Miscellaneous desk
< September 7	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 9 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

September 8[edit]

Van Gogh[edit]

So I was reading Lust for Life and Irving Stone clearly mentions that Vincent cut off his right ear. But later on when I checked pictures, it looks like his left ear (corroborated by other websites and documentaries). It seems to me that the paintings show the right ear, but since it was painted from a mirror image, it's actually his left ear that had been maimed. Can anyone confirm this? 202.65.133.122 (talk) 04:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The self-portrait of a bandage on his ear clearly shows it as the left ear. There's no indication in the article that it was his right ear. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the book, not the Wikipedia article, Bugs. Could Stone have made a mistake? 202.65.133.122 (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources say it was his left ear, then the book's author made a mistake. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion, but self portraits are usually mirror images. μηδείς (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a reliable source that Van Gogh painted from a mirror image in this case, then that would be worth a look. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Painted from a mirror as opposed to what, an image on his cell phone? It's so much a standard method what we'd need is a source saying he didn't. μηδείς (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to know whether the artist was right-handed or otherwise. -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Gauguin's portrait The Painter of Sunflowers, Van Gogh is painting right-handed. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, you seem to be talking with forked tongue. First you support the left ear version, then you say any source that says it was the left ear is wrong. Please explain. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's what he was saying. He first says that it was the left ear. He then says that if sources say it was the left ear, the book's author made a mistake. The book's author (based on the question asked to start this section) would be Irving Stone, who said it was the right ear. --Onorem (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Yes, your write. Well, any source that says he cut off his ear is wrong too; it was his earlobe plus perhaps a little more. Calling that "his ear" is like saying "Ouch, I stubbed my leg" when it's only your toe that's smarting. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedway[edit]

Hi Was reading an article about Cyril Roger, wondered if he was still alive as he was a friend of my mother and fathers, back in the 50,s Regards Peter Griffiths — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.7.103 (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article indicates that he was alive in 2011, and I've found nothing to indicate has passed away since. This article was apparently put online in May 2013, and does not mention him as having died. You might get further confirmation by contacting the National Speedway Museum (contact form at bottom of linked page). - Cucumber Mike (talk) 10:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DMCA takedown of a rare work question[edit]

This came up to my mid the other day. Take this scenario: Work A (say, a book or article) was uploaded online, and the publisher finds out, so the download link was taken down. However, the work was actually relatively rare, out of print, and remaining copies, if any, cannot be located or are difficult to find. I'm not promoting or advocating piracy, but I was wondering: has such a case ever happened? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "fair use" defense against copyright prosecution may allow such works (or at least parts of them) to be copied for certain special purposes - but not necessarily. There have been plenty of cases where authors wanted their work destroyed utterly for one reason or another. For example, George Lucas said of the notoriously bad Star Wars Holiday Special "If I had the time and a sledgehammer, I would track down every copy of that show and smash it.". If no legally purchased or licensed copy exists (as is believed to be the case with the holiday special), copyright law allows the copyright owner to do just that to remove every last remaining illegal copy. There is no legal right for anyone to keep a work in existence that is being destroyed by time through increasing rarity or anything else. Of course copyright does eventually expire - at which point copies can certainly be made to preserve the work. SteveBaker (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no legal right for anyone to keep a work in existence that is being destroyed by time through increasing rarity or anything else - this varies by jurisdiction, but most copyright laws provide for certain users (usually libraries) to make and maintain copies of works for preservation purposes when they are otherwise commercially unobtainable - this is statutorily provided for, and not a matter of fair use. In the US, this is 17 USC 108; similar provisions exist elsewhere. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the university I went to the library had a 'blue room' where they kept banned books and other items and you needed a good reason to get permission to access them. They kept all sorts of rubbish so if the illegal work has any sort of merit at all I'm sure a place like that would be happy to keep it till the copyright ran out. Dmcq (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a film called The Day the Clown Cried that has only been seen by five people and yet is believed to be a lost masterpiece of cinema. If I found a copy of it I personally would allow public interest to trump copyright law and would make copies. I would serve time for that film! Interestingly, David Lynch tried to stop any copies of the original TV pilot of Mulholland Drive getting out. There is a VHS version but actually 97% of it is already in the movie so it is really for academic interest. Like the "Director cut" of Aliens or The Wicker Man Horatio Snickers (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Day the Clown Cried is a lost masterpiece of terrible cinema, maybe...that's why it's lost :) Adam Bishop (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]