Talk:Painted Ladies
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Book Sources
I believe the term "Painted Ladies" originated with the title of the 1978 book, "Painted Ladies: San Francisco's Resplendent Victorians", which I own a copy of. I do not know if the book can be used as a source or reference point of the article. If it can, the book's authors are Elizabeth Pomada and Michael Larsen. Morley Baer is credited for the book's photographs. The book was published by E.P. Dutton of New York, and its Library of Congress catalogue number is ISBN: 0-525-48244-X.
The authors went on to write and publish a series of books on American residential Victorian architecture under the Painted Ladies theme. That term has been used in the titles of the books. The books are like the original, featuring photographs of Victorian houses painted in polychrome colors across the United States and Canada. Among the titles are "Daughters of Painted Ladies: America's Resplendent Victorians" (ISBN: 0-525-48337-3) and "The Painted Ladies Revisited: San Francisco's Resplendent Victorians Inside and Out" (ISBN: 0-525-48508-2).
I know this book series, if it did not coin the term "Painted Ladies", helped popularized the term.
I also suggest that the article be merged with the article on Victorian houses.
S Martin 23:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- According to various sources, this is true. Added it. –Unint 03:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Capitalization (and "trademarked"???)
Shouldn't this be titled "Painted Ladies" (with a capital 'L')? This is not an article about ladies who are painted. It is the formal name of these six houses. Therefore, by the simple rules of first grade grammar, I would think the 'L' should be capitalized. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 02:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- i tend to agree. unless my english tutoring fails me, 'Painted Ladies' is a proper noun.--emerson7 | Talk 00:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Judging from your sloppy capitalization there (lowercase "i" and "english"), yes, I'd say your tutoring has quite possibly failed you; this is simply not a proper noun. Which brings up another problem: since when is the term "painted ladies" trademarked? WTF? Unless someone can demonstrate that this is the case, the term should be lowercased and the bit about trademarking removed. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- It is trademarked - Go to the U.S. Patent Office's Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS) and search for either "Painted Ladies" or serial/registration #74100789. I suspect the trademark was done as you can't copyright a book title and so they trademarked the term to prevent its use on knock-off books, calendars, posters, etc. Here's the current data from TESS:
-
-
-
-
Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 17:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Word Mark PAINTED LADIES Goods and Services IC 016. US 037 038. G & S: publications, specifically note cards, calendars, and a series of books featuring Victorian houses. FIRST USE: 19780900. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19780900 Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING Serial Number 74100789 Filing Date September 27, 1990 Current Filing Basis 1A Original Filing Basis 1A Published for Opposition September 17, 1991 Registration Number 1667597 Registration Date December 10, 1991 Owner (REGISTRANT) Larsen, Michael INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES
(REGISTRANT) Elizabeth Pomada INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATESAttorney of Record Thomas R. Lampe Type of Mark TRADEMARK Register PRINCIPAL-2(F) Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR). SECTION 8(10-YR) 20011024. Renewal 1ST RENEWAL 20011024 Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
-
-

