Ah, yes, the infinitely interesting and unanswerable question of folk and traditional. May I add further confusion? Is there more than one definition of "traditional?"

There is traditional usage, such as the song "Happy Birthday." Countless celebrations have been accompanied by this little ditty. At home, that's fine. At a public gathering, or on a recording, etc. you must get permission (and pay your money) to Time-Warner, who owns the copyright. Many songs fall into the murky situation of being used as a traditional song--Sweet Betsy from Pike, and Hard Times, to name a couple from the US. They are performed by "traditional" musicians and included in recordings of "traditional" songs. However, their composer/lyricist is known, and should be acknowledged, even if the song has passed into the public domain. To find such songs recorded or printed with the source listed as "traditional" bespeaks poor research, and if the song is not in the public domain, may indicate copyright infringement.

Q wrote:
"sloppy and incorrect word usage of many, particularly North American singers and song writers"

Perhaps it is merely a different usage, as in boot, biscuit, and chips. I think that calling a song "traditional" is not quite the same thing as calling it "folk" or "source unknown." Now, I may well get shot down on this, and it won't be the first (or last) time that my opinion has been considered wrong by people who know more about a subject than I do. This is just my interpretation of the word "traditional."

(I will cheerfully rant and rave about plenty of other examples of sloppy and incorrect word usage, but that is thread   creep and belongs in the BS section.)

What about an ancient and "source unknown" song that has lain dormant for years? If I suddenly resurrect the poor thing, is it instantly "traditional?" Whose tradition?

I love these conversations....

I wish you all a traditionally nice day!