Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Swan-Lake

Swan-Lake edit

Both elegant and unique - a "hands-down" masterpiece that has been revered and admired for generations. This debuted back in '77 (1877 that is) as part of a ballet. Arguably Tchaikovskys best work.

Nominate and support. Flewis^(talk) 12:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is meant by the copyright statement on the recording? Does it mean it is copyvio in the USA. What about commercial use? Z gin der 2008-10-07T13:37Z (UTC)

Copyrights are recognized internationally depending on the location of where the work was created. --Flewis^(talk) 14:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was recorded by Michael Tilson Thomas and the London Symphony Orchestra, apparently in 2006. Is it really copyright free? Also why is Swan-Lake hyphenated? --Klein zach 13:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't recorded by the London Symphony Orchestra, this is the recording of the performance. Swan-Lake is hyphenated due to file-name consistency. Eg, some browsers may have have trouble understanding blank spaces (%20) --Flewis^(talk) 14:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about that copyright rationale? The permission section's interpretation of the relevant UK copyright law appears to only cover graphic images of publically displayed works, ie photographs of works of art and suchlike. It does not sound like it covers audio recordings in this way. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I understand the rationale: This was performed outdoors, in a public place, and you recorded it there? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, recorded in a concert hall ("A premises open to the public" - The UK copyright license does not explicitly state any information regarding audio - especially if the audio is not an official recording by the artist/group in question) --Flewis^(talk) 21:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This still sounds extremely dubious to me - by that rationale almost any recording of a non-modern piece of music could be classed as free. ~ mazca ^t|c 22:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and delete The recording is obviously not free, and there is no indication that the arrangement is free either. I propose that we suggest deletion of Commons. Z gin der 2008-10-07T22:23Z (UTC)

If anything, the music itself is within the public domain (Author died 115 years ago), which "weakens" the "copyright" further - doubled over by the fact that this is not an official recording by any commercial organization/group. --Flewis^(talk) 04:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For any more copyright-based 'opposes' - please continue the discussion here, to avoid a pile on --Flewis^(talk) 04:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Zginder. --Klein zach 23:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notice Has been deleted on commons. Z gin der 2008-10-10T04:30Z (UTC)

Not promoted as deleted and no support --Z gin der 2008-10-10T04:31Z (UTC)