Some obituaries posted in the paper end with a number followed by a period. But, others do not!?!?!?! 
What is that, some kind of secret code?
- Jinx
That’s their final score, of course.
Seriously, I’ve never come across this. Which papers?
I have.
Except for major public figures whose obituaries usually start on news pages, the obituaries in the newspaper are effectively advertisements – they’re run in behalf of the bereaved by funeral homes, but disguised as stories, with the connivance of the newspaper, for which this is a small but significant ongoing source of income.
The number is a code in newspaper terms to indicate how many times to run the obituary and on what dates, i.e., what it’s been paid for.
Then why do the newspapers put it in the print? Can’t they just keep it in records or something? I too have never seen this.
Whew, I was afraid the # sign meant that they had died overweight and had to go to Fat Hell where Dr Phil and his evil side kick JJ made them eat broccoli for all eternity.
I don’t know if this is what you are talking about or not, and I’m sorry I can’t provide more specific details.
Some newspapers are involved in a method that codes obits. This permits researchers to access the obits and if someone finds an old clipping years from now to determine the date, publication of the original printing.
You may or may not have experienced the frustration of doing your family history, finding an old clipping in a Bible or whatever, but not being able to tell where it was printed or the date of death. A lot of obits do not give the specific year!
I always thought they were like voicemail box numbers at the end of personal ads. No wonder I never get a call back…
If the number is 30 it is telegraph, or teletype, code meaning “end of story.” It was used to separate newspaper stories which were transmitted serially by wire to newspapers from Associated Press and other news services…
Our local paper classifies an obituary as an advertisement if more than the names of the surviving spouse, siblings and children, and a generic “grandchildren, great grandchildren, nieces, and nephews” are listed. For my mom’s obituary, we named our spouses and our children (mom’s grandchildren), and paid dearly. I think a basic obit runs maybe $50. Our “advertisement” ran well over $250.
Back to the OP. I’ve never seen this either. Is there an example you can link to if it wouldn’t violate someone’s privacy (although if it’s on the internet, it’s public domain, right?)?
Nope. Copyright applies to Internet works just the same as anything else. You should probably start a new thread if you’re curious.
(not arguing, really, but) How is a link to an internet site a violation of a copyright, unless I reposted or published the obituary, in whole or in part, without permission? How is an obituary different than a poem, song lyric, or cite that we on the boards routinely link to? By 'in the public domain", I meant that the obituary would be available for the public to view, therefore not necessarily a violation of privacy.
Just curious to see an example of what Jinx was talking about is all. No morbid or ulterior motives.
It isn’t, obviously: Linking merely tells people where the document is.
(There might be legal subtleties to linking to documents under certain conditions. I don’t know them, and I don’t feel comfortable even speculating about them. Start a new thread if this topic interests you.)
Again, it isn’t: An obituary is just the same as a poem or the lyrics of a song or a short story in the eyes of the US copyright law.
(I might be wrong here, but I really don’t think I am. The Berne Convention is pretty liberal about what falls under copyright protection, and it’s usually logical to assume something does unless you have case law that says otherwise.)
And this is where we run into problems: The phrase ‘public domain’ has a very specific meaning in the context of US copyright law. It means that there is no copyright enforceable on the work, so anyone can use it for any purpose without getting permission from anyone. The complete works of William Shakespeare are in the public domain and always have been, for example, and a lot of the works published in the 1800s have passed into the public domain in recent years.
In other words, I got confused by your odd use of terminology.