Talk:Salty Dog Blues
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Copyright?
[edit]It doesn't have a date. Is the lyrics out of copyright, since it is included? RJFJR (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- It would be good to identify which version the lyrics posted here come from. The number itself certainly predates WWI, probably before 1910, but some versions of the lyrics might be much more modern. -- Infrogmation (talk) 05:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- There is no evidence that the lyrics are not under copyright. So Infrogmation, we must assume that it is copyrighted unless someone can provide such evidence. With your line of reasoning, I could post lyrics to any song on Wikipedia unless someone provided evidence that those lyrics are copyrighted. Please stop jeoparizing Wikipedia's legal status in this case. Either provide the evidence, or leave it out. 71.49.56.15 (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Users Ryan Vesey (talk · contribs) and Yworo (talk · contribs) have insisted on restoring the lyrics despite no evidence that the lyrics in the article are not copyright, and without commenting further here. The lyrics should be removed pending evidence that they are not copyrighted; including them without such evidence places Wikipedia in legal jeopardy. 24.163.39.217 (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- There is plenty of evidence in the article that the lyrics are out of copyright. A sourced statement in the lead sentence posits "early 1900s" as the date of origin. Also, Jelly Roll Morton is mentioned as performing the song "probably before 1910" in "Library of Congress" interviews. Yes, that needs a detailed citation but the source is given in the text. In the US, any work put to media before 1923 is in the public domain, regardless of country of origin. As Wikipedia's servers are in the US, modern European rules do not apply. If you believe the song is under copyright, then please provide the name of the author along with the current copyright holder. Once a work goes into the public domain, varying it with new or different verses does not change its copyright status. A modification of a public domain work is still in the public domain and cannot be copyrighted. So given the two sources giving "early 1900s" and 1910 as dates at which the song was already extent, it is up to those claiming that the lyrics might be copyrighted to provide proof of that claim. Yworo (talk) 01:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for finally joining the discussion instead of continuing to restore the lyrics. Please provide a reliable source that "Once a work goes into the public domain, varying it with new or different verses does not change its copyright status".
I'm not sure whetherthe lyrics in the article are the same as those performed by Flatt and Scruggs (as well as other recent performers),butand I can most assuredly tell you, those version are under copyright. So where is your evidence that new lyrics are not under copyright? Until you provide that, your argument is meaningless. 24.163.39.217 (talk) 01:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)- People claim to copyright modifications of public domain works all the time. US Copyright law is clear that a work has to be an "original creation". Modifying a tradition work doesn't satisfy the US copyright requirement that a work be original. It's clearly in the copyright code. Research it yourself. Yworo (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- No, the burden of evidence is yours, especially when there is a potential legal issue as there is here. Telling me to "research it yourself" does not reduce your obligation to provide evidence. Please provide the evidence (other than your personal opinion that "people claim to copyright modifications of public domain works all the time") that added lyrics are not under copyright. 24.163.39.217 (talk) 01:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Read the Copyright law of the United States article: "Copyright applies only to certain subject matter, codified within 17 USC 102. Works that are not "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression" are not subject to copyright. ". I refuse to continue to fight a battle of wits with an unarmed editor. Yworo (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Also, read this: [1]. "PUBLIC DOMAIN" "NO ROYALTIES PAYABLE". Now, go away. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Read the Copyright law of the United States article: "Copyright applies only to certain subject matter, codified within 17 USC 102. Works that are not "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression" are not subject to copyright. ". I refuse to continue to fight a battle of wits with an unarmed editor. Yworo (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- No, the burden of evidence is yours, especially when there is a potential legal issue as there is here. Telling me to "research it yourself" does not reduce your obligation to provide evidence. Please provide the evidence (other than your personal opinion that "people claim to copyright modifications of public domain works all the time") that added lyrics are not under copyright. 24.163.39.217 (talk) 01:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- People claim to copyright modifications of public domain works all the time. US Copyright law is clear that a work has to be an "original creation". Modifying a tradition work doesn't satisfy the US copyright requirement that a work be original. It's clearly in the copyright code. Research it yourself. Yworo (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for finally joining the discussion instead of continuing to restore the lyrics. Please provide a reliable source that "Once a work goes into the public domain, varying it with new or different verses does not change its copyright status".
- There is plenty of evidence in the article that the lyrics are out of copyright. A sourced statement in the lead sentence posits "early 1900s" as the date of origin. Also, Jelly Roll Morton is mentioned as performing the song "probably before 1910" in "Library of Congress" interviews. Yes, that needs a detailed citation but the source is given in the text. In the US, any work put to media before 1923 is in the public domain, regardless of country of origin. As Wikipedia's servers are in the US, modern European rules do not apply. If you believe the song is under copyright, then please provide the name of the author along with the current copyright holder. Once a work goes into the public domain, varying it with new or different verses does not change its copyright status. A modification of a public domain work is still in the public domain and cannot be copyrighted. So given the two sources giving "early 1900s" and 1910 as dates at which the song was already extent, it is up to those claiming that the lyrics might be copyrighted to provide proof of that claim. Yworo (talk) 01:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Users Ryan Vesey (talk · contribs) and Yworo (talk · contribs) have insisted on restoring the lyrics despite no evidence that the lyrics in the article are not copyright, and without commenting further here. The lyrics should be removed pending evidence that they are not copyrighted; including them without such evidence places Wikipedia in legal jeopardy. 24.163.39.217 (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- There is no evidence that the lyrics are not under copyright. So Infrogmation, we must assume that it is copyrighted unless someone can provide such evidence. With your line of reasoning, I could post lyrics to any song on Wikipedia unless someone provided evidence that those lyrics are copyrighted. Please stop jeoparizing Wikipedia's legal status in this case. Either provide the evidence, or leave it out. 71.49.56.15 (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)