Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2012 December 14

= December 14 =

Album cover artwork: transition from cassette to CD
When CDs became the sure thing, how were all the album artwork from cassettes converted for the larger sized CD artwork? I'm assuming albums released on vinyl were fine, because the images could be reduced in size. Did some albums have to have their covers completely redone (to appear like the cassette album, only wider)? Are there secret vaults for each record company where original artwork is stored? Due to possible enhancements in printing between the decades of vinyl and CD, did some albums see their artwork actually improve in resolution (or appearance, rather)? – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 07:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * On the first question, in the vinyl/cassette era it was very rare (if not unheard of) to have an album released only on cassette and not on vinyl as well. So the problem did not arise.  On the second question, yes I'm sure that many major record companies have the originals of album artwork stored away somewhere.  But if the original is a painting, say, the painter may still have it him/herself, or the artist of the album may have it. On the third question, I don't think this has happened.  The artwork on original vinyl copies always looks better than on CD reissues. --Viennese Waltz 08:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll second what Viennese Waltz has said regarding cassettes. The music industry evolution didn't go vinyl->tape->CD-> digital.  Vinyl remained a major medium until the CD.  Tapes may have become very popular for their portability and convenience, but certain properties of vinyl records (superior sound quality, ability to pick a specific song, etc.) ensured that vinyl remained a major recorded medium until a medium which replaced its advantages also appeared (as CDs did).  There was never a time when artwork was created primarily for the wide cassette case: album artwork has always been designed for the (roughly) square format of first the vinyl album cover and then the CD case.  Cassette artwork was always a modified version of one of the other two; either the cassette artwork was distorted (stretched or cut off at the edges) from the original square format, or the square artwork was framed with bars or blank space above and below the artwork.  Compare CD/Vinyl and Cassette Tape artwork of David Bowie's album Low: you can see where the Cassette artwork has been cut off from the original, and where there is a red bar at the top of the artwork.  Here's another example, the Rush album Moving Pictures: CD/Vinyl and Cassette tape which preserves the original artwork without cutting it off, but fills the leftover space with some extra writing, restating the name of the band and album, and the record label.  In my experience, not as much attention was given to producing high-quality artwork for cassette tapes, there often wasn't a consistent effort made to put a really great-looking cover on the cassette, or to faithfully transfer the original artwork in a high-quality way.  The good work was done on the LP, and the transfer to the cassette case wasn't given a lot of thought or quality.  -- Jayron  32  14:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wonderful!! Thank you both for your replies! – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 05:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

What happened to Raj?
I watched the TV show "The Big Bang Theory" last night (13 Dec. 2012) on CBS, in which it starts out with the men playing Dungeons and Dragons in their apartment, until Raj, having died early, goes out to a bar with the women in the show. One established character feature of Raj is that he can't talk in front of women unless he is drunk. He talked to the women in the apartment before they left a few lines just fine. I didn't see him take a drink in the apartment. Has Raj overcome this in a previous episode, or did I miss him getting drunk in that episode. He didn't act drunk at all during the playing of the game before he lost right before the women came in. 67.163.109.173 (talk) 12:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "having died early"? Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 12:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the fictional TV character Raj's Dungeons and Dragons character died in the game early. 20.137.2.50 (talk) 13:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * In my D&D experience (although I stopped playing a long time ago, some of my friends play regularly), a session without drinking is unheard of and virtually inconceivable – perhaps he was still mentally 'in character' at the apartment, and his (now deceased) D&D character did not have the problem? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 12:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * In previous episodes, there were several situations where he could talk in front of women:


 * 1) In large groups. Not the case in last night's episode.


 * 2) When drunk. He wasn't drunk when he first started talking to the women last night, so this isn't it.


 * 3) When taking his anti-anxiety meds to remove inhibitions, in the proper dosage. In a previous episode he took too many, which resulted in him stripping naked in front of women, but presumably he now has the dosage right. StuRat (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Raj has developed the capability of talking to Penny, Bernadette and Amy. When he was at the bar flirting with women, he had been drinking.  216.93.234.239 (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Watched the ep in question last night, at the apartment there is a beer in front of Raj on the table and it was shown in the first instance that it only takes a single sip of alcohol to remove the inhibition, not for him to be actually drunk-- Jac 16888 Talk 11:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * He even loses his inhibitions when he thinks he's drinking alcohol. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A bit like what happened to Angel in "Eternity". —Tamfang (talk) 07:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

UK celebrity privacy laws
I'm thoroughly confused by how Naomi Campbell managed to sue a newspaper, and win, for publishing her photo walking out of a rehab clinic:. On what legal theory was she entitled to privacy from photographers in a public place ? Is there some type of anti-paparazzi law passed there after Diana died ? StuRat (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not much of a lawyer and I know nothing about this case, but I imagine that it's because (in this country) folk have the right to privacy about their medical treatment. Alansplodge (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I was a bit quick off on the draw there, but I see from our Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd article that such a right is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. Alansplodge (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * So it's a law protecting ALL Europeans, rather than UK celebrities. Right? (I'm saying this because of the wording of the section title.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, the Convention covers all those who live in European states that are signatories, which I believe are all the members of the Council of Europe (not the same thing as the European Union). The Convention gives a right of appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, should national law not live up to the principles of the Convention. So the UK Supreme Court House of Lords was saving us a lot of money by making sure that our court rulings complied with the Convention. That's my understanding of it anyway, on which I stand to be corrected. Alansplodge (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The leading case is Von Hannover v Germany. The crucial Article 8 issue is whether or not the - victim? - has a "reasonable expectation of privacy".  Von Hannover established the (negative) principle that a newspaper couldn't argue that a famous person _never_ has an expectation of privacy, which allowed subsequent celebrities to institute proceedings.  In Campbell, the court ruled that visiting a rehab clinic was a situation that created such an expectation.  In Murray v Express Newspapers (on which we don't have an article, surprisingly - it summarises the position very well), the court ruled that merely being "J K Rowling" did _not_ create such an expectation.  Where the line is drawn in a specific case will depend on its facts (and on the skill and associated cost of the celebrity's lawyer, of course). Tevildo (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I could understand having an expectation of privacy inside the clinic, but the pic was taken outside. Having a reasonable expectation of privacy there seems bizarre. StuRat (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Your opening question tells the story, Stu. The issue isn't that she was photoed in a public place (one that just happened to be outside a rehab clinic with which she had no necessary association) .  It was that she was photoed coming out of the rehab clinic.  That shows she had some association with the clinic, although exactly what association is a matter for the lurid creative minds of journalists.  The association, whatever it was, was the thing that she argued, successfully, was a private matter.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  01:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * And she had lied about having a drug problem, so the courts were basically protecting her right to have her lie be believed. StuRat (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * To whom did she lie? To whom is she accountable?  When did she become public property? What right does the public have to know the ins and outs of her private life, any more than the ins and outs of yours or mine?
 * I will concede that, by making a big deal out of it, she was implicitly acknowledging that there was more to her being inside the rehab clinic than merely popping into the nearest handy place to ask for directions to the train station or whatever. But that doesn't alter the principle involved.  Exactly what her purpose there was, should be solely her business.  And even her having any purpose there at all, should be solely her business.   --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  04:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * StuRat's take on the issue is a valid one and legal opinion here was divided on the issue. However, we are signatories to the Convention and have to comply with it and the rulings of its court. The issue of the moral right of the press to pry into the lives of anyone they choose is a hot topic in the UK at the moment. The Leveson Inquiry has uncovered some pretty questionable (and sometimes downright illegal) tactics used by the media and there is strong public support for further regulation. Alansplodge (talk) 09:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Except that StuRat doesn't seem to have read the article, or at least is understanding it in a different way to me. The article specifically notes she didn't question the right of the media to challenge or 'rectify' the supposed lie. Rather what she was challenging was solely the right to publish the photograph and disclose the location of her meetings. In other words, it seems if the media had simply noted she was spotted leaving an undisclosed treatment centre (perhaps mentioning they had a photograph but weren't publishing it to avoid violating her privacy) and that she was therefore likely seeking treatment despite her denials, they wouldn't have been affected by the ruling. I don't see how the court was 'protecting her right to have her lie be believed'*, the media was entitled to challenge the lie, just not disclose information they weren't allowed to disclose because she lied. (You can debate whether such information should be private, but this isn't the place for that. And whether or not people believe such information should be private doesn't change what the court decision was actually about.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Edit:* Unless you say because the media involved has such poor reputation people weren't actually going to believe them if they didn't publish the photograph. Or that because the story without the photo is less interesting, it will be given less priority by the media and people are less likely to see and talk about it anyway, so more people will still believe what she said. But those seem to be fairly silly arguments to me. 14:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a newspaper to publish proof when they make a claim that contradicts a statement made by the subject of the story. If they didn't offer proof, that would seem suspicious. StuRat (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the nub of the issue, Stu. If she denied she was having treatment, that should have been the end of it - no matter what the actual truth of the matter was.  The newspaper's intrusiveness into her private life was the very thing she objected to.  And look who came off second best.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  18:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Again that's only if the paper had a poor reputation. There was nothing stopping the paper saying they had proof, but didn't publish it to protect her privacy or fear of legal action because they were violating her privacy (papers have done this sort of thing in the past) and there's no reason people would have doubted them if they were a reliable paper. Of course most reliably papers wouldn't care about this stuff so it's perhaps true the papers involved would have problems. Still it isn't exactly her fault no one believes a paper because they have a poor reputation for accuracy. Note that she would have been stuck in a bind in such a case. If she had continued to deny the claim and in particular claimed the paper was lying, it seems they probably could have gotten away with publishing the photo then. Either way this is a moot point, your statement the paper got in trouble for challenging a lie was misleading which was my main point. They only got in trouble for the way they challenged it, publishing additional information the court held to be private, information which wasn't needed to challenge the lie, whatever you or JoO may personally think about challenging lies or publishing such information (which isn't something that concerns the RD). Nil Einne (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)