Lord Franklin in Copyright?

Subject: Folklore: Lord Franklin in Copyright?
From: Tootler
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 04:27 PM

At least it is according to You Tube. I was checking through my videos and I found this:

"Your video, Lord Franklin , may include content that is owned or administered by these entities:
Entity: Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society Content Type: Musical Composition"

Ahem!

Subject: RE: Lord Franklin in Copyright?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 04:43 PM

You may want to send them the provenance!

Subject: RE: Lord Franklin in Copyright?
From: GUEST,Ebor_Fiddler
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 04:58 PM

Did Bobby Dylan copyright the tune? (Naughty Thought!)

Subject: RE: Lord Franklin in Copyright?
From: Lighter
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 05:34 PM

"May include" sounds like automatically generated boilerplate. It logically includes "does not include."

But one never knows....

Subject: RE: Lord Franklin in Copyright?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 06:07 PM

Those with copyright on their versions include Andrew Lloyd Webber, Pentacle (Jansch et al.), and some "Celtic" performers (Sinead O'Connor, etc.).
The song stems from "Lady Franklin's Lament," and "Lament on the fate of Sir J. Franklin....." Dunno when the "Lord" Franklin" title and/or versions were made.

He was not a "lord."
Old broadsides from 1878, but music??

Subject: RE: Lord Franklin in Copyright?
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 06:42 PM

Robbie O'Connell sang the song under the name of Lord Franklin in the Clancy, O'Connell and Clancy album "Wild and Wasteful Ocean", and did an admirable job of it, I might add. But I haven't the slightest idea about copyrights on the album. :)

Subject: RE: Lord Franklin in Copyright?
From: GUEST,SirCoughsalot
Date: 28 Nov 11 - 06:44 PM

That's folk music for you. One of the Highwaymen copyrighted Michael Row the Boat Ashore.

Subject: RE: Lord Franklin in Copyright?
From: scouse
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 04:59 AM

Dick Gaughan comes from the clan "McDonald."I was with him one day and he was livid... He told me McDonald's (The so called eatery.) tried to copyright the word McDonalds!!! Only in America!
As Aye,
Phil.

Subject: RE: Lord Franklin in Copyright?
From: Lighter
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 09:48 AM

IIRC, I first heard of "Lord" Franklin in the influential version sung by the late Mícheál Ó Domhnaill of the Bothy Band in the early '80s. A. L. Lloyd recorded the song around 1957. I don't think he called Franklin "Lord."

But since he called the song "Lady Franklin's Lament," the change to "Lord" is perfectly understandable.

More than you want to know: http://stessily.hubpages.com/hub/Mchel-Domhnaill-Kevin-Burke-and-Lord-Franklin-I-dreamed-a-dream-and-I-thought-it-true

Subject: RE: Lord Franklin in Copyright?
From: Tunesmith
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 11:07 AM

In the UK, it is probably most associated with Martin Cathy.
And, of couse, Bob Dylan borrowed heavily from Martin's version when creating "Bob Dylan's Dream".

Subject: RE: Lord Franklin in Copyright?
From: Gurney
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 03:26 PM

It seems that you can copyright an arrangement of a song that you didn't write. The Clancy Bros. did a lot of that, once.

Subject: RE: Lord Franklin in Copyright?
From: Ross Campbell
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 03:37 PM

Of course it's public domain, regardless of who may claim otherwise.

The version that Lighter mentioned above is here:- Lord Franklin performed by Micheál Ó'Domhnaill and Kevin Burke with vocals from sister Triona, and bouzouki from Donal Lunny.

Sir John Franklin's wife Lady Jane was entitled to be called "Lady Franklin" because her husband was a baronet. Somewhere along the line somebody mistakenly assumed that Sir John was a peer.

The tune is variously used for "McCaffery", the "Croppy Boy" and an Irish song "Cailín Óg a Stór".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Franklin%27s_Lament has much detail, including a multitude of artists who have recorded the song.

Ross

Subject: RE: Lord Franklin in Copyright?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 03:40 PM

It is usual for new arrangements, music, lyrics, or both, to be copyright regardless of original author(s) or age.
Failure to understand this has been the cause of several threads and numerous posts therein.

Subject: RE: Lord Franklin in Copyright?
From: Tootler
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 03:47 PM

You Tube's copyright marking seems a little arbitrary.

I have two Tom Anderson tunes in my You Tube Channel, one has been marked as copyright, the other hasn't which also seems odd as both are in copyright.

I was thinking of removing Lord Franklin as I wasn't really happy with it, and was going to re-record it. It was while I was looking through and thinking about that that I noticed the copyright notice. I was a bit narked as the song is definitely out of copyright and I was pretty sure the tune was traditional and that the tune for Bob Dylan's dream was variant of the Lord Franklin tune, but I don't have the evidence.

I might take it down, and when I have redone it, put it back on and tag it "traditional song" or something similar, and also say it is traditional song in the notes, then see what happens.

I would like to be in a position to challenge the copyright labelling but I need evidence that the tune is traditional. If anyone can point me to anything, I would much appreciate it. As for the song - regardless of what title you give it, I would have thought a link to a couple of broadsides in the Bodleian Website would serve.

The whole copyright business is getting out of hand, IMHO.

Subject: RE: Lord Franklin in Copyright?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 05:13 PM

Whether or not the tune is traditional has nothing to do with copyright for a new and different arrangement.

Subject: RE: Lord Franklin in Copyright?
From: Skivee
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 09:30 PM

The important thing about this is that the basic song is definitely in public domain. As long as you didn't do essentially a note for note recreation of another artists arrangement of a traditional tune, you don't owe anyone royalty payments.
There are lots of publishing companies(i.e.Hal Leonard) that would love you to believe that they hold copyright to any iteration of a traditional song because a version has been printed by them. Sorry, but Hal Leonard doesn't own the rights to Barbara Allen.

Subject: RE: Lord Franklin in Copyright?
From: Ross Campbell
Date: 29 Nov 11 - 11:34 PM

If you are basing YOUR arrangement of the words on any of the broadside versions (or your own devisings from them) and you are playing and singing YOUR arrangement of any of the traditional versions of the tune, the resulting arrangement is YOURS and nobody else's. Copyright in THAT version is YOURS and nobody else's. Of course if you then put up a recording on YouTube, you're handing them a deal of rights in THAT production (your choice!)

If you are copying somebody else's work, none of the above applies.

Ross

Subject: RE: Lord Franklin in Copyright?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 12:21 AM

Strictly speaking, Franklin's wife was not "Lady Jane Franklin" ~~ Lady+Forename+Surname is the courtesy title of the daughter of a Duke, Marquess or Earl. (His heir, eldest son, would be known by his father's second title; a younger son of a Duke or Marquess would be Lord+Forename+Surname ~ think of famous detective of Dorothy L Sayers, Lord Peter Wimsey, whose elder brother was the Duke of Denver & sister was Lady Mary Wimsey - younger son of an Earl is The Honourable Forename+Surname.)

The wife of a knight, baronet, or junior peer would be simply "Lady Franklin"; if necessary to distinguish her from wife of others of same surname, she could be referred to, informally, as "Jane, Lady Franklin"; or, in writing, as "Lady (Jane} Franklin". But, properly speaking, her title would be simply "Lady Franklin".

~Michael~

Subject: RE: Lord Franklin in Copyright?
From: bubblyrat
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 03:52 AM

Yes , Michael ! And , I believe from memory ,although I could check in "Boutells" , that Baronets were the "lowest of the low" , not entitled to sit in the House of Lords, or to be addressed as "Lord" , and were created to provide an aristocracy or titled class to rule over Provinces such as Ulster ,etc within the British Empire , the name "Baronet" believed to derive from the French "Banneret" ?? Hence the simple "Sir John and Lady Franklin ". And my memories are more of Pentangle than Carthy !

Subject: RE: Lord Franklin in Copyright?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 06:17 PM

Barbara Allen? ASCAP lists 63 works. BMI lists 64 with Work ID.

Subject: RE: Lord Franklin in Copyright?
From: Tootler
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 06:39 PM

To clarify a couple of points.

You Tube are saying that someone is claiming copyright on the actual song - words and/or tune, they do not make it clear. Not the recording or, as far as I can tell, the arrangement.

The recording itself is of me singing the song and accompanying myself on ukulele - not very well which is why is was going to remove it as I feel that with a bit more work on it I can do a lot better.

What I actually sing is the words most usually found which I eventually learnt from a written source and the tune normally heard which I learnt by ear based on listening over the years to several recordings.

FWIW, here is a link to the offending video.

http://youtu.be/ZapFvoSTS4M

Subject: RE: Lord Franklin in Copyright?
From: Greg B
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 07:16 PM

I'd like to hear it from you a capella. The uke detracts from your voice. And it seems to impose a rhythm that is out of place. If you'd just toss off the song in a thoughtful and reflective fashion I think that it'd be beautiful.

Subject: RE: Lord Franklin in Copyright?
From: Tootler
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 02:11 PM

You're comment is certainly valid Greg B. It was my uke playing I was not happy with and I certainly intend to remove it and think about it again. I might still go with the uke but I need to think about how I use it. I haven't been playing the uke long and am very much trying things out.

However I really put the link in to make the point that I was not copying anyone else's arrangement so as to get more feedback about the copyright issue in this specific case. My own feeling is that someone is making an invalid copyright claim.