Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 March 11

= March 11 =

US Prohibition and Religion
I was just curious, the text of the 18th Amendment prohibited the "...manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States..."

Were religious groups such as Catholics and Jews, who practice the drinking of wine for certain religious ceremonies, such as the Catholic Eucharist or the Jewish Passover Seder somehow provided with some sort of exemption? The words of the amendment seem black and white. I can't possibly see how a court could somehow interpret it in such a way as to provide an exception for religious ceremonies. But perhaps they did. Is anyone aware of the legal status of the drinking of wine for such ceremonies during prohibition?

In a similar vein, forgive me for my ignorance of Catholicism, but is the Eucharist meant to be practiced by the "underaged"? Do Catholics get around this somehow (either through strictly legal means, or perhaps just out of the fact that any decent cop would tend to "look the other way") or do they bow to those secular authorities restricting the drinking of the sacremental wine to adults above a certain age? Loomis 00:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, what a great question about the 18th amendement and its conflict with religious ritual.  Looking forward to the answer.


 * As for the latter, I cannot answer for Catholics, but would mention that in all the Jewish rituals I've encountered, grape juice is offered as a stand-in for wine for the underaged in all but the most exceptional of once-in-a-lifetime ceremonies (The bar mitzvah ritual, for example, traditionally uses real wine, but juice is often served to the celebrant and his friends at the reception). Jfarber 01:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Although http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/lsd/inglis10.htm isn't as great a reference as I'd like to provide, its account of the Volstead Act matches well with my recollections -- that is, yes, there was an exemption for sacramental wine (though many congregations chose to go for grape juice in the spirit of prohibition...I admit, no source on this). I wish I had a resource handy that could be more authoritative.  Your comment on the constitutional problem raised is a very apt one, but I suspect the First Amendment defended the exemption just as it now defends the use of peyote, for example.


 * As far as underage practices, I imagine it varies--in many Catholic parishes, it is rare for any parishioner to take the wine except on special feast-days (Holy Thursday, for example). In my Episcopalian parish, wine is served to any baptized communicant, including children, although many kids (and some adults) choose not to take the wine.  The amount of wine consumed, especially when taking communion by intinction, is very small -- I'd guess not much more than is present in some cough medicines, but I have no statistics on that. Hope this helps, Jwrosenzweig 02:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have been to a winery cum restaurant in downtown Los Angeles which says that it was allowed to stay open to produce wine for the Church during Prohibition. Corvus cornix 03:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Cum restaurants?! California, you so crayyyy-zee! − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You know, Latin cum is different than English cum... (Wait, that didn't turn out right...) 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (&lt; \) (2 /) /)/ * 11:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh brother! − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeez...I ask a question wherein I cite such holy sacraments as the Eucharist and somehow it degenerates into a comparative analysis of various varieties of cum. But by all means, don't stop! I'm only human, and I'm just as fascinated by the nasty side of life as anyone else! ;--) Loomis 19:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Is this sort of similar to that "Hitler" rule, whereby if carried on long enough, in just about any discussion on any topic, Hitler will invariably be mentioned at some point or another? :) Loomis 09:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to distract from these fabulous double entendres, but all of the Catholic churches I've been too water their wine down, I assume partially to save money and also because a devout Catholic is supposed to fast before Sunday service. So the "mouthful" of wine isn't even a mouthful. As far as Judaism goes, I also know that grape juice is considered acceptable for adults who can't drink wine (i.e. allergy, recovered alcoholics). Natalie 18:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

United states, a nation of swindlers
Who is the US historian whose thesis is that the US is a nation of swindlers? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.190.86.19 (talk) 07:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Personally, I haven't heard of the US being referred to as this. However, I know that Immanuel Kant referred to the Jews as a "nation of swindlers". -- Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  08:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Not one who wished to be treated seriously, that much is certain. Clio the Muse 10:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know, it was probably a lot more publicly accepted in 18th century Europe. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (&lt; \) (2 /) /)/ * 11:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's the context of Kant's statement: . -- Mwalcoff 14:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's Washington Irving, in A History of New-York from the Beginning of the World to the End of the Dutch Dynasty, by Diedrich Knickerbocker. --Shirt58 11:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC) ps: I might have found an e-text of this, but it's taking ages to download, so I'll check again after I've done the dishes and tidied the kitchen.
 * Can't find those exact words in either volume 1 or volume 2. A Google of 'a nation or swindlers' first hit is an article in the online journal JSTOR containng that very phrase with reference to Washington Irvine, though... --Shirt58 14:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You might be interested in Walter A. McDougall's book Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828, which is revolves around "We remain, as we have been in most of our history, a nation of hustlers." ---Sluzzelin talk  13:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

HoL Reform
As there are ongoing preparations (or consultations or whatever you want to call it) concerning the Reform of the House of Lords, I have the following question: Suppose, the House of Lords resists any legislation brought forward by the government (and supported by the Commons) which would change the composition of the HoL. What would happen then? On the one hand bills which are supported by the Commons can receive Royal Assent even with the Lords dissenting, on the other hand I (though vaguely) remember having read in Erskine May, that each house has absolute authority on matters of its composition or the election of its members. As far as I know, questions concerning the election of a MP respectively concerning the eligibility of a peer to sit in the HoL are still dealt with by committees of the respective house. To make it short: Has the HoL any power to veto a House of Lords Reform Bill based on its "right to decide on its composition itself" or am I somehow mistaken here? Thanks a lot (oh and by the way, if you find some, I'd appreciate references in your answer) --Mbimmler 12:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, Mbimmler, the Commons, in successive stages, through the course of the last century, determined both the powers and the composition of the Lords. The Lords' resistence to Lloyd George's 1909 Peoples Budget led directly to the introduction of the 1911 Parliament Act, which limited their powers in Money Bills, first and foremost, as well as other Public Bills.  When the Lords attempted to resist this they were threatened with the creation of additional peers, and sensibly gave way.  The Parliament Act of 1949 reduced their powers still further; and their composition was altered by the Life Peerages Act of 1958.  Finally, the House of Lords Act of 1999 limited the hereditary peers in the house to 92, and they are now exceeded in number by the life peers.  Erskine May forms a great cornerstone of the British Constitution; but that very Constitution, as I am sure you are aware, is one of the most fluid and malleable in the world. You will find more specific details on the decline and fall of the House of Lords here .  You might also be interested in Unfinished Business: Reforming the House of Lords by Ivor Richard and Damien Welfare.  Clio the Muse 13:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this was enlightening. --Mbimmler 19:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

the disadvantages to consumers on impact marketing?
Everywhere i look, its always internet marketing and advantages of it. I need to know about the disadvantages on consumers on impact marketing on a broader scope, not just internet marketing. This is very frustrating...Please help me by pointing me in the right direction.

Moonshine in Canada
What is the legal status of privately distilled spirits in Canada? Is it covered in the Criminal Code of Canada? I'm fairly sure it is illegal but I'm not sure if its one for the cops or one for the revenooers. Lowerarchy 14:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Not all crimes are covered in the Criminal Code. With regard to moonshine, you'd have far better luck looking to the Food and Drugs Act, and in particular, its regulations. (BTW, what's a "revenooer"?) Loomis 19:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * BATF -- AnonMoos 01:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * BATF? The question was about Canada. To my knowledge we haven't become the 51st state just yet. Loomis 09:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You wanted to know what a "revenooer" was (as distinct from local law enforcement personnel). AnonMoos 15:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think a revenooer is moonshiner lingo for an IRS employee. I was trying to get into the spirit of things. Lowerarchy 21:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

the chimes of normandy france
i would like to how to find the history on the chimes if any one can help thanks


 * There are many churches in Normandy with sets of bells: see also carillon. --Wetman 00:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Les Cloches de Corneville is an operetta Englished as The Chimes of Normandy. According to French Wikipedia, the plot was inspired by a legend of the bells of Corneville-sur-Risle in Haute-Normandie. A page with more information recounts: during the 100 Years War, the English pillaged the abbey of Corneville; they loaded the town's bells onto a boat on the Risle in order to expropriate them; the boat capsized, and the monks recovered all but one of their bells; but the missing bell can miraculously be heard answering the others. One more odd tidbit: the Russians gave Corneville a bell dedicated to peace among peoples, recently declared a historical monument & now part of the carillon at a country inn with a charming restaurant. Not sure where any connection to that old abbey leaves off & the tourist trap tale begins... Wareh 00:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Two questions about USA
I am Ranga from India. I dont have any uncle or brother in USA and hence asking this question directly to you. 1)Are all TV channels available in all cable companies & satellite companies in USA? Or is there any exclusivity there? For example, can I watch any national channel available in Comcast or is there any channel which I cannot watch in Comcast but can watch in Time warner cable? Is there any Disney or NBC channel (company specified just for example) which I can see exclusively in DirecTV but cannot see anywhere in comcast or DishTv? 2)Is there exclusivity in content? For example, is there any song I can hear in XM and cannot hear in Sirius? Is there any song I can hear on MTV and cannot on Channel V?

Thanks, Ranga


 * There are a few exclusivity deals here and there, but not for major networks, who want to reach as many people as they can to attract more advertising revenue. Some providers do have exclusive services, like DirecTV's NFL Sunday Ticket (though I don't see too many non-Americans being interested in that), and on occasion, a provider will opt not to carry a certain channel over cost/licensing issues, but usually they get hammered out, as it can be bad for both sides.  For the most part, they should not have any problem getting all or almost all of the major channels & networks through one provider or another.  On the music side of things, usually there aren't any exclusive deals, as much as first-play deals, where MTV or another network will be the first to show a certain artist's video/play their single, I would imagine there have been a few exclusive tracks/titles here and there, but it's not very prevalent. Cyraan 19:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There are also "packages" with several levels of cost, so that you can buy a "basic cable" package which will probably carry ESPN and USA Network, but you would have to pay extra for, for example, The Food Network. And then HBO, Cinemax, etc. have their own packages.  There are also certain networks which are only available on digital cable, so unless you have a digital converter, you can't see them at all.  Corvus cornix 19:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. In general, television companies (whether cable or satellite) pay third parties to carry their television channels. Most (and by that i mean almost all) companies have a standard selection of maybe thirty to sixty of the most popular channels (like CNN, Discovery, and Cartoon Network, to name just a few). You will almost always have these thirty to sixty channels available with any given provider.


 * Some carriers do run more 'niche' channels, and due to the lower appeal some of these channels are carried by only a few providers (or even just one). For example, DISH Network carries a channel called Free Speech TV, but DirecTV does not. This is pretty much just a matter of DirecTV's preference; it's not 'exclusive' in the sense that there's some kind of contract preventing DirecTV from carrying it. Also, some of the more specialty channels (like Boomerang) may only be available with one of a carrier's more expensive packages, and this also is determined more or less by preference. As an example, Mediacom carries CourtTV as part of their basic package (at least in Iowa), but as of this year that same channel is only available in the 'premium' package on DISH Network.


 * Lastly there are some channels which are actually 'exclusive' by design. Satellite companies all have their own in-house channels that are only available with their service. DirecTV and DISH both have channels advertising their own services, and naturally DISH wouldn't carry a channel designed to advertise DirecTV products, so that's definitely a DirecTV 'exclusive'. DirecTV also has a channel called 'The 101' which is used to air free concerts and stuff like that. Mediacom in my area carries a channel called 'Mediacom Mainstreet', which is used to show-case local realty offerings and the like.


 * Also see the NFL Network. The NFL is demanding huge fees to carry the channel, and Time Warner Cable has refused to pay up. -- Mwalcoff 22:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 2. As for the music question, it depends. Sirius or MTV or whoever may get the rights to air a concert or something, in which case you could consider that concert exclusive. But in general it would not be especially useful for an artist to limit his songs to one carrier (since it would diminish his visibility). Sirius and XM definitely do have exclusive channels, though. ~ lav-chan @ 19:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't all copyrighted music in the U.S. under ASCAP or BMI? Wouldn't that allow any radio station to play any song so long as they pay the rights fees? -- Mwalcoff 22:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, that's obviously two completely separate questions, and the second sort of depends on the first. The answer to the first question is of course no; i could write a song right now and it'd be automatically copyrighted, but it would not be covered by the ASCAP or BMI. Most popular music probably is, though. That in mind, it's hard to answer the second question. Do authors (or labels) choose to register all their tracks with those organisations, or just their singles? I would assume all of them (because even songs that aren't broad-cast on the radio need royalties paid on them if they're used for something else), but maybe not. If the answer to that question is yes, then maybe the copyright holder can choose not to grant a licence to a station for certain songs. And if the answer to the question is no, then obviously the station couldn't play the song without special permission anyway. I dunno. ~ lav-chan @ 22:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Google
How do Americans like Google? What ever your answer may be, tell me why. -Ranga.


 * Hi, Ranga!  Though ordinarily the reference desks are for questions of fact, the second part of your sentence makes it sound like you're asking our opinions.   I'm sure there are enough Americans here that you could at least find out what a few posters to the Wikipedia Reference Desks think of Google, though I'd point out that this is NOT a random sample of Americans -- most average americans don't spend their time answering questions here.   That said, for what it's worth, here's my opinions/experience:


 * 1. When used effectively, thoughtfully, and wisely, I find Google to be comprehensive, relatively intuitive, and exceptionally powerful.  I think the Google interface is elegant and ergonomic, and the simplicity of presentation is much more effective than, say, MSN or AOL's search tools.   Their advanced functions seem to cover what I would otherwise want to use Boolean language for.   Their results are presented usefully, with the information I'd actually want to know, and in ways that most often allow me to decide if a link is worth pursuing.   Notably, I teach information literacy (including how to make the most of tools like Google); I have graduate work and teaching experience in searching and researching; I AM an expert in this, and I use Google.   That said...


 * 2. Like all tools, Google is only as effective if it is used well.   MOST users would get a lot more out of Google (and out of knowing when NOT to use a search engine) if they had some training.    In my experience and informed opinion, some Americans who think they do NOT like Google, or do not like it for certain uses, have no real beef with Google -- instead, they misunderstand the potential for tools to do our thinking for us, and have not yet taken ownership of the fact that, no matter how advanced technology gets, it takes real skill, knowledge, and the right attitude and understanding to use any tool as effectively as possible.   This is true of Google, and it is true of Wikipedia, and it is true of the Reference Desks. Jfarber 18:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not just Americans who like Google. I do too! Clio the Muse 20:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, but Ragna wants to know WHY, Clio :-) Jfarber 20:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * On that point I can provide no better answer than the one you have already given! Clio the Muse 21:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Aside from using Google as a tool (which I personally love) some people have political issues with Google, mainly due to its willingness to collude with China in censoring access to the Internet. I haven't heard of any mass boycotts of Google for this, but I imagine there are some people who don't use Google for moral/political reasons. Natalie 18:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Art History
My high school doesn't offer an Art History course, and since I've been interested in learning about the subject for as long as I can remember, I thought I might ask what books anybody here might suggest that are essentially surveys of Art History. I'm looking for basically what the AP course gives you, but since I have had very little experience with textbooks that don't make me fall asleep, I was hoping somebody here could suggest a well-written non-textbook Art History survey-type book. Not TOO big. I plan to take a course on Art History in college, but I'd like some general knowledge anyway beforehand. Thanks, Sashafklein 18:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no texts to recommend (though others surely will), but if you are an American student, you might ask your school if they partner with (or are willing to partner with) the Virtual High School -- that way, you could take the AP Art History course through your own high school, even though they don't offer it. Jfarber 19:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The Art History class I took in college was a joke. But you should be able to get everything I got out of my class from Wikipedia, reading a bit on major artists such as Vincent van Gogh and Leonardo da Vinci and Pablo Picasso and Monet etc. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Janson's History of Art is a pretty standard text. You can get some idea of its contents at the online study guide. - Nunh-huh 20:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There are so many choices, Sashafklein, that it's difficult for me to make a specific recommendation. However, one of the best general introductions is E. H. Gombrich's The Story of Art. It's almost seven hundred pages long in the paperback edition, though; but what can you expect from an account that begins with cave painting and ends with Brancussi! A World History of Art by Hugh Honour and and John Fleming is also quite good, though it's even longer than Gombrich! On modern art specifically The Shock of the New by Robert Hughes is a good introduction and a great read. Clio the Muse 20:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Both my old US High school AP Art History class, as well as my current college use the same text general Art History text book: Gardner's Art Through the Ages Vol. 12. I like it, and my professor thinks very highly of it as it goes from prehistory (e.g. Cavemen) to modern day, and includes Asian, African, and South American art for a more global perspective. Bear in mind that as it is Art history, be ready to learn and undertand underlying historical times and events as precursors and influences to the art itself.


 * My other suggestion is go to a major city and check out their art collections, such as DC's National Gallery of Art, NYC's Metropolitan Museum of Art, or Chicago's Art Institute of Chicago. Nothing beats studying a peice like seeing the original. Zidel333 22:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler Book I inherited
Good day to you,

I have recently inherited a book on Adolf Hitler, and I have been unable to locate it anywhere in the library or online however; it was brought back by my uncle who was in WWII with my father. ≤ – — … ° ≈ My question is, Do you have some sort of information on it in your archives? I would like to have a value placed on this book for insurance purposes, should I have the book repaired or left alone. I need history on this book so that I will know which direction I need to follow. Your help will be greatly appreciated. It is completly in german and I don't read or speak the language.

It is Tilted " Adolf Hitler" Bilder Aus Dem Leben Des Fuherers : Herausgegeben Vom Cigaretten/ Bilderdienst Hamburg/Bahrenfeld

I believe it is by: Der Reichstagspralident dor dem Deutlhen Reichstag zu Nurnberg am 15 September 1935

I think the publishing information is: 1501.-1600. Taulend Auswahl und kunletlerilhe Bearbeitung dere bilder dieles Werkes lagen in den Handen des Reihs=Bildberiherltatters der NSDAP, Heinrih Hoffmann, Munhen Das ganzleitige Titelbild ilt die Wiedergabe eines Gemaldes don B. Jacobs Entwurf fur Einband und Titel don O.H.W. Hadank, Berlin Graphilhe Geltaltung: Carl Ernlt Poelhel, Leipzig Copyright 1936 by Cigaretten=Bilderienlt Hamburg=Bahrenfeld Printed in Germany Druh und Einband don f. A. Brockhaus, Leipzig***Thank you qwkfingwrs


 * This is difficuly to answer with any degree of precision, without seeing the book and the quality of the photographs. Much depends, moreover, on whether it is a first edition or not, and the condition it is in.   But to be perfectly honest with you this kind of thing was churned out in huge quantities, and it is unlikely to have any great value.  However, to be sure you really have to seek the advice of a specialist in rare books.  You should not have any repair work done prior to this.  Clio the Muse 20:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Adding to Clio's wise words, anything contemporary dealing with Hitler has a market. You're unlucky in that a publication date of 1935 postdates his rise to power. If you had a book about him dated 1932 or earlier, there would be far less chance of it being a mass-circulation issue. --Dweller 12:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Some info on the book can be found here. It was printed in over two million copies. You can buy a copy (first edition, condition "very good") from US$ 99.71. --Lambiam Talk  15:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Poet Laureate
In 1341 Petrarch was crowned poet laureate in Rome for his epic poem called "Africa". He was the first person since antiquity to be given this honor; some 1000 years. This would put it then in about the 4th century, since he was of the 14th century. Whom was this previous person before Petrarch? Of Rome or of Greece or...? --Doug talk 20:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Surely Gulielmus Peregrinus, court poet to Richard the Lionheart, preceeds Petrarch by well over a century? I cannot say, though, if he was accorded that title specifically.  I do not believe that the formal designation existed in classical times.  Clio the Muse 21:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It was it was Theodosius who killed the Roman title, see Theodosius I. In his attempt to christianise the empire he abolished anything vaguely pagan including the Olympics. The Olympics and other games were when laureates were usually crowned but I don't know if there was ever any consistency between life laureateship and short term holders of laurels. It did actually outlive Theodosius with Claudian having probably the best claim to the last of that title by a Roman but the job was in effect privatised, with him being employed by Stilicho rather than the state. Ah it seems Attius Tiro Delphidius may have been the last officially crowned at an olympics in the time of Theodosius, here is a latin poem about him by Ausonius  meltBanana  21:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for these answers. Looking up these references at a quick glance it does appear that in fact it was in the 4th century when all this type history took place. This will be a lot for me to obsorb. I will be studying it, now that I have some great leads to work on. Thanks for these leads and this great information. --Doug talk 22:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Cosmetics-related free press release posting places
I'm trying to figure out who to find some press release places and news aggregators online that specialize in news about cosmetics and skin care. I have a big list of free places to post press releases, but it's a lot to go through. Does anyone have any suggestion? 66.183.217.186 20:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Balkans
What language did the Balkans use in the 5th century A.D.? Were they part of the Ancient Italic peoples? Did they use a language from Greece or Italy or France or some other western European languages around this time period? --Doug talk 22:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would guess, Greek in the south, some Latin (i.e. the predecessor of modern Romanian), and in addition, dispersed groups of Illyrian, Cimmerian, Thracian, Celtic, and Eastern Germanic speaking peoples. Not all that many Slavs until after the Avar debacle of 602 A.D. AnonMoos 01:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In addition, the people near the Danube may have spoken the Dacian language, an extinct language related to Albanian. The Huns, who spoke a Turkic language, harassed the area around today's Serbia. They did have some Slavs with them. -- Mwalcoff 02:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The page on the Balkan linguistic union has some sketchy information on contacts between Proto-Romanian and Proto-Albanian linguistic groups between the 1st and 5th centuries AD. The dominant language in Illyria to the west of the Balkan peninsula was still Vulgar Latin, in the urban settlements anyway. The map on this page shows an extensive distribution of Eastern Romance or East Latin over the whole of the northern Balkan area at the beginning of the fifth century. To the south-east the ancient Thracian language was still in use, though it had disappeared by the 6th century. Further south the dominant language was Greek. Clio the Muse 08:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a great answer. I have much to work on now. That was most helpful!! --Doug talk 20:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Stamps
Are all U.S. stamps in the pd? - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here) | HISTORY 22:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The USPS article says: All U.S. postage stamps and other postage items that were released before 1978 are in the public domain. After this time they are copyright by the postal service under Title 17 of the United States Code. Written permission is required for use of copyrighted postage stamp images. ~ lav-chan @ 22:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)