Talk:Charley Patton/Archive 1

Comments
i LOVE this article. I did a little grammar clean-up. I'm an "editor" for a living, when I do work. Would have done more, but it's late. But let's give this man his due!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.212.126 (talk) 11:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Question
i submitted this question to the copyright page's 'fair use needing a second opinion' section:

first off, patton died in '34, and therefore all recordings should be public domain, correct? What about when effort was put in to remaster the tracks, like the grammy award winning "Screamin' And Hollerin' The Blues: The Worlds of Charley Patton"? (article) lastly, much of the article is a lenghthy and (relatively) widely published quote, is this fair use as well? -evilme

From WP:CP
(I moved the below discussion from Copyright problems. -- Infrogmation 21:04, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC))


 * Charley_Patton - first off, patton died in '34, and therefore all recordings should be public domain, correct? What about when effort was put in to remaster the tracks, like the Grammy award winning "Screamin' And Hollerin' The Blues: The Worlds of Charley Patton"? (article) lastly, much of the article is a lenghthy and (relatively) widely published quote, is this fair use as well?
 * As to the recordings, while 1922 is the year for print PD-US, I do know that pre 1930 recordings are PD-US (and somewhat later... I'm not sure if it goes up to '34 but it might). BUT! That is only if the recordings are taken from original pre 193* discs, not some reissue. -- Infrogmation 22:38, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * thanks for responding to my charlie patton copyright check. i don't really know who else to ask this of, or if it's polite to start the discussion on this page. i've checked at copyright.gov, and music that age qualifies for 95 years protection if renewed. the online database is only post 1978ish, so it could have well been renewed sometime earler. the research fee is 75$/h, and the plane ticket to dc's even more. -_- so since i'm not fronting the research fee, i should probably take the music down, i think. will someone second that thought? that still puts the question in my head whether reissuers who do naught but transfer music to a new medium (and add no value other than packaging) receive copyright when i use them to do the same kind of transfer to get it to ogg.. i hope not.. --evilmousse 1am 12/14/04 CST
 * US copyright law for recordings in the early 20th century was different and provided less protection than that for compositions and printed matter. While I don't have the details at hand, I can vouch for the following: Already by the 1980s pre-1930s recordings were PD in the US, even if the compositions and sheet music of the same tunes were still under copyright. Hence, companies both in the USA and Europe reissued audio from pre-1930s recordings without permission or royalties. A few times some of the big record companies still in business since the early 20th century did sue some of the independent reissuers, but the cases were decided in favor of the reissuers, confirming the PD status of the audio. (Hm, sometime we probably need to have such info and the exact date this situation goes up to now on some Wikipedia copyright FAQ.) -- Infrogmation 21:13, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cub Koda Quote
I removed the several paragraph long quote by Cub Koda. It seemed far too long to be a fair use quote, and apparently derived from http://www.ilpopolodelblues.com/bman/patton.html. The front page of that site has a copyright notice, reading "This is owned by Carmine Ernesto De Pascale 1998 - 2005 ©". -- Infrogmation 21:41, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[ Everyking's 00:13, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) spelling query contrib here refactored to new talk section by Jerzy·t 20:48, 2005 July 27 (UTC)]

Response to Cub Koda Quote
I agree the length of the Cub Koda quote makes it an unlikely candidate for public domain, but I also assure you I can find 10-20 other websites that quote the text verbatim. I would be immensely surprised if ilpopolodelblues.com owns the rights, at any rate, seeing as they are clearly violating R. Crumb's rights.. (As is the article's linked version, but at least that version comes with a disclaimer that it will be removed should Mr. Crumb complain.) Doing a little research, Cub is apparantly a co-author of 'blues for dummies', and that seems a likely candidate for the source of the text. I suspect all questions could be answered by reaching mr. Koda. My apologies, from seeing it so widely disseminated, I had presumed it was a quote; something Mr. Koda had noncommercially spoken.


 * addendum: awww crap. Cub Koda's dead. Now what to do, I'm still not positive his 'blues for dummies' is the source, seeing as all I don't have the book to read. contact the publisher? what do you think?

As you can see @ http://www.goodrockintonight.com/morelingo3.chtml?letter=P&lingo=Patton%20&lingoid=660 the two variations of his name extend back even to when he was alive and making records. (perhaps the image owner might donate rights to use these in the article, btw) Charlie seems to be the most frequent. I unfoundedly suspect Charlie wasn't often called upon to sign his name.

is there advice here on wikipedia on finding and approaching potential copyright-'donors'? Evilmousse 00:04, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Given-name Spelling
Do the spellings of his name just vary randomly, or is there one "correct" version? I wish it was consistent, both in the text and with the article title. Everyking 00:13, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * [contrib refactored to new section by Jerzy·t 20:48, 2005 July 27 (UTC)]

On 2005 January 12 User:Evilmousse wrote in part
 * As you can see @ http://www.goodrockintonight.com/morelingo3.chtml?letter=P&lingo=Patton%20&lingoid=660 the two variations of his name extend back even to when he was alive and making records. (perhaps the image owner might donate rights to use these in the article, btw) CharlIE seems to be the most frequent

and then in part (only the portion i've bolded is new)
 * ... Charlie seems to be the most frequent. I unfoundedly suspect Charlie wasn't often called upon to sign his name.
 * [copied w/ fmt chgs to new section by Jerzy·t 20:48, 2005 July 27 (UTC)]

_ _ Someone probably went thru and harmonized the spelling in the ext-lk pipings, which is contrary to WP:MoS by falsifying the titles of the pages lk'd to -- but that would be someone different from the one/two who chose the page title and wrote the lead sentence. _ _ Harmonizing is a bad idea, as it misrepresents the (encyclopedic!) fact of general confusion; two conflicting harmonizations at opposite ends of the page are even worse, since some will come away believing in one, some in the other, and the most observant will probably (e.g. from comparing the graphic to its caption) conclude correctly that we fail either to think such things thru or to proofread. _ _ I've taken the bull by the horns, and described, in the article, the lack of consensus. Which one to treat as primary is not very important, but IMO the versions are close enough that giving slighter greater weight to the one used in the Calt book-length bio (the work whose production carried the heaviest research requirements) is the least questionable procedure; i'm moving the article accordingly. --Jerzy·t 20:48, 2005 July 27 (UTC)

Photo
Why is the photo cropped so that the top of his head is cut off? I have seen reproductions of the uncropped photo, so I know it didn't have to be cropped like that. Can the photo be replaced with one that at least shows his whole head? Jwicklatz (talk) 01:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Since it is used with a WP:FUR, any copies should also qualify (there's only one photo of Patton). Google images has several copies cropped differently. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Uploaded differently cropped photo. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)