Talk:Georgia on My Mind

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Georgia (U.S. state) Portal This article is part of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Georgia (U.S. state) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
	This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents 1 Inclusion of lyrics 2 Copyright 3 Billie Holiday et al. 4 Girl or State?

[edit] Inclusion of lyrics

This is why I think they can be included

1. It's on Georgia's website [1]
2. It's written in the Code of Georgie [2]

I don't intend on making this a revert war, but striking conversation. Since the lyrics are on both those pages, if fair-use or something else can't be invoked then a "See here for lyrics" added under the lyrics section. Cburnett 20:23, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Revert wars make Jimbo cry. I never break the one-revert rule: if someone reverts you, talk everything over before making a single edit. So here I am. :-)

Thanks for the link. At the bottom of that, it says:

Use by State of Georgia governed by 1979 agreement with Peer International Corporation.

Copyright 1930 by Peer International Corporation, now PeerMusic, Ltd.

Copyright renewed. Used by permission.

What does that mean? It means that the State of Georgia has permission to reproduce this copyrighted song on its website, and presumably to commission public performances of it. This establishes one important fact: that it's still copyrighted, and that you need permission to reproduce it. This plainly means one thing: this song cannot be licensed under the GFDL, and therefore it cannot be included in Wikipedia, no matter how "public" it is by being a state song. I'm sorry, I didn't do it... :-(

However, even if we ignore the issue of copyright: I don't believe even public domain songs should have full lyrics in Wikipedia, unless they're particularly short. I realize there's huge precedent for this and lots of people are doing it, but lots of people are wrong. We have Wikisource for lyrics that can be freely reproduced, and a {{Wikisource}} template to link to them. Lyrics should only be mentioned in Wikipedia if there's something to say about them, as opposed to just "well, here they are". That's not very encyclopedic.

In short, I think it's an excellent suggestion to have a link to the lyrics, like this:

==External link== * [http://www.sos.state.ga.us/state_capitol/education_corner/state_song.html Official lyrics to the song] on the [[Georgia]] [[Secretary of State]] website

However, we cannot have the full lyrics here, even if we wanted to. JRM 21:59, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

Excellent point. Tregoweth deleted lyrics but didn't mention where to find them, so I'll add that. Cburnett 18:12, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I know this is an OLD thread, but I thought I might add something... an excellent example of a place where lyrics COULD be incorporated in Wikipedia and still be encyclopedic would be an article on the literary and cultural allusions in American Pie by Don McLean. If the article broke the song down line by line and explained the lyrics, THAT should be permissible. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 22:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

Some circumstantial evidence that "Georgia on My Mind" is still copyrighted (in addition to "Use by State of Georgia governed by 1979 agreement with Peer International Corporation."):

From SongwriterUniverse.com:

Peermusic has become one of the world’s leading, independent publishing companies. It has a large, diversified catalog, containing many standards (such as “Georgia On My Mind,” “You Are My Sunshine” and “The Great Pretender”)[...]

[3]

From the Los Angeles Times:

Peermusic had acquired the catalog of Hoagy Carmichael and was working to rejuvenate it, as they say in the business. The studios were reacquainted with songs such as Stardust and Georgia on My Mind; negotiations were underway with a store chain to sell a line of products based on Carmichael's romantic allure; a musical is in the works.

But if Bono (the [[Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act]) falls, Stardust goes in the public domain immediately, and Georgia" follows in three years. [4]

From the Harry Fox Agency, a licensor of music publishing rights:

As of January 2004, the top 25 most-licensed songs in the HFA catalog are: [...]

20. Georgia on My Mind Hoagy Carmichael, Stuart Gorrell Peermusic III Ltd. [5]

Also, if the lyrics were public domain, they would belong in Wikisource, not here. —tregoweth 23:08, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Who are you, Carmichael himself? The lyrics are in the Code of Georgia. Previous versions and modifications of the lyrics might be copyrightable, but the version in public law is not and cannot be copyrighted, as the law is by its nature in the public domain. Just because there's still money to be made selling recordings of the song doesn't make it less PD. The Marine Corps Band hauls in tons of cash as it is.

If the lyrics to The Star-Spangled Banner, O Canada, and even The Old North State are in the Wikipedia articles, surely room can be made for the lyrics of the Georgia state anthem. I am putting the lyrics back up and will maintain the page in that manner. --Alexwcovington (talk) 01:57, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I emailed the SOS of Georgia and the lyrics are still copyrighted and CANNOT be included. 18:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Preposterous. Whether or not this alleged "agreement" allows the original copyright holders to maintain some semblance their rights, the version in public law cannot be held to be in copyright. If laws are allowed to be copyrighted without the right to free republication, a fundamental right of society breaks down. The law is, by its nature, public.

Now, I have heard many versions of the song, and not one of the tracks I've heard Ray Charles singing exactly follows the words stated by this public law. Those versions are still copyrightable because they are creative works from a public domain source, or from a copyrighted source that is not exactly like the version of the song in public law.

Even if the song is still in copyright, posting them here constitutes fair use, as 1) Wikipedia is posting the lyrics alone, not any associated musical score. 2) Wikipedia's interest is solely encyclopedic and non-commerical.

Just because some pro-business bureaucrat backs your argument doesn't make it a legal injunction. I am re-posting the lyrics. --Alexwcovington (talk) 04:21, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You obviously don't understand what fair use really means. Look up 17 USC 107 and the 3rd gauge is the quantity of the work being copied. In this case, the entire work is being copied. Best intentions of being educational does not override copyright and automatically constitute as "fair use." The lyrics are copyrighted.

I've posted it as a copyright violation here: Wikipedia:Copyright problems#February 23 and further reverts would be means to suspension as indicated in the template. Cburnett 23:57, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The lyrics alone is not the entire copyrighted work. There is also a musical score that goes along with it -- and it is THAT which this Peer International company seems to make its money from selling. Posting the lyrics here doesn't give an idea of the tune, but it does give an idea of the general character of the song and provide some insight into why it was selected as the State Song of Georgia.

Furthermore, it remains in public law, and despite any agreements, the rights of the public to read, view, and republish the law cannot be abridged in a free society. Secret laws lead to secret trials. I'm really surprised you feel the need to defend these supposed "copyright holders" to the point you have- that is, beyond all reason. It is not in the interests of enabling everyone with free access to the sum of human knowledge, as I understand the goal of Wikipedia to be. --Alexwcovington (talk) 03:21, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You get a copyright to a work the moment you write it down. If you want to sing your words with musical score then you can copyright that as well. As it stands, lyrics are a written down form of a creative work and are copyrightable. How an owner of a copyrighted work chooses to disseminate his work into the public is irrelevant to the state of it being copyrighted.

Have you read the agreement between the state of georgia and peer group? If you have, you're a step up in concluding this show than me with emailing the SOS.

And I honestly can't believe you went from discussion on copyrighted lyrics to secret trials. Your argument is specious and slippery sloped (copyrighted lyrics -> secret laws -> secret trials). Cburnett 03:53, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Copyright problems:

My primary argument is that the lyrics as posted are public domain; that the lyrics as posted on Wikipedia are contained in public law, and that the rights of the public to read and republish that law exceed the rights of any copyright holder over that specific material. My secondary argument is on fair use; that Wikipedia's interest is academic, and that the lyrics and music would be copyrighted together, rather than separately as Cburnett assumes. --Alexwcovington (talk) 03:34, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For one, AZ Lyrics says lyrics are copyrightable after being served with a cease and desist letter for posting them. So lyrics are copyrightable on their own. If you don't want to take that route, then consider them a derivative work of a song. Either way, still copyrighted.

Until you produce the agreement between Peer Group Ltd. and the state of Georgia, it is unreasonable to believe they are public domain merely because they are reproduced in the code of Georgia. Your using a specious argument about "the rights to read and republish the law" as a means to post lyrics to a song. You can claim fair use, except the lyrics (which is copyrightable on its own) are being reproduced in *full*. The loose guidelines for fair use in classrooms [6] says to not use no more than 10% or 30 seconds of music to stay in fair use. Yeah, 100% exceeds that by an order of magnitude.

So let's recap:

• Lyrics are copyrightable (or derivative work of a copyrighted song if you disagree with my former assessment)
• The SOS of Georgia says they are still copyrighted as per my email response I received
• Reproduction in full does not constitute fair use
• You haven't read the agreement, but you bank your entire argument on knowing the details *despite* me having received confirmation from the GA SOS that it is copyrighted still.

Your argument is not sound, so give it up unless you have something other than throwing around presumptative insults like "pro-business bureaucrats" to describe sources. Cburnett 06:03, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is not I that is being presumptive. You are the one basing your arguments not simply on an "agreement" that you have not been able to produce, but also a supposed e-mail from the Georgia Secretary of State. You are the one presuming that it is this version of the lyrics that is under copyright. You are the one presuming that Peer International is going to come beating down our doors for using the lyrics in a manner no different than on the State of Georgia's own website.

I also see that you have completely ignored my arguments, instead prefering to jump on the "pro-business bureaucrat" line. I have not met a single sitting politician that didn't kowtow to the interests of the people they're supposed to regulate. Perhaps that's just cynicism, but that's my viewpoint. Aside from that, my arguments stand with or without this supposed agreement, and with or without this e-mail of yours. It is you that has the burden of proving that there is information that should not be free without any complaint from the actual copyright holder, and you have provided virtually nothing but rhetoric. --Alexwcovington (talk) 07:07, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No one is stopping you from emailing the SOS yourself and getting the same response I did. Go ahead......I dare you. You could be more civil and not insult me for lying about the email (come on, "supposed e-mail"). Lyrics are copyrighted and merely being in the code of georgia doesn't make them public domain. Welcome to the US copyright system, where it's an opt-out system where you have to presume it is copyrighted.

I'm also not stopping you from citing a source that says it's not copyrighted (despite it being copyrighted by default and despite confirmation from the SOS that it is copyrighted still) or that reproduction of lyrics in the code of georgia means it is public domain. The burden of proof is on your shoulders since you're claiming it's public domain when copyrights are an opt-out system and I see no opt-out.

And please do tell me how this is ignoring your arguments:

So let's recap:

• Lyrics are copyrightable (or derivative work of a copyrighted song if you disagree with my former assessment)
• The SOS of Georgia says they are still copyrighted as per my email response I received
• Reproduction in full does not constitute fair use
• You haven't read the agreement, but you bank your entire argument on knowing the details *despite* me having received confirmation from the GA SOS that it is copyrighted still.

You said so yourself that your primary point is that they are public domain, which my email with the SOS says you're wrong. You said so yourself that your second point is that it's fair use, which the fact that it's 100% reproduction removes it from fair use.

Seriously, it is you spewing the rhetoric and specious arguments by attacking the Georgia SOS, attacking me personally for "supposedly" emailing them and "supposedly" getting a reply, and playing the slippery slope about "secret laws" and "secret trials" when talking lyrics. Cburnett 07:36, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't see a copy of an e-mail anywhere on this page. I don't remember saying anything about banking my argument on this agreement, which you have failed to find a copy of. My primary argument rests on the fact that the law is there for all to see. You have not been able to dispute that, only the technicalities under the assumption that the lyrics as printed in the code of Georgia are copyrighted first, then law second - Which cannot be the case in a society based on the rule of law.

Now, if you can dig up the agreement or a complaint from PeerMusic, this might be able to be settled. You can't be a hardliner on copyright policy when this is something on such dubious turf. --Alexwcovington (talk) 07:48, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Billie Holiday et al.

I realise this is a signature Ray Charles song, but shouldn't the article mention Billie Holiday's, as well as Mildred Bailey's and Willie Nelson's versions? --Tridentinus 19:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, givewn all the others mentioned, why not the Ella Fitzgerald-Joe Pass rendition?

[edit] Girl or State?

Since the state of Georgia adopted it as their official song, the song is nowadays strongly tied to that state. But as I understand it, wasn't it originally written about a girl named Georgia, and not the state? Is it accurate to say it's a song simply about a girl, or was the dual-meaning intentional? Pimlottc 20:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I highly doubt that Stuart Gorrell and Hoagy Carmichael had the state of Georgia on their minds (hehe!) when they wrote the song.

Initial source: http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/12175719 Ever since legendary songwriter Hoagy Carmichael composed "Georgia" with help from roommate Stuart Gorrell, music buffs have debated whether the ambiguous lyric refers to the state or a woman's name. Carmichael's 1965 autobiography, "Sometimes I Wonder," seems to settle the question. He wrote that a friend suggested: "Why don't you write a song called `Georgia?' Nobody lost much writing about the South." Its seems hard to dispute it when the composer admits it in his autobiography.