases, whereas advertising, and perhaps artistic photography, do. It would be nice to see this explained clearly somewhere in wikipedia though.--Jon186 (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
There's this (http://people.howstuffworks.com/paparazzi7.htm) about it. No idea how reliable it is but the howstuffworks site is great stuff. ny156uk (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
(after ec)Here's [1] an article that begins to explain that rights to privacy with respect to "public" events, buildings and people (i.e. celebrities) do not usually override the variations on "free speech" that are ascribed to journalism in the U.S., at any rate. Bielle (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Thing is, the line between freedom of speech and right of privacy is very thin. In France the right of privacy is more protected than in the US and the French Wiki has an article on "right to one's image".Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 22:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You are allowed to take photos of people in public areas. A model is photographed in a private place. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not the taking of the photos that model releases address, it is the publication of those photos. And no, just because the photo was taken in a public place does not mean that you will not need one. Recury (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It's a matter of how the photo is used, not where it is taken, that determines if a model release is needed. If I photographed you taking potshots at the president from your bedroom and published it in a newspaper article, I'd be fine: you're doing something newsworthy. If I used that same photograph in an advertisement for Joe's Firearms, I'd need a model release. --Carnildo (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)