Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 January 6

= January 6 =

How does Pooh appear in Sophie's World?
A number of characters from other stories appear in Sophie's World, by Jostein Gaarder, particularly in the later chapters, but most of these characters are public domain. Then in the chapter titled "Kant", a certain stuffed bear in a red sweater appears and introduces himself as "Winnie-the-Pooh". He drops the names of Piglet, Rabbit, Eeyore, and Owl, to make it very clear exactly who he is.

I'm a bit confused. As I understood it, Winnie-the-Pooh was first written of in 1926, and thus is still under copyright today, let alone in 1991 when Sophie's World was written, and 1995 when it was translated into Pooh's native language. (Actually, that article at the beginning of this paragraph mentions Pooh revenue disputes over a decade after Sophie's World, so he's certainly under copyright even today.)

Now I've been reading a lot of Jasper Fforde lately, and my understanding from his writing is that a copyrighted character can appear, but not speak. (Fforde's recurring joke is that a copyrighted character like Harry Potter is asked to appear for some speech or ceremony, but has to cancel at the last minute due to copyright reasons.) Pooh of course is speaking quite a bit in his appearance here.

The red sweater might also confuse things further. It does not appear on the actual stuffed bear in the New York Public Library, nor does it appear in the text of the books, or the original illustrations. Apparently the red shirt was created by Stephen Slesinger in 1932, and it seems to me that it could be used in the way that MGM has used Dorothy's ruby slippers -- the slippers did not appear in the original book The Wizard of Oz, so while Dorothy herself is public domain, her slippers are copyright MGM 1939, and you have to pay a small fortune to use them.

There's no mention anywhere in the book of Gaarder obtaining permission to use Pooh. Is this something you don't have to mention? Or does the copyright somehow not apply to Norway and translations of books written in Norway? Or is Gaarder getting away with this just because no one with rights to Pooh has noticed yet?

74.94.209.187 (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * List of countries' copyright lengths gives life plus 70 years for Norway. A. A. Milne died in 1956 so his works are public domain in Norway from Jan 1, 2027. The answer to your question, however, either lies in the article Fair use or the publishers of Sophie’s World negotiated a fee (this is commonly done, for example, when books quote poetry in chapter headings). A concise, useful discussion of what needs permission/fees and what doesn’t can be found here. 142.150.38.133 (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The motif of the red sweater might be a red herring. Pooh didn't wear one in the books AFAIK. The bear with the red top is Rupert; the clothing is as recognisable as Paddington's duffel coat. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Winnie-the-Pooh WHAAOE MChesterMC (talk) 09:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Official name of USA
When, exactly, did the USA officially get the name "United States of America"? I am assuming July 4, 1776, but I am not 100% sure. Also, what was the official name before "United States of America"? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The term is simply a phrase as used in the Declaration of Independence; "the united States of America", where united is a separate, lower case adjective describing the states. The Articles of Confederation, July 9, 1778 state in article one, "The style of this confederacy shall be, "The United States of America."  There's your official title.  The preamble to the Constitution says it is established "for the United States of America." μηδείς (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict] There does not seem to have been any legislation declaring that "United States of America" is the official name of the country, but that name, alongside "United States" is used in its founding documents, the United States Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. Consequently, both the long form and the short form (without "of America") can be considered official names.  Before the ratification of the Declaration of Independence in July 1776, there was in fact no such thing as the United States, and therefore no name for that nonexistent entity. Each of the British colonies was distinct and in no way associated with the others, except individually and voluntarily and as constituent parts of the British empire. The first Continental Congress referred to the body it represented variously as "these colonies", "America", and "the English colonies in North America".  All of these terms, except for the nondescript "these colonies" would have referred not only to what were later known as "the 13 colonies" but also to other British colonies, such as Quebec, Nova Scotia, and East and West Florida, none of which were part of the United States after 1776.  Marco polo (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Having just read Medeis's post, I would point out that the Articles of Confederation are no longer in effect. Nonetheless, that line from the Articles may have helped to establish that name as "official", though its official status is now really de facto.  Marco polo (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The op may find some answers in our article History_of_USA. It's slightly complicated.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  20:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Marco Polo, the Articles of Confederation are no longer in effect, but it's occasionally referred to believe it or not. Check out Texas_v._White where the supreme court ruled that the "In order to form a more perfect union" in the preamble meant that the USA was constitutionally perpetual even though the constitution didn't mention that. The articles of Confederation did use the word "perpetual", and they ruled that the USA couldn't be "more perfect" than the previous union if it wasn't perpetual, therefore it was!  APL (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * (ec) According to Articles_of_Confederation, they defined the term. Of course, until the US won the Revolutionary War, the Brits and many others still called them the British colonies.  These were drafted starting in 1776 but not fully ratified until 1781.  One interesting point is that people said "these" United States, meaning united countries, until the Civil War.  After that it became "the" United States. StuRat (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Very interesting replies. Now, here is what specifically prompted my question. In the Wikipedia article Elizabeth Ann Seton, its opening line states: Elizabeth Ann Bayley Seton, S.C., (August 28, 1774 – January 4, 1821) was the first native-born citizen of the United States to be canonized by the Roman Catholic Church (September 14, 1975). As I was reading this, I noted that she was born in 1774. Thus, doesn't that fact (technically) make the introductory statement false? In other words, she was not born in the United States because, in 1774, there was no such entity known as the "United States". So, am I correct, or is my thinking off for some reason? Also, if I am correct, what would be the appropriate way to make the statement about Seton, so that it is factually accurate? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * One possible answer is in the way "natural born citizen" is defined in the Constitution. Obviously, the founding fathers weren't born in the USA, as such, because there was no such thing yet. But they were "grandfathered in" by the Constitution. I've run into this occasionally in genealogy research, where someone will be stated to have been born in "West Virginia" prior to the Civil War. It depends whether you're referring to current geography or geography as it was at some point in the past. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is rich pickings for pedants and their ilk. For example, none of my grandparents was born in Australia, technically.  They were all born in the 1890s in Sydney and surrounding areas.  Sydney was then the capital of the British colony of New South Wales.  There was no such unified nation as Australia until 1901.  But for anyone to deny my grandparents were native-born Australians would be a little extreme, I think.  Similarly, my parents (born in 1919 and 1925) were not born Australian citizens, because there was no such thing as Australian citizenship until 1949.  Prior to then, all people born in Australia were British subjects.  But for anyone to deny my parents have always been Australians  - except in the most abstruse and arcane legal sense - would be somewhat absurd. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think the phrase "first native-born citizen of the United States" is false, "technically". She was native born - which means born in the land - and also a citizen of the United States. I doubt that better phrasing could be found, without unnecessary prolixity. Paul B (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Well, that's exactly the point of the question.  You state: "which means born in the land".  Exactly.  But, born in what land?  The land known as the United States.  That seems technically incorrect to me.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Born in the land now known as the United States of America." StuRat (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * A story along the same lines (pre-1991)... A Russian old-timer is asked where he was born. "Saint Petersburg." And where did you grow up? "Petrograd." And where did you live and work in the prime of life? "Leningrad." And where would you like to spend your final years? "Saint Petersburg!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 03:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, all, for the above input and feedback. Much appreciated. Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)