Humanities desk
< December 25	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 27 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 26

Effect of Iraq war on global economic situation

I'm looking for references that link the recent Iraq war and the US involvement to the current global economic situation. I dont need speculation: just references. Thanks.--GreenSpigot (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Stiglitz, author of The Three Trillion Dollar War, has made some remarks about this: "Because they did very little to stimulate the economy, real stimulation was left to the Fed, which took up the task with unprecedented low-interest rates and liquidity. The war in Iraq made matters worse, because it led to soaring oil prices. With America so dependent on oil imports, we had to spend several hundred billion more to purchase oil—money that otherwise would have been spent on American goods. Normally this would have led to an economic slowdown, as it had in the 1970s. But the Fed met the challenge in the most myopic way imaginable." [1]. DAVID ŠENEK 10:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays! Now lie to your children.

What's the justification of parents to lie to children about the existence of fantasy creatures like Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and Tooth Fairy? It seems like it's breaking an incredible trust children have of their guardians. --71.158.216.23 (talk) 02:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, bear in mind that parents lie to their children all the time. For example, parents typically tell their children that they are going to keep them safe no matter what or that they'll never leave them, no matter what, even though they obviously can't promise that. These are considered to be perfectly acceptable lies, as they are meant to reassure the child and typically express the parent's sincere desire to take care of the child, and it's hard to fault anyone for saying that. Other examples of lies could be "daddy's too busy to play with you" (when in reality they just feel like doing something else) or "daddy's very tired" (when in reality daddy just came home from the company Christmas party and can't make it up the stairs). And I don't mean to put parents down for this; it's perfectly okay to reassure a child. Full disclosure is not a requirement; it's a family, not a deposition.

Santa Claus is pretty much in a different category, of course, but the point is, it's not like lying about him is such a big deal compared to the network of casual white lies that forms the cornerstone of any family; it's pretty much a drop in the ocean. Still, it can make children happy to think that there's a jolly and friendly guy out there who gives gifts, and it's also a way to control children -- "remember to behave or Santa'll know you've been bad." Or, in the case of the Tooth Fairy, losing teeth can be painful and scary, but if you think there's a friendly and exciting magic guy out there to help you deal with it, that makes it easier to handle. Children do need to learn certain limits and they do need to be manipulated a little bit, because that's a big part of learning certain ground rules about social interaction. (We tell comparable lies all the time: for example, that if you take things from a store without paying for them, you'll get in big trouble. If we were 100% honest, we might say that stealing is morally wrong, but if you take a candy bar when no one is looking and aren't stupid about it and have a bit of luck with you, chances are that you can get away with it, and even if you get caught, the consequences aren't that serious, especially if you're a minor. But that kind of full disclosure is hardly going to be to the child's benefit.)

These fantasy characters are pretty much harmless, and kids grow out of them very quickly -- sure, they may believe in Santa when they're four or five years old, but once they start school, they get the picture. That's a part of growing up. I mean, sure, you can just decide to not deal with this crap at all and tell your kids from the get-go that these are all just stories, and that's fine. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. (Then again, you can go overboard there and also come down hard on imaginary friends and systematically eliminate all sense of wonder from your kids' lives, as some people do. I kind of doubt that kind of honesty makes for happy children.)

And, frankly, compared to people who constantly tell their children -- for example -- that God is always watching and judging them, and He wants them to be heterosexual or they'll go to hell, I'd say that the people who pretend for a couple of years that Santa Claus is real are probably doing okay in terms of morals and ethics. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 03:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there are parents who will take their young children to a hell house and tell their kids that everything there WILL happen to them if they get an abortion, or are gay, or think “bad” things, or whatever. Santa clause seems like a pretty benign deception in comparison. --S.dedalus (talk) 03:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a parent of a 3 year old, the whole Santa thing seems to slot right into just-now blossoming of imagination and imaginary play. Make-believe is not only fun, but useful for learning how to think about "what if" scenarios, I think. The Christmas season is full of make-believe imagery, Santas, reindeer and sleighs, and so on. When a 3 year old wants to know what all this is about, you could explain how it's all about this fairy tale that is not actually true, or you could tell the fairy tale and nevermind whether it is true or not. There's a period of childhood where the difference between make-believe and reality is not well defined. It takes time for kids to figure out what is imaginary and what it reality, and how thinking and talking about things does or doesn't make them real. And one of the ways kids figure it out is by doing what kids to best-- playing. So as a parent you can "play along" or you can try to teach them not to believe in things that are not true. Personally, I find "playing along" more fun, and suspect it is more helpful in learning about imagination and reality. I find the Santa fairy tale a rather weird thing to play along with, but--calling it a "lie" and a "breaking of trust" makes me wonder whether you have little kids, and if so... don't you ever play make-believe games? Might there not be an elephant in the shed? Don't the toys go to sleep when put in the toybox? Naturally one could go too far and insist on the fairy tales being true. But kids will be exposed to the myth unless locked in a closet. The question is how much to play along with it. I'd argue that for a 3 year old it is just as unhelpful to deny the myth (and try to explain what a myth even is) than it is to insist on it's perfect truth. Better to play with it. That's how kids learn things, by playing. Pfly (talk) 09:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a little child I was told about Santa and God. Later I learned that Santa, elves, and ghosts were pretend but God was real. I gained a degree of skepticism which has never left, with the grownups not readily able to answer why I should have faith is some supernatural creatures but not others. Never lie to children about Santa and such: find other ways to answer the questions. Edison (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up on both, especially Pfly's, my family always encouraged it as part of pretending, and gradually led me into the truth about Santa by sharing the notion that I could be Santa just as easily; as the youngest for 10 years, I was always the one who handed out the gifts before we all opened them, for instance. (Helped by the fact I could read really early.) It could be, I supposed, considered PanSantaism. :-)

This is how I was able, when older, to maintain my faith in God while realizing the others were fantasy; as Edison says, there's no way to distinguish if they're just treated as all things one can believe. But, there was something about the notion that I, too, could be Santa that helped me to realize it was more about a concept than about a mythical figure.

I forget when I learned of the real Saint Nicholas who lived what, 1700 years ago? But, it was probably very early, and it was easy, because of the way my family handled things, to think to myself, "Okay, that makes sense that that's how the whole Santa thing started."

So, to answer your question, it is a natural part of pretending, but it's harder to justify if there's not some attempt to say, "This is so fun to play like this." Not in so many words necessarily, but just in one's actions. Even encouraging it in some ways. A good friend of mine has nephews, the younger of whom loves to make up stories. And, they're always saying, "He's got to be a famous writer someday, the way he loves his stories." This kid is growing to realize they are fantasy, but at the same time, it's helping to encourage his mind to expand.Somebody or his brother (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Children have imaginations. Also many news and newspaper organizations will imply that Santa is real (for example, CP 24: "Santa uses first-aid training to save life of man in Hamilton from heart attack"). There are a lot of things that we don't know whether they are real or not, such as UFOs, cryptids, and such, and besides, everyone knows Santa lives in Rovaniemi, Finland, and not the North Pole. ;-) . ~A H 1^(TCU) 18:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuing law abroad

Hello. I live in India. I wish to study intellectual property law abroad (U.S., Canada, U.K., Australia or New Zealand). Can you please apprise me of the avenues open to me in this respect, and how I should proceed? Thank you very much. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 11:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some Australian universities run postgraduate programs, and some specialise in intellectual property. This is the general Master of Laws by coursework degree at the University of Sydney. Generally, an undergraduate degree in law is a pre-requisite. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, intellectual property is covered as an optional part of the regular law school curriculum. American law schools, unlike those in other countries, are graduate schools, and you would need first to obtain a bachelor's college degree. This could be obtained either in the U.S. or in a foreign country, and no particular course of undergraduate study is required, although a background in science or engineering may be a good choice if you plan to specialize in intellectual property. A small number of American law schools also offer an LL.M. (Master of Laws) graduate degree, for those who already have a law degree from either a U.S. or a foreign law school, and some of these may offer specializations in intellectual property law. John M Baker (talk) 15:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

on English

Could anyone tell me the exact role of the word "structural" in the phrase "structural design architecture"? Is it an adverb? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.2.229.46 (talk) 13:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an adjective. 99.245.92.47 (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A case could be made for adverb. You could say that "design" is being used as an adjective modifying "architecture", and "structural" is an adverb modifying the adjective "design". Another way of looking at it is that "structural design" is the adjective, and that, within the phrase, "structural" is an adjective modifying the noun "design". I wish I could figure out, though, what the phrase might possibly mean. More context would be helpful. I love questions like this because they reveal the artificial nature of the parts-of-speech classification system, a system I think limits expressiveness if misapplied. We parse to try to make sense of English, but we shouldn't write to please the parsers. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely an adjective. "Structural" is an adjective modifying the noun "design" in the phrase "structural design", which is in turn an adjectival phrase modifying the noun "architect". A "structural design architect" is an architect specialising in structural design. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but the phrase is not "structural design architect", it's "structural design architecture". (Funny, I had written an entire response based on that same misreading before I looked again.) --Milkbreath (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

on framing a question

Hoe could one frame the question for the answer,"Iam the second child to my parents"? Though it seems to be easy, its analysis is very hectic. I cant tackle this question posed by my friend some four years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.2.229.46 (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Am I my parents' second child ?". However, this question could be complicated by adoptions, abortions, still-born children, deaths, and/or either parent having had children with other people. StuRat (talk) 14:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or simply "Which one of your parents' children are you?", or even "Are you your parents' first, second or third child?" But I think the answer is a little convoluted; it's not a terribly natural thing to say in response to anything. It's more of a statement than an answer. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 15:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment dit-on 'je suis le deuxieme enfant de mes parents' en anglais?" 99.245.92.47 (talk) 15:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Among your siblings, where in the birth order do you fall?" --Milkbreath (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or simply "What's my birth order ?". StuRat (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it would be "What's your birth order?", Stu. One doesn't normally ask questions of oneself, and then answer oneself. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to replicate the OPs: "I am the second child to my parents ?", which seemed to be asking the question about one's self. Note that this isn't necessarily asked of one's self, though. If adopted, for example, you might very well ask what your birth order is when you meet your biological parents. Oh, and don't call me Shirley. :-) StuRat (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This question really belonged on the Language Desk, but the answer in

general is that English doesn't have a short expression (as some other languages do) to ask for the numerical position of one entry in a sequence -- if we wanted to invent a word for the purpose it would probably be "whichth", but nobody would be able to pronounce it!

For this specific question, the phrase "birth order" is available,

but there isn't a general expression for the concept. You have to fall back on long forms like "What is Moose Jaw's rank among Canadian cities by population?" or "In the sequence of American presidents, what number was Lincoln?" Or if you want to use something shorter, you have to make sure there is enough context that people will get the idea.

--Anonymous, 01:23 UTC, December 27, 2008.

The question would probably be, "Are you the first-born child of your parents?" Answer: "No, I was born second/third/last/etc." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do German people feel about actions of Nazi Germany?

Obviously, I know that Germany officially renounces actions of Nazi Germany and I know that Nazism is touchy theme in that area. What I'm asking is how does general public or average German person feels about actions of their country during WW2? For many people I know Hitler is embodiment of pure evil. And while that opinion is highly subjective, at least in my experience its widely spread. How do Germans deal with legacy Nazi Germany left them with. Do they feel that 1933 - 1945 is dark chapter of their history that never should have happened or they accept that Nazism (and by extension, Holocaust), while it has negative connotation, is something that was forced upon them by specific set of circumstances and actions of parties they had no direct control over. It would be great if somebody who is German or lived there for some time could answer this. Once again, I know there are neo-Nazi groups and pro-Nazi people, but I am interested in feeling of general public, not minority. P.S. Just for the record, I'm asking this because somebody told me: "History is written by winners". It kinda stuck in my mind and made me rethink everything I believed for granted. Would we look at Nazism in positive light if Axis powers won? Would we denounce actions of Allies and would we find Holocaust on Allies' side in case Axis won? Melmann^(talk) 16:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can look at history. Everyone who "won" was not necessarily good from almost any point of view. Cortes for example was a despicable murderer who plundered and razed native American civilizations, but.... he won. He was victorious in his conquests. He was just as bad as Hitler was, but he's not vilified nearly as much. Some would argue that Christopher Columbus was also just as bad, and we have a holiday for him. Yes, winning for your side does change who is "right or wrong" so to speak. ScienceApe (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler himself said "The victor will never be asked if he told the truth." Not that that answers your question, of course. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The victors, or those with guns and printing presses, write the history books. In North Korea, history books said that Kim Il-Sung defeated Japan in World War 2 without significant assistance from the Allies. There are also independent thinkers who challenge the "truth" with which students are indoctrinated. Edison (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article Historiography of World War II says "It is commonly said that history is written by the victors; but the exact opposite occurred in the chronicling of the Eastern Front, particularly in the West. Soviet secrecy and unwillingness to acknowledge events that might discredit the regime lead to them revealing little information, always heavily edited - leaving western historians to rely almost totally on German sources." Sadly the article on the war's historiography is rather too brief to be much help. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1970s, when I was in the US Air Force stationed in Germany, a friend of mine told me that he had gone to dinner with some German friends. The German family's teenage son was spouting off stuff like, "You Allies destroyed my country", as if it was the Allies' fault that Germany had been damaged. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 05:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a good case can be made that much of the Allied bombing of German cities, particularly historic and residential areas, was gratuitous and served no military purpose. See Bombing of Dresden in World War II and our article on Arthur "Bomber" Harris. I don't think that you can make a case that "German people" are responsible for this damage to their country, especially since many of them opposed the Nazis, though perhaps not as energetically as, in retrospect, we might wish. It is understandable that some Germans resent that damage.

That said, I think that the vast majority of Germans deeply regret their country's actions under the Nazis. The post-war generation of Germans undertook a process of Vergangenheitsbewältigung—or coming to terms with the past—that involved an acceptance of their country's responsibility for horrific crimes against humanity. Vergangenheitsbewältigung has been a widespread cultural movement and has had an impact on many aspects of German culture, including school curriculums. Based on my time living in Germany and my acquaintance with many Germans, I think that there is a wide range of feeling about the Nazi past, but I do think that the vast majority of Germans have feelings ranging from regret to shame about that past. Some Germans, especially very old ones who were adults under the Nazis (not many of those left), may have a feeling of grievance about being blamed for acquiescing in Nazi rule and may feel that they were unaware of the extent of its evil and anyway powerless to do anything about it. Some young Germans, whose grandparents were born during or after the war, may question the relevance of the Nazi past to their own lives and wonder why Germans are still "doing penance" for it when other nations are arguably guilty of similar or worse historic crimes, such as the conduct of the slave trade by Portugal, Spain, France, and England; or the maintenance of black slavery and the genocide of Native Americans in the United States. However, the overwhelming majority of Germans would agree that the Nazi regime was bad for the world and bad for Germany and would condemn its actions. Marco polo (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am German, and I fully agree with Marco's second paragraph. The maxim "Never again!" shaped our curriculum, e.g. by teaching us how to look through manipulation. My impression is that most Germans would agree that National Socialism is Germany's own doing (see also de:Kollektivschuld). The debate is primarily about (1) whether Germany has made up for it and (2) how much individual people could have done to prevent it. Some people point out that Hitler would not have come to power if Germany had not been humiliated in the Treaty of Versailles (but very few point out that that, in turn was a consequence of Germany humiliating France by founding its Second Reich in Versailles, of all places, 48 years earlier. I'm only mentioning this here to illustrate how humiliation and violence form a vicious cycle that is hard to break. However, after the War, Germany and France reconciled, and it makes me happy that someone added the picture commemorating that as a model to Wikipedia:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars.)

Regarding the bombing of Dresden; it is true that many Germans feel it was gratuitous, but many would still say that it was Germany's fault; we are painfully aware that, when Hitler asked "do you want the total war", masses shouted "yes", and few dared to disagree. — Sebastian 07:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your PS: I don't think that history is distorted to any considerable degree in this case. We are well aware of such atrocities as the genocide of Native Americans, slavery, and the excesses of Executive Order 9066, since these issues are openly discussed in the US and Canada. For the most recent of these, the Japanese American internment, people are encouraged to contribute their personal histories to museums, comparable to how German museums are trying to document the holocaust. We have enough information to be sure that, as bad as it was, it was by no means as bad as the holocaust. — Sebastian 07:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your responses. You confirmed what I thought. I personally don't blame Germany for anything although I know people who openly dislike Germany for what Nazis did. Sad really, but I think we should just let the past push the subject into history books. On matter of history being written by winners, subject still lies heavily on my mind, but it also pushes me to study history more thoroughly and get multiple sources on any subject. Once again, thanks.--Melmann^(talk) 13:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

census redistricting

Will the redistricting for the house of representatives that follows the 2010 census occur before the 2010 election cycle or after it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.60 (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It takes a long time for them to get their data together. Our 2010 United States Census article says, "The results of the 2010 census will determine the number of seats each state receives in the House of Representatives starting with the 2012 elections". --Sean 00:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States congressional apportionment has historically been done three years after the census. (I've seen an explicit list, but cannot now find it.) —Tamfang (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a 2000 example, see three maps: the presidential elections of 1996, 2000, and 2004. You may remember that the number of electors each state gets is equal to the number of representatives they have in Congress plus 2 (for the senators). As you'll see, each state had the same number of electors in 1996 and 2000, but they changed in 2004. Nyttend (talk) 12:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

President Abraham Lincoln

Did Lincoln ever own any slaves at anytime in his life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.230.187 (talk) 17:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so. He did live at one point along a road which slaves would walk along to be sold. Historians believe he would have seen many pass by on that road as a boy. They wonder whether this had an influence on him later on. Wrad (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln was probably never rich enough to own slaves; he came from a relatively poor background, and even as an adult, lived mostly as a starving lawyer (my how times have changed). Slaves were relatively expensive to purchase and to support; not every white person, even in the south, owned them. Probably not even a majority did... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When Lincoln was nine years old, his family moved from Kentucky, a slave state, to Indiana, where slavery was prohibited at the time. At the age of 21, Lincoln and his family moved to Illinois, which likewise banned slavery. So Lincoln was never really in a position to own a slave. Marco polo (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery wasn't outlawed in Washington D.C. until April 16, 1862, so technically he could have owned slaves while living at the White House. However, given that he was elected as an anti-slavery candidate from an abolitionist party, such a turn of event would have been highly unlikely. -- 75.42.233.82 (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The history of slavery in Indiana isn't quite as cut-and-dried as presented above (see the linked article). And Lincoln was in Washington D.C. during 1847-1849 as a Whig. Also, the Republican party of 1860 was not an abolitionist party, if by abolitionist is meant "having an openly-expressed intention to directly interfere with slavery within the slave states". The Republican party platform was very strongly committed to preventing the expansion of slavery into new territories (the main national political issue of the 1854-1860 period -- see Kansas-Nebraska Act or Bleeding Kansas), but recognized that the constitution as it then existed did not give the federal government power to directly intervene in the "domestic affairs" of the individual states. The main Republican ideas were to admit Kansas as a fully free state, prevent slavery from spreading into any other territories, roll back some of the effects of the Dred Scott decision, to withdraw all existing federal government support for the institution of slavery (except in a few limited cases where such support was strictly required by the U.S. constitution), and to "place slavery where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction" (as Lincoln phrased it). Running on an outright abolitionist platform in 1860 would have been a sure guarantee of defeat, as Republican politicians were well aware...

In any case, the answer to the original question is an unequivocal "no" -- Abraham Lincoln did not own any slaves at any time. However, some members of his wife's family did own slaves... AnonMoos (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

while not american, i was always told that he did own slaves and thus the emancipation of the slaves by him was rather odd. I always assumed this was common knowlege and true, so maybe a historian can give us a citation either way —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Told by whom?? Maybe you're confusing him with Thomas Jefferson or George Washington, both of whom had at least some anti-slavery opinions, but were slave owners during most of their lives...? -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trademarks and Copyrights

On the internet copyrights eem to take effect instantly. Like on Wikipedia it says the material is released under the Free Documentation License but it doesn't have to through the Library of Congress. But on there site it says that it copyrights are registered. Which one is true? Do I have to go throught the LOC to get my material on the internet copyrighted? And for trademarks, if I want a trademark and I register it, does it cover all industries? --Melab±1 ☎ 22:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Registration of copyrights varies quite a bit by jurisdiction. Generally stuff is copyrighted as soon as you create it, but (for stuff that's really worth nontrivial money) one can still register a copyright with the relevant authority. Trademarks are quite different - you have to apply for them (and many things can't be trademarked) and you can be turned down. Trademarks cover specific sectors of trade, although those sectors are generally very wide indeed. 81.157.237.68 (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See copyright registration. In brief, registration is not necessary for you to have a copyright, but is desirable if you want to make money because of your copyright. We shouldn't go into this in detail here; we're verging on giving legal advice, which isn't allowed on the reference desks.

--Anonymous, 01:28 UTC, December 27, 2008.

Oh lord, this isn't anything NEAR legal advice. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to register copyrights in any nation that is a signatory to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works—which is most of the world. It is a mandatory aspect of the Berne Convention that copyright assignment is automatic and instantaneous.

Trademarks, by contrast, must be registered and maintained, at least in the United States. They do not cover all industries, generally speaking. So the company Orange has trademarked their name and the color orange with regards to telecommunications. That doesn't mean you can't use the word or color orange ever again, but you can't start a telecommunications company with the name "orange" or with a predominantly orange logo. If they don't maintain their registration and prove they are still using it, it can lapse, and someday you could use the name/logo freely again. Make sense? This is basic concept stuff, it is not "legal advice." --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had the impression that ® means a registered trademark while ™ means a trademark established by usage. (Similarly in most of These United States you can change your name either by usage or by formal process.) —Tamfang (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see trademark symbol. Rmhermen (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Berne Convention countries other than the United States, coypright does not generally require registration.

Even in the United States, because of the obligations of the US to accord most favoured nation/national treatment to foreigners, foreign copyright owners are not required to register their copyright.