Talk:Georgia on My Mind

Willie Nelson Section

In the Willie Nelson section, the sentence appears, "The original lyrics, including the commonly excised introductory verse, are in the Georgia Code under license.[2][3]" At best, this seems misplaced, but not understanding what the sentence means, I am hesitant to move it. Does it belong in the intro section, and/or is it redundant to the sentence, "In 1979, the State of Georgia designated Ray Charles' version the official state song.[2][3] The song has become part of the Great American Songbook tradition.[4][5]"?

Untitled

"The song is referenced in The Beatles' "Back in the USSR", with the line "Georgia's always on my mind" referring to the Georgian SSR (Soviet Georgia)." If McCartney was referring to Georgian SSR, he would not have been referencing Georgia, the song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.206.35 (talk) 11:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not? There is such a thing as a pun. It seems to me very, very, very obvious that McCartney was overtly referring to the then Soviet republic and at the same time punning on the well-known standard. There really is no other plausible explanation for the line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.0.234 (talk) 00:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

No, that would be hugely contentious and a huge bore. A Wikipedia article about a song should strictly avoid an attempt at a depth analysis of its lyric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.0.234 (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

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?

Michael Bolton

Obviously Wikipedia can't make a list of every artist who has recorded this song. But if Michael Bolton's record had greater sales than any of the ones the article DOES list, omitting his recording of the song is oddly unencyclopedic and I wonder if someone has gone off on one of those anti-Michael-Bolton kicks as people do with Barry Manilow, Kenny G, and others.2600:1700:6759:B000:A56B:26F7:218E:9913 (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson

You can't copyright a State Law

If the U.S. State named "Georgia" passed a law making this song their Official State Song (and I believe they went beyond that and legislated that the Ray Charles record is the Official State Recording of the Official State Song), and if the law says "These are the official lyrics that we the Legislature are enacting herein", and there follows in that Statute a set of song-lyrics, OBVIOUSLY that Statute can be copied-and-pasted into ANYTHING. The text of a State Law is by definition in the public domain. Prosecutors and Judges don't pay royalties to the author of their State's law against burglary whenever they read that law out loud during the trial of a burglar, and if someone says otherwise I don't think we can take them seriously.2600:1700:6759:B000:A56B:26F7:218E:9913 (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson

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.

Hoagy knew the commercial value in keeping the meaning ambiguous, hence why there is a bogus story in Hoagy's memoirs . Look at Gorrell's original lyrics.[7] I think they make it pretty clear. Some early performances of the song also included "Each day, Georgia my honey, a song of you". It's clearly about Georgia Carmichael. Gorrell never wrote another song lyric and was Hoagy's roommate at the time. 69.243.128.26 22:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I was told by Randy Carmichael (Hoagy's son) in 1999 that it was more about Hoagy's sister than the State of Georgia. Of course that's not a published source people can reference :) Froo (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

if that's what he told you, he contradicts himself here (towards the very beginning of the video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_SJqJtmhE0 HistoryBuff14 (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 10:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Coldplay?

When did coldplay do georgia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.230.203 (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wording…

"Inspired by this blues version, Willie Nelson formally introduced the song to country audiences in 1978 as a #1 Country/Western hit."
What exactly does that mean? What would an 'informal introduction' of a song be?
Ulmanor (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction in lede

The lede currently says:

Gorrell wrote the lyrics for Hoagy's sister, Georgia Carmichael.[1] ... [T]he song is universally believed to have been written about the state.

First, this is self-contradictory -- how can it be universally believed one way when the same paragraph of Wikipedia asserts the opposite? Second, the link [1] just goes to a page called "The Hoagy Carmichael Collection", with no assertion on that page that "Gorrell wrote the lyrics for Hoagy's sister." This needs to be straightened out, using neutral wording and a more targeted link. Duoduoduo (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup

Okay, I signed in to Wikipedia (after being away for three years) to clean up this article as it was shocking. The citations need proper referencing. Katana Geldar 07:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Cultural Significance

I think it's overstretching to say that The Beatles were alluding JUST to the state of Georgia in the song here. It was well known at the time that Stalin wasn't Russian, he was Georgian, as in the Republic; although actually saying so was a quick ticket to a gulag. After the verse that refers to the girls from the Ukraine, they are observing that the Soviet Union ALSO has girls from Georgia. The Republic of Georgia has some pretty women, too.
For the geographically challenged, the Republic of Georgia lies between the Caspian and Black Seas in the Caucasus Mountains, just north of Turkey on its northeastern border.
I always considered that line in Back in the USSR to be very clever wordplay by the boys from Liverpool. At this time, November 2014, McCartney's still alive. Why not ask him? DTavona (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Georgia on My Mind. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130311013724/http://www.atlantamagazine.com/flashback/story.aspx?ID=1372656 to http://www.atlantamagazine.com/flashback/Story.aspx?id=1372656

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)