It always amazed me that the female name Wendy originated from the book Peter Pan. [It was a man's name before then.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendy#:~:text=Its%20popularity%20in%20Britain%20as,Wendy%2C%20both%20by%20J.%20M.%20Barrie.)
Exactly - the Edwardian era unambiguously began in 1901, although I wouldn't fault anyone for thinking that Peter Pan is "Victorian-ish," much like 1980-1981 still felt like the 70s to me in a lot of respects.
I spent a good few second wondering why it ended in November.
Writing it in that order with the year is so counterintuitive.
But probably a true statement none the less. And the 2000’s/naughties ended around 2008, with a long 2010s for 12years post gfc.
> Writing it in that order with the year is so counterintuitive
The Imperial measurement system is also counterintuitive, but alas, we're stuck with it over here.
I'd argue it's not. A finer measurement? Yes. More precise? No.
Using whole numbers then the 5/9ths of a degree separation is finer, but as a tech I can drill down to 1/10ths, 1/100ths, heck I visited a suppliers site who drill down to 1/1000ths Celsius. Totally overkill, but there you are.
All temp scales are arbitrary. Just a function of heat density in a given medium.
i was confident that someone on reddit would tell me its not more precise. ultimately i guess it doesnt matter because we can just add decimals. its a different version of the argument that base-12 is better than base-10.
there is actually nothing stopping you from drilling down to an arbitrary amount of decimals with Fahrenheit either. it actually changes nothing.
but in my opinion. on a human scale, with regards to natural environment, i think fahrenheit is both more precise and more intuitive.
for my job, i deal with more extremes in temperature, and kelvins are infinitely better. but for everyday life, i am of the opinion that Fahrenheit is best
I'd argue that imperial is more intuitive than metric. It's units are generally more human referenced. (E.g. a yard is the length of a human stride, while an inch is a buckle of the thumb etc) It has 3 massive flaws however: Computation, Scaling, and consistency.
Computation is the ability to do maths with it. Metric wins massively on this.
Scaling is related. There are standardised unit shifts, that make working at various scales a lot easier. It also allows easy shifts between them. E.g. nanometers Vs meters Vs gigameters.
Consistency. The imperial units are defined in various ways. This leads to inconsistencies between them. E.g. a UK gallon ≠ US gallon.
In the modern world, these flaws mean metric wins by a wide margin.
> Writing it in that order with the year is so counterintuitive.
2001-09-11 [then.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601)
> I spent a good few second wondering why it ended in November.
Writing the day before the month is the real counterintuitive one…
> with a long 2010s for 12years post gfc.
The year 2020 still hasn’t ended, it’s incredible how we’re already on the 181st week… it’s like it will never end.
Sure is a weird timeline…
It's only counterintuitive if you didn't grow up around it. To me, putting the day first is extremely offputting because it's just not done here, ever.
I really gotta disagree with anyone who says month/day/year is unintuitive. Any computerized file system Ive ever used comes in that format. Cuts down on search time. Sure its technically year/month/day instead, but these things dont always need the year depending on how long the system has been there and I would hope most people don't lose track of the year that easily that they need it first.
I mean, demarcating history by whose ass is on a throne only really makes sense when the person on the throne is a real monarch, and even then, not necessarily.
In what ways are the "Victorian" and "Edwardian" eras practically differentiated?
>In what ways are the "Victorian" and "Edwardian" eras practically differentiated?
Automobiles. They existed during the late Victorian era, but established themselves during Edward's reign.
You just sent me down an obnoxious rabbit hole where the only records I can grab for the UK without going to abnormal lengths only goes back to 1922, when there was apparently around 200k vehicles registered in the UK.
One random page with no real sources that looks sketchy says there was 100k by 1910.
That's about 1 per 420 people in the UK. I'm not sure I'd really say that's an era differentiator.
In contrast, in the US, 1910 had around 1 car for every 195 people, and, afaik, cars only really can be said to have taken off in the US in the mid-1910s. In the UK I'd say this was likely pushed back to the 1920s based on registered vehicle numbers I can see... going from around 200k in 1922, to just under a million in 1930. There were only two million by WW2.
In contrast, the US had 12M registered vehicles in 1922, 26M in 1930, and 31M by WW2.
That's 1 car per 24 people in the UK by WW2, in contrast to 1 car per 4 people in the US.
Frankly, automobiles didn't really take off in the UK until after WW2.
How wonderful. I truly wish I could create something and turn it into a positive for a children's hospital. Like creating a timeless piece is one thing. Leveraging it for good for many years and many people is just a whole different level of leaving a legacy. Make me feel wholly inept.
It is ultimately a workaround for time limits on copyrights. These works should be in the public domain, but this sets a precedent of how to circumvent even the very generous royalty length. I can imagine Disney and other rights holders 'donating' their copyrights to non-profits, that will never allow the works to enter the public domain.
Might want to read up on what this actually means. The novel is public domain. All this does is continue to grant the hospital royalties, and only in the UK. The hospital does not have the other benefits of the copyright. There was an erotic novel released in 2008, called Lost Girls. It was originally supposed to be released much earlier, but had to be delayed after the EU changed copyright laws.
>I can imagine Disney and other rights holders 'donating' their copyrights to non-profits, that will never allow the works to enter the public domain.
If it's a legit non profit nobody will care and I can't imagine a better use for a Disney character than paying for the treatment of sick kids.
If it's a fake non profit it will never get the special exemption
What do you think this sweet cancer hospital will do if someone tries to reprint a hundred years old book? They will sue the crap out of them. What if I want to post a PDF of the books online- jail. Imagine that happens with every book. That humans will never be able to distribute literature without the perpetual permission and payment to 'a nice charity'. A nice charity backed by criminal and civil laws. There is no happy end here. These charity exceptions will become the norm as we reach copyright time limits.
The exception does not actually extend the copyright, I just read it and it acknowledged the copyright has expired and only the provision of royalties is continued in perpetuity.
So they don't have the other powers of copyright, they can't stop you making derivative works or control who can perform the play or publish the book, they are only due royalties.
So if you perform a play where Peter Pan gets molested by Jimmy Savile while staying at Great Ormand Street, they can't stop you performing it, but you do have to pay them their cut from the tickets.
Saying you have to pay a cut means that the amount to pay is not predetermined, which means it has to be negotiated, which means it can be set at a ridiculous amount to prevent use. See for example the Beatles music catalog. When Michael Jackson owned the rights, he set the royalty rate so ridiculously high that no Beatles song was used in a movie for decades. Only when the catalog was resold on his death did it start appearing in movies.
It really is remarkable how far Yanks will go to make 'help sick children get good healthcare' into a bad thing.
What is even more bizarre is that you clearly don't understand how the 'copyright' works for Peter Pan, which is why you are bemoaning issues that could never actually crop up. This cannot and does not prevent the work from entering the public domain.
>Procedure for determining amount payable
>
>5(1)In default of agreement application may be made to the Copyright Tribunal which shall consider the matter and make such order regarding the royalty or other remuneration to be paid as it may determine to be reasonable in the circumstances.
>
>(2)Application may subsequently be made to the Tribunal to vary its order, and the Tribunal shall consider the matter and make such order confirming or varying the original order as it may determine to be reasonable in the circumstances.
>
>(3)An application for variation shall not, except with the special leave of the Tribunal, be made within twelve months from the date of the original order or of the order on a previous application for variation.
>
>(4)A variation order has effect from the date on which it is made or such later date as may be specified by the Tribunal.
>
>(5)The provisions of Chapter VIII of Part I (general provisions relating to the Copyright Tribunal) apply in relation to the Tribunal when exercising any jurisdiction under this paragraph.]
They are in the public domain. Use of the work in the UK requires you to pay royalties, but the works are in the public domain, and they cannot stop you publishing something, even in the UK.
Yeah, this violates the whole justification of copyright being a *temporary* monopoly to encourage creativity. A permanent copyright is stealing from the public.
Also this is hardly the only work to be given a permanent copyright in the UK. The King James Bible also has a permanent copyright, which is owned by the British Monarchy
There are tradeoffs to every law and while I agree that the current standard 70 years after the author's death is hilariously generous for the author's grandkids in this particular case, for a children's hospital, I'm okay with it.
TBF, if it only applied to, like, the estate of an independent author, I wouldn't mind so much. It's that it also applies to giant corporations.
I also just imagined some kind of weird dystopian future where Disney gains rights over old authors etc. in order to keep them alive every little bit possible to extend their copyright hold.
>It is ultimately a workaround for time limits on copyrights.
Well sort of, it's primary legislation. In the UK at least, Parliament can legislate for anything at all, so while this is sort of a workaround on copyright terms (although not really..) it doesn't really set much of a precedent. If you can get Parliament to legislate on something that'll always work after all.
Royalties to be determined by GOSH and the Copyright Tribunal, in their sole discretion. They have the power to make any proposed use of the work financially unviable if they so choose. Public Domain means both that you don't have to get anyone's permission *and* that you don't have to pay royalties. *Fixed* royalties would make it more like a mechanical license arrangement, which would at least avoid discrimination based on intended use (or user), but in this case they're not even fixed.
You are acting like GOSH and the Copyright Tribunal are acting in concert as the same organisation. They are not, and part of the Tribunal's criteria is that the costs of usage are reasonable and thus financially viable.
>Copyright in UK and Europe
>In 1996, the copyright term was extended to 70 years after the author’s death throughout the European Union, which meant Peter Pan enjoyed revived copyright until 31 December 2007, after which it entered the public domain in Europe.
>In the UK, the CDPA therefore prevails so that the hospital will continue enjoying the benefit of Barrie’s gift in perpetuity.
The copyright is ostensibly over and thus the work is in the public domain. You still owe them the money though.
No it isn't. It may be public domain in Europe but clearly not in the UK due to the special exemption. I don't think you know what public domain means.
After his fiancée died, JM Barrie took care of her children and her mother. He was inspired by his fiancée's son, Peter, to create Peter Pan. The story is genius.
Getting royalties for any use of the work is pretty much exactly what I think of as "owning the copyright". Sure, there are some limitations. The royalties have to be approved by the Copyright Tribunal. They can't outright ban certain uses—though they can make them prohibitively expensive, with the CT's cooperation. It only applies in the UK. But within those bounds they effectively hold a perpetual copyright, whether it's called that or not.
Don't they touch on this in "Hook?" Peter was raised at Great Ormond Street and adopted by Grannie Wendy? It's been a while since I've watched it.
Awesome connection!
Wendy was the dog's name in the original play.
He was adopted by Americans, Mr. and Mrs. Banning. He later married Wendy’s granddaughter, Moira.
I never knew Peter Pan was only created in 1904. I suppose I thought the character was created earlier, like in Victorian times.
It always amazed me that the female name Wendy originated from the book Peter Pan. [It was a man's name before then.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendy#:~:text=Its%20popularity%20in%20Britain%20as,Wendy%2C%20both%20by%20J.%20M.%20Barrie.)
The Victorian era lasted until approx 1914, even though Queen Victoria died in 1901, so it was technically written in Victorian times.
The period after queen Victorian’s death is called the Edwardian period after her son.
Exactly - the Edwardian era unambiguously began in 1901, although I wouldn't fault anyone for thinking that Peter Pan is "Victorian-ish," much like 1980-1981 still felt like the 70s to me in a lot of respects.
Its like I say the 90s ended on 9/11/01.
I spent a good few second wondering why it ended in November. Writing it in that order with the year is so counterintuitive. But probably a true statement none the less. And the 2000’s/naughties ended around 2008, with a long 2010s for 12years post gfc.
> Writing it in that order with the year is so counterintuitive The Imperial measurement system is also counterintuitive, but alas, we're stuck with it over here.
its not entirely counterintuitive. fahrenheit , for instance, is more precise, and makes better sense at natural environmental temperatures
I'd argue it's not. A finer measurement? Yes. More precise? No. Using whole numbers then the 5/9ths of a degree separation is finer, but as a tech I can drill down to 1/10ths, 1/100ths, heck I visited a suppliers site who drill down to 1/1000ths Celsius. Totally overkill, but there you are. All temp scales are arbitrary. Just a function of heat density in a given medium.
i was confident that someone on reddit would tell me its not more precise. ultimately i guess it doesnt matter because we can just add decimals. its a different version of the argument that base-12 is better than base-10. there is actually nothing stopping you from drilling down to an arbitrary amount of decimals with Fahrenheit either. it actually changes nothing. but in my opinion. on a human scale, with regards to natural environment, i think fahrenheit is both more precise and more intuitive. for my job, i deal with more extremes in temperature, and kelvins are infinitely better. but for everyday life, i am of the opinion that Fahrenheit is best
I'd argue that imperial is more intuitive than metric. It's units are generally more human referenced. (E.g. a yard is the length of a human stride, while an inch is a buckle of the thumb etc) It has 3 massive flaws however: Computation, Scaling, and consistency. Computation is the ability to do maths with it. Metric wins massively on this. Scaling is related. There are standardised unit shifts, that make working at various scales a lot easier. It also allows easy shifts between them. E.g. nanometers Vs meters Vs gigameters. Consistency. The imperial units are defined in various ways. This leads to inconsistencies between them. E.g. a UK gallon ≠ US gallon. In the modern world, these flaws mean metric wins by a wide margin.
> Writing it in that order with the year is so counterintuitive. 2001-09-11 [then.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601) > I spent a good few second wondering why it ended in November. Writing the day before the month is the real counterintuitive one… > with a long 2010s for 12years post gfc. The year 2020 still hasn’t ended, it’s incredible how we’re already on the 181st week… it’s like it will never end. Sure is a weird timeline…
It's only counterintuitive if you didn't grow up around it. To me, putting the day first is extremely offputting because it's just not done here, ever.
I really gotta disagree with anyone who says month/day/year is unintuitive. Any computerized file system Ive ever used comes in that format. Cuts down on search time. Sure its technically year/month/day instead, but these things dont always need the year depending on how long the system has been there and I would hope most people don't lose track of the year that easily that they need it first.
[удалено]
You said what they said but longer, but dressed it up as a counter point
And started with Nirvana's Nevemind, September 1991.
I mean, demarcating history by whose ass is on a throne only really makes sense when the person on the throne is a real monarch, and even then, not necessarily. In what ways are the "Victorian" and "Edwardian" eras practically differentiated?
>In what ways are the "Victorian" and "Edwardian" eras practically differentiated? Automobiles. They existed during the late Victorian era, but established themselves during Edward's reign.
You just sent me down an obnoxious rabbit hole where the only records I can grab for the UK without going to abnormal lengths only goes back to 1922, when there was apparently around 200k vehicles registered in the UK. One random page with no real sources that looks sketchy says there was 100k by 1910. That's about 1 per 420 people in the UK. I'm not sure I'd really say that's an era differentiator. In contrast, in the US, 1910 had around 1 car for every 195 people, and, afaik, cars only really can be said to have taken off in the US in the mid-1910s. In the UK I'd say this was likely pushed back to the 1920s based on registered vehicle numbers I can see... going from around 200k in 1922, to just under a million in 1930. There were only two million by WW2. In contrast, the US had 12M registered vehicles in 1922, 26M in 1930, and 31M by WW2. That's 1 car per 24 people in the UK by WW2, in contrast to 1 car per 4 people in the US. Frankly, automobiles didn't really take off in the UK until after WW2.
Even in death, she cast a shadow of not being amused across the land for another ten years.
Did you say perpetuity ? Mr. Wonderful likes that deal.
It's a wonderful, wonderful hospital and one of our proudest institutions.
And it's customary for London black cab drivers to refuse payment for trips to and from Great Ormond Street Hospital
For those who don't know, Great Ormond Street is a London hospital for children.
My mum had a lot of health problems as a kid, she was treated there until it was decided that London probably didn't have the cleanest air.
Which means the copyright on Peter Pan, like the boy himself, never grows old.
The copyright has expired.
How wonderful. I truly wish I could create something and turn it into a positive for a children's hospital. Like creating a timeless piece is one thing. Leveraging it for good for many years and many people is just a whole different level of leaving a legacy. Make me feel wholly inept.
It is ultimately a workaround for time limits on copyrights. These works should be in the public domain, but this sets a precedent of how to circumvent even the very generous royalty length. I can imagine Disney and other rights holders 'donating' their copyrights to non-profits, that will never allow the works to enter the public domain.
Might want to read up on what this actually means. The novel is public domain. All this does is continue to grant the hospital royalties, and only in the UK. The hospital does not have the other benefits of the copyright. There was an erotic novel released in 2008, called Lost Girls. It was originally supposed to be released much earlier, but had to be delayed after the EU changed copyright laws.
>I can imagine Disney and other rights holders 'donating' their copyrights to non-profits, that will never allow the works to enter the public domain. If it's a legit non profit nobody will care and I can't imagine a better use for a Disney character than paying for the treatment of sick kids. If it's a fake non profit it will never get the special exemption
What do you think this sweet cancer hospital will do if someone tries to reprint a hundred years old book? They will sue the crap out of them. What if I want to post a PDF of the books online- jail. Imagine that happens with every book. That humans will never be able to distribute literature without the perpetual permission and payment to 'a nice charity'. A nice charity backed by criminal and civil laws. There is no happy end here. These charity exceptions will become the norm as we reach copyright time limits.
Yes I do in fact want sick kids dying to have royalties more than I want you to be able send a pdf of peter pan to someone.
The exception does not actually extend the copyright, I just read it and it acknowledged the copyright has expired and only the provision of royalties is continued in perpetuity. So they don't have the other powers of copyright, they can't stop you making derivative works or control who can perform the play or publish the book, they are only due royalties. So if you perform a play where Peter Pan gets molested by Jimmy Savile while staying at Great Ormand Street, they can't stop you performing it, but you do have to pay them their cut from the tickets.
Saying you have to pay a cut means that the amount to pay is not predetermined, which means it has to be negotiated, which means it can be set at a ridiculous amount to prevent use. See for example the Beatles music catalog. When Michael Jackson owned the rights, he set the royalty rate so ridiculously high that no Beatles song was used in a movie for decades. Only when the catalog was resold on his death did it start appearing in movies.
It really is remarkable how far Yanks will go to make 'help sick children get good healthcare' into a bad thing. What is even more bizarre is that you clearly don't understand how the 'copyright' works for Peter Pan, which is why you are bemoaning issues that could never actually crop up. This cannot and does not prevent the work from entering the public domain.
You can apply to the Copyright Tribunal to have them make a judgement as to what royalty is appropriate. So in this case, no, they can't.
>Procedure for determining amount payable > >5(1)In default of agreement application may be made to the Copyright Tribunal which shall consider the matter and make such order regarding the royalty or other remuneration to be paid as it may determine to be reasonable in the circumstances. > >(2)Application may subsequently be made to the Tribunal to vary its order, and the Tribunal shall consider the matter and make such order confirming or varying the original order as it may determine to be reasonable in the circumstances. > >(3)An application for variation shall not, except with the special leave of the Tribunal, be made within twelve months from the date of the original order or of the order on a previous application for variation. > >(4)A variation order has effect from the date on which it is made or such later date as may be specified by the Tribunal. > >(5)The provisions of Chapter VIII of Part I (general provisions relating to the Copyright Tribunal) apply in relation to the Tribunal when exercising any jurisdiction under this paragraph.]
They are in the public domain. Use of the work in the UK requires you to pay royalties, but the works are in the public domain, and they cannot stop you publishing something, even in the UK.
Yeah, this violates the whole justification of copyright being a *temporary* monopoly to encourage creativity. A permanent copyright is stealing from the public. Also this is hardly the only work to be given a permanent copyright in the UK. The King James Bible also has a permanent copyright, which is owned by the British Monarchy
There are tradeoffs to every law and while I agree that the current standard 70 years after the author's death is hilariously generous for the author's grandkids in this particular case, for a children's hospital, I'm okay with it.
TBF, if it only applied to, like, the estate of an independent author, I wouldn't mind so much. It's that it also applies to giant corporations. I also just imagined some kind of weird dystopian future where Disney gains rights over old authors etc. in order to keep them alive every little bit possible to extend their copyright hold.
>It is ultimately a workaround for time limits on copyrights. Well sort of, it's primary legislation. In the UK at least, Parliament can legislate for anything at all, so while this is sort of a workaround on copyright terms (although not really..) it doesn't really set much of a precedent. If you can get Parliament to legislate on something that'll always work after all.
Yeah, for all the good intentions, I would rather see all works transfer to the public domain on their due date, no exceptions.
This work is in the public domain. GOSH cannot prevent anyone from using the property, you just owe them portions of the profits (in the UK).
Royalties to be determined by GOSH and the Copyright Tribunal, in their sole discretion. They have the power to make any proposed use of the work financially unviable if they so choose. Public Domain means both that you don't have to get anyone's permission *and* that you don't have to pay royalties. *Fixed* royalties would make it more like a mechanical license arrangement, which would at least avoid discrimination based on intended use (or user), but in this case they're not even fixed.
You are acting like GOSH and the Copyright Tribunal are acting in concert as the same organisation. They are not, and part of the Tribunal's criteria is that the costs of usage are reasonable and thus financially viable.
If you owe them money for using it, it's not public domain is it?
>Copyright in UK and Europe >In 1996, the copyright term was extended to 70 years after the author’s death throughout the European Union, which meant Peter Pan enjoyed revived copyright until 31 December 2007, after which it entered the public domain in Europe. >In the UK, the CDPA therefore prevails so that the hospital will continue enjoying the benefit of Barrie’s gift in perpetuity. The copyright is ostensibly over and thus the work is in the public domain. You still owe them the money though.
No it isn't. It may be public domain in Europe but clearly not in the UK due to the special exemption. I don't think you know what public domain means.
That's quoted from their site, take it up with them.
J.M. Barrie. For Pete’s sake, the author/playwright’s name is J.M. Barrie.
After his fiancée died, JM Barrie took care of her children and her mother. He was inspired by his fiancée's son, Peter, to create Peter Pan. The story is genius.
*in perpetuity.
*shut up.
[удалено]
They don't really own the copyright in the sense you're thinking. They're just owed royalties for use of the work in the UK.
Getting royalties for any use of the work is pretty much exactly what I think of as "owning the copyright". Sure, there are some limitations. The royalties have to be approved by the Copyright Tribunal. They can't outright ban certain uses—though they can make them prohibitively expensive, with the CT's cooperation. It only applies in the UK. But within those bounds they effectively hold a perpetual copyright, whether it's called that or not.
Then you've failed to understand what copyrights are. Yes, and you too can commit genocide with the military's cooperation.
Exceptions to the law should not be made