Talk:Hitler Has Only Got One Ball

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hitler Has Only Got One Ball article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Rating for Songs

Start class-good, but needs some referrences. Importance=mid. Has some historic and folklore importance. Infobox (anyone got a recording?) Pustelnik (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Annoying

It has always bugged me that the lyrics "hitler has only one left ball" are used... because, as far as I'm aware, every male has only one left testicle. I have yet to come across anyone who has two left testies and no right ones. That's all I have to say. --Plattopus 17:04, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

I think that may be due to a subtle difference between British and American usage. — Gwalla | Talk 02:03, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am not kidding you, I seriously have two left testicles and one right for a total of three. Everything works fine. It is only one of more than a few ways in which I prefer to think of myself as a superior man to Hitler. 74.101.138.92 22:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Would'nt that make one of them a middle ball? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.125.13 (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Pathetic article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.124.128 (talk) 09:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Radio drama

I've just been listening on www.bbc.co.uk/bbc7 to a radio drama (allegedly nonfiction) called Dear Dr. Goebbels. (You can "Listen Again" on RealAudio until next week.) I didn't catch the whole show, unfortunately (and I've got no RealAudio here), but here's the gist. A gentleman named Philip Morgenstern who works for MI5 or MI6 (under Kim Philby!) goes undercover to Germany as a prosthetic seller when Goebbels needs to buy a brand new prosthetic shoe. In the process, he picks up this little bit of gossip and writes the lyrics. He is later offered honors (which he turns down), officially for bravery but unofficially for his song. The drama ends with Churchill, on his last day in office, singing the song with him. Obviously I can't swear to any of this, but some of the facts can surely be checked out. Hope this helped and didn't just add more confusion! (And at any rate, the radio drama's existence is surely Wiki-worthy....)

I heard this one, he hears that hitler has one ball, goreings balls are shrunk from morphine abuse, and goring balls retract into his body so it looks like he has no balls. It was origionaly on Radio 4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.125.13 (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The goat

Does anyone have a decent citation for the rumor that Hitler had lost a testicle in an incident involving a goat? I know I read about this somewhere pretty respectable (they weren't endorsing the rumor, just tracing its history): Harper's or Atlantic or something like that, probably circa 1990. And if you think I'm just putting you on, Google hitler testicle goat, but nothing I saw quickly looked citable. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I've heard something similar, but involving a dog. The story is that he was attempting to have the animal fellate him, when it inflicted the aforesaid testicular amputation. Hitler may well have been a tremendous pervert, but I doubt there are many historical sources for this story! - Eyeresist 10:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I read about the goat years ago. All I can remember is it was in a scholarly journal, so I can't cite it. It was presented as a long-standing rumor.
The story was that when Hitler was a boy, other boys dared him to try to urinate in a goat's mouth. A couple of the boys were holding a string that was supposed to hold the goat's mouth open. The string broke, and Hitler ran off screaming, with blood visible.
140.147.160.78 14:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

[edit] Munich

Any cite for the claim the Colonel Bogey was played as the British team entered the stadium in the Munich Olympics of 1972. It seems highly unlikely. I haven't found any evidence of this by Googling. I will remove it if it cannot be confirmed. Jooler 00:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] T-shirt link

The Wikipedia store on Cafe Press has a t-shirt with this article on it [www.cafepress.com/wikipedia/528094]. Should that be under external links? --Kerowyn 06:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

No. —Daniel (‽) 19:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate lyrics

This is the version I know (although, like a lot of people, I don't know precisely where I gleaned it from):

 Hitler, he only has one ball
 Goering, has two but they are small
 Himmler, is very simmler
 But poor Goebbels, has no balls, at all

The most notable difference from the other versions is the description of Goebbels as "poor". I think it makes it scan better. - Eyeresist 11:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 4-line?

I believe I've seen it in a form of a limerick, printed by fortune -o one day:

   Hitler had only one ball,
   Göring had two, but t'were small,
     And then there was Himmler 
     Who had something sim'lar,
   But Goebbels had no balls at all.

Unfortunately, I don't know who's the author of that one. --BACbKA 23:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)



[edit] Generic identification

generic identification might make sense to the people who wrote it...but to the random reader who stumbles on the article (such as me), the words are baffling. could someone please rewrite the first sentence so it better explains what is supposed to be meant. thanks Kingturtle 17:38, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It means that the name refers all the variations on the lyrics. I changed the sentence. And PS: This talk page is extraordinary. It's far more entertaining than the article, and the article is pretty darn entertaining! Fishal 21:31, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Lyrics

Copyright issues aside, I think it's ridiculous to have two dozen alternate texts to the song. In general I am opposed to the extensive quotation of primary source material when not incorporated into encyclopedic passages. Should be moved to wikisource. savidan(talk) (e@) 03:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally don't believe there is much copyright here - variants galore, unknown where it all came from. Agree there are just too many variants here - and the list is incomplete anyway - the version I learnt started 'Hitler had only one, left, ball' and finished 'and Joseph Goebels had no balls at all' I suspect nearly every allied military unit in WWII had its own minor variation.Bridesmill 21:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the variety of versions of the song are part of what make the article interesting. - Eyeresist 10:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

This isn't an especially useful comment, but I just wanted to say I'm absolutely staggered by the idea that a song which begins with the image of Churchill crouching secretly before a keyhole while smilingly staring at Hitler's genitalia could ever have been used as propaganda! I mean, wow. --Saforrest 06:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This is just yet another perfect example of the fact that people from Great Britain have a healthy sense of humour, a good portion of self irony, and the ability to not take everything that seriously. Clq 23:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time for a cleanup?

13 versions, almost all identical. There's absolutely no point documenting every last version heard. I'm amused that the version I know (Hitler has only one brass ball, Goring had two but small) isn't documented, but it's really not "interesting". Also, can I ask why Goring's name is spelt Göring, while Göbells is spelt Goebells? oe and ö are equivalent. Stevage 14:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, the multiple, mutating versions of this popular folk lyric are really part of what makes the article interesting. I think a compendium of the various versions should be included, but they should be listed at the end of the article instead of in the middle. - Eyeresist 10:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


"ö" and "oe" are the same, true. although normally ö is used. in crosswords and when no ö available oe is used. however in some family names oe is used insted. these families firmly insist in oe being used. as to why, i can give no explanation.--85.180.30.212 11:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

At first glance it's impossible to see whether the verses actually existed in WOII, or whether the submitters made them up. I'd like to see some sources! Shinobu 09:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The 65 years later original full version

The wikipedia article says that the song was used in 'Allo 'Allo, but actually only five words of it were sung, leaving one to deduce the rest.

In the course of the plot the various parties would find themselves in strange alliances. At one point an endearing young idiot, whether it was (I do not remember) an English prisoner or a German junior officer pretending to other Germans to be an English prisoner, was asked to sing something in English. He got as far as "Hitler - has only got one" before he was shushed by another character.

That was the first time I had heard any part of the song. Wondering how it went on, I reconstructed the obvious last word of the line and a whole stanza (the one below with the gerbils). It was years later before I heard two lines of the actual song, as far as "Albert Hall". So my guess had been wrong (though as the variants later showed, not all that wrong). But I still did not know how one testicle had got to such a place (the original song never explains; it is just a piece of nonsense), or how the lyrics continued. I first got all the text from this wikipedia article yesterday, and it seemed appropriate to put all the material together into a revised single version. The tune of course is "Land of Hope and Glory" for the introduction, then four stanzas of the "Colonel Bogey March", and a finishing cadence descending scalewise to the tonic.

In deference to the exhausting and legally partly inaccurate discussion above on copyright (which confuses the right to make and sell copies with the right to read, hear, and enjoy and the right to use and the right to quote), it is asserted that the following version in its entirety is "Copyright (c) 2005 Denis Howarth", and is published here by its original author. The introductory four lines consist of a literal quotation from the wikipedia article itself, though re-punctuated, the fifth line is a spelling revision, the next four lines are wholly original work by the author, of which however the opening line consists of a literary allusion, and the remainder of the text is original work in its revisions and its presentation as a connected literary opus. The final four notes of the tune are also copyright, no matter in which key the tune is sung. All intellectual property rights are asserted. A license to publish is granted to wikipedia, and permission is granted to persons generally to quote the entire text so long as the text is properly attributed to its author or accompanied by the full copyright notice "This version Copyright (c) 2005 Denis Howarth", but any sale of a copy without the author's explicit permission will constitute infringement. Does that clear things up? 216.113.219.121 13:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

       Land of soap and water:
        Hitler's having a bath;
        Churchill's looking through the keyhole,
        Having a jolly good laugh,
        Be...e...cause ...
       Hitler - has only got one ball.
        Goering - has got no balls at all.
        Goebbels - screws little gerbils
        Because his peeny - is weeny - and small.
       Hitler - has only got one ball.
        Th' other - is in the Albert Hall,
        Because his mother, the silly bugger,
        Had it bronzed when - her baby - was small.
       When he - gives us the other, we
        Shall toss - them in the deep blue sea.
        The fishes - will grab their dishes
        And have scallops - and bollocks - for tea.
       Hitler - will lose his one last ball,
        Goering - will lack the where-with-all,
        Himmler - will soon be sim'lar,
        And then Goebbels - have noebbels - at all
        (... all all all all).

[This version Copyright (c) 2005 Denis Howarth]
[Authored November 10, 2005]
[Published November 11, 2005]


[edit] Actually it was Goering

The idea that Hitler had only one testicle is mere propaganda rubbish, whereas it is a proven fact that Goering, during the march to the Feldherrnhalle in 1923, was shot in the groins, and that he actually had only one testicle left afterwards. Therefore, this should be the original, and realistic, version of the song.

H.P.

Yes, but wikipedians are obsessed with testicles and don't really give a shit about truth or accuracy. Therefore this article is perfect and should be featured on the front page!
If Goering had more than one groin (vid. "groins", above), perhaps he had more than two testicles to start with? - Eyeresist 11:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of this article

First, I wrote a little article on the Colonel Bogey March and stuck the Variant #3 lyrics on the talk page. Then Tarquin boldly posted them, with links, in the article itself. Then, Sinper deleted them without notice, whereupon I created this page. While I was typing this, I seem to have gotten into an edit war with Tarquin, who is also trying to restore the lyrics. More later, Ortolan88 17:14 Nov 4, 2002 (UTC)

Sorry, Orto! More a case of an "edit mixup" than a war ;-) -- Tarquin

Yep, but where should they go, really? See one-ball talk page Ortolan88

[edit] Copyright (or not)

Toby O’Brien claims on his web page that this song was originally written by his father in 1939, which would make these lyrics copyright of the O'Brien estate. I do not know whether or not his claim is valid.

It is clear however, that ALL versions of these lyrics were written post 1939, and therefore copyright of them, by definition, lays with whoever wrote them (or their estates).

Ignoring any question of whether these lyrics belong here for reasons outside the scope of copyright, these lyrics cannot be allowed to stay here unless their copyright status is resolved.

Folklore is not copyright and there is no assertion of copyright on the O'Brien page. His father didn't write them for a musical comedy. He wrote them for British propaganda. Why are you intent on suppressing this article? This is your second try. Reverting soon unless you prove that anyone ever claimed a copyright on them and even then I'll dispute it. In other words, this is silly. If you think the article is vulgar or trivial, try making that point here and cut it out with the off-topic tactics. Ortolan88 21:34 Nov 8, 2002 (UTC)PS - Donough wrote the web page, Toby is his dead father.

These songs are probably the most clear cut example of oral tradition extant. No sane person would think of imposing or seeking to impose a copyright on this. user:sjc

The Colonel Bogey March was a first world war tune and a big hit at that; it will inevitably transpire that someone had written some ribald words to this tune anterior to 1939: it would be a crying shame not to, wouldn't it? user:sjc

--

First, answer this question: Did someone write these lyrics? Unless you assume that they sprung into existence fully formed, then you have to assume there is an author.

Under the Berne Convention of 1908, protected works were granted a copyright for the life of the author plus 50 years.

Since 1911 there has been no requirement for an author to "claim" copyright, since copyright is automatically granted to the original author.

In 1996, Britain extended copyright protection to 70 years after the author's death, and this change was retroactive.

Given that we are assuming that the lyrics in question were written post 1939, the above tells us that no matter who wrote them, they are copyrighted until 70 years after that persons death.

If we assume that they were written by Toby O'Brien, then the copyright is owned by his heirs or by his employer at the time they were written. If the works were not authored by Toby O'Brien, then we do not know who owns the copyright, but unless the author has been dead over 70 years then SOMEONE owns the copyright. --"TMC"

Not necessarily. It is perfectly possible to write something and not assert copyright over it. As I am doing right now. Moreover, this is a frankly ludicrous sideshow. It is not copyright, never has been, never will be.user:sjc

sjc, the above is wrong on two levels. First, even if you didn't "assert" ownership at the moment you created a work, the copyright is automatically yours. Second, you misunderstand the terms that wikipedia accepts your entries under. It is implicit in the GFDL that you are the author and copyright holder of that which you write, and that you grant an irrevocable license to wikipedia to the use of your work.
I believe that's only assuming these have any identifiable author. Folktales, urban legends and the like are not copyrightable because no one person has any particular claim to them. They are created by the public, and are therefore in the public domain. I'm not saying that applies to this, because I don't know anything about this, but it is possible that no one holds any legally viable copyright. Tokerboy 22:09 Nov 8, 2002 (UTC)
Close, but not quite. If you hear a piece of folklore or urban legend, and you write it down in your own original words, then you indeed have a copyright on your expression of that story. But nothing stops someone else from coming along and writing their own version of the same story, in their own words.
Also, we should pay some heed to another wikipedia policy: Don't include copies of primary sources --"TMC"

I agree with sjc and Orty -- next we'll hear that the cadences sung by US soldiers in basic training are copyrighted, like:

C-130 going down the strip
Airborne daddy gonna take a little trip
Stand up, hook up, shuffle to the door
Jump right out and count to four.

Sound off! One, two!
Sound off! Three, four!
Bring it on down!
One, two, three, four
One! Two! Three, four!

(from memory)

I have the copyright on that cadence, and also on this one:
A Yellow Bird
With A Yellow Bill
Was sitting on
My Windowsill
(2X)
I lured him in
With a piece of bread
And then I bashed
His f*cking head
(2X)
...
Respect the copyright :) SqlPac 04:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, that's it. I've restored 3 times, everyone but "TMC" agrees it's public domain. I'm protecting the page. Fed up with bloody edit wars over trivialities. -- Tarquin 22:43 Nov 8, 2002 (UTC) (paraphrased)

Tarquin, I know your heart is in the right place, but this simply isn't how we do things around here.

First, review Wikipedia:Copyrights, which points out that content can only be added under the GFDL if the submitter owns the copyright, or the submitter has acquired the material from a source (such as public domain) which allows licensing under the GFDL. I point out, again, that the lyrics in question have not shown to be in the public domain.

Second, review the archives of wikipedia-l if you want to see prior discussions regarding posting song lyrics.


"TMC", or whoever you are ("this simply isn't how we do things around here" -- makes you sound like an old hand -- how long has your name been registered?) -- I don't appreciate reverting THREE times. I don't appreciate the use of the "minor edit" flag on what is clearly a MAJOR change. If you're convinced they're not PD find proof and get back to us. -- Tarquin (paraphrased)
Holy Shit Tarquin, read what you just wrote. You are attempting to assert that we assume all content is in the public domain unless there is proof that it is not. This is not the standard that we use on wikipedia. The very fact that these lyrics were authored in the later half of the twentieth century is PROOF that they are indeed copyrighted. Even reading the definitions of copyright here on wikipedia would point that out to you. --"TMC"

Just becuase there is an "author" does nto mean its copyrighted. I could author something it does nto mean ist copyrighted. - fonzy

Fonzy, I don't know how to put this other than to say you are wrong. The *moment* you author something, it is automatically copywriten. To quote the US Copyright Office "Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work."
Seconded. I have seen no evidence despite intensive searching to suggest remotely that a copyright exists on this. user:sjc

hwo can it be copywrigted i'm shore when its said on films and things they dont pay rolayties. - fonzy


Look guys, you don't realize that this is absolutely serious. No matter how popular the song is, no matter how common it is, no matter how much they are "oral tradition", if it was written under the terms of the berne convention, it is copyrighted. Heck, there is even a copyright on the song "Happy Birthday", and we could not legally use those lyrics on wikipedia either.

YOUR SAYING EVEYRTIME I HAVE SUNG HAPPY B-DAY, I HAVE WAS MEANT TO [PAY ROYALTIES!? I MEAN TOO WHO? I MEAN EVEN IF IT WAS COPYRIGHTED NO ONE IS GOING TO SUE YOU. - fonzy

Fonzy, yes, look at the wikipedia entry on Happy Birthday if you don't believe it is copywritten.

i am nto saying its is nto copyrighted, i am saying no one in there right mind would sue you. - fonzy

Actually, the copyright to "Happy Birthday" is rigorously enforced. Watch birthday scenes in movies and plays and notice whether the song is sung or not. Many times it won't be because they don't want to pay. If it's there, they pay Warner Brothers. The reason Tweety Bird never sings anything but "Singing in the Bathtub" is that WB owns the copyright on that song and pay themselves.
On the other hand, the copyright (if any, since no one has shown that one even exists) on the Hitler lyrics to the "Colonel Bogey March", has never been enforced despite its appearance in many songbooks, novels, compilations, and public performances of various kinds. The reason the lyrics were not used in The Bridge on the River Kwai was their vulgarity, not their copyright status.
This complainant doesn't like the lyrics (or he likes making a fuss). He doesn't care about copyright. The first time he tried to kill this article, he simply deleted it and made it a redirect. The whole copyright thing was an afterthought.Ortolan88
Yes, and all the Michael Jackson jokes (for example) date from the last 30 years, but they're not copyright. Some things fall into the public domain straight away. See what Tokerboy wrote above. Are you an expert in copyright law? Sheesh. You'd think it would be just religion, evolution and politics that would get the edit wars, but no. Why do people pick the most unlikely pages to declare edit war on? Why have you suddenly gone fullt tilt behind this random cause? - t

Actually, "Happy Birthday" is copyrighted, but this song is not. It is not serious. The original isn't copyrighted and certainly none of the variations is copyrighted. I find it ironic that he is using my successful research against me like this. I can only think that he is trying to get rid of the article for some unstated reason. The business about copyright is just camouflage (and incorrect besides). He tried to do it with a redirect and when that didn't work he started deleting it, always with the Minor annotation, not knowing that "the way we do things around here" does not hide minor changes from the watchlist.

Granted, I had a lot of fun with this article, but the stuff he cut out was legitimate folklore research, including use of the song in a well-known novel, and by no stretch of the imagination was it anything but public domain material. Maybe he's an O'Brien descendant and plans to go out after what would be tremendous royalties. Everything has an author. The folk process starts with an author. In this case, it was a known author, a press agent, who knew exactly what he was doing. A copyright would have interfered with what he was doing. The stuff he cut also demonstrated how folk material evolves.Ortolan88

Why have I gone full tilt? Because it came to my attention and realization that copywritten song lyrics are being included in wikipedia. Am I an expert on copywrite law? More so then the average person, but I'll admit I'm not an attorney. You are showing by your actions that you do consider yourself to be an expert on copyright law, and that you are willing to make wikipedia legally liable by your refusal to have these lyrics removed.
I don't see any point in discussing the copyright status of "michael jackson jokes" here, as they fall into a different category of copyright law than song lyrics. -c

Hmm. I have been through the desultory list of contributions by le coq impermeable and it does look very much like a Trojan Horse to me, very little substance but enough to make it appear as though he has been around for a while with a kind of not unmissable name. I think there is definitely an agenda in le coq's mind; either that or he's just trolling. user:sjc

Thanks for reviewing my "desultory list" of work, and for the personal attack on my contributions here. I'm not going to bother to reply any further to this topic. --c
I'm not claiming to be an expert on copyright law. I'm saying not a single one of the sources I cited claimed any copyright, including the original. No one sued Thomas Pynchon for quoting it, no one sued any of those web pages I got material from, and no one is going to sue us because no one claims it. Ortolan88PS-The 'melody of "Happy Birthday" is copyrighted under the title "Good Morning to All", but the "birthday" lyrics are public domain. Happy birthday to you, Ortolan88

Exactly. If they were gonna take anyone on, they would go for an outfit with money e.g. News International (who have cited it in full on at least five occasions). If their solitors didn't see any problem with it I doubt we should. user:sjc

The standard for what can be added to wikipedia is not whatever won't get us sued, it is whatever can be licensed under the GFDL. --c

You appear to be in a minority of one in this opinion. Nobody else seems to think this might remotely be an issue. You've made your views felt. Now find some proof to substantiate your fears or shut up. Nothing you have said so far make sense other than that you are probably trolling. user:sjc

sjc, I don't mind being a "minority of one", especially when the majority (consisting solely of you, Tarq, Ortolan88, and maybe Fonzy) hasn't attempted to address this from a point of view of copyright law at all. The fact is that these lyrics are almost assuredly owned by someone, and therefore are not appropriat under the GFDL unless we find the copyright owner and get their permission.
Okay, "TMC". suppose it WAS copyright. Which version? All the others are derivates, and you can allow them as parody or pastiche or what have you. The very fact that no claim has been brought on use of this song indicates that its owners (IF they exist) consider it PD. Please stop getting your knickers in a twist over this. Try and understand the points above. You're really giving off a strong whiff of 14-year-old from where's I'm sitting -- that, or as I earlier suspectewd, an old contributor stirring up trouble under a new nick. (are you 24 by some chance?) -- Tarquin (paraphrased)
Tarq, (insult aside) that is a simple question with a fairly simple answer. The original author of an act owns whatever part of their work lead to the derivitive act, and the new author owns whatever part was novel.
As far as acting childish goes, that was exactly the impression I got from you with your "that's it, I'm locking the page" decision. Doesn't that ring pretty close to "I'm taking my ball and going home".
This page [1] is a pretty low-level look at the issues here, but it might be worth reading.
Please thing carefully about what the GFDL means, and understand that we can only use material that we have the rights to. If there are specific points buried in the nest of text above that you think I haven't addressed, feel free to drag them down here.

There's a discussion of copyright and fair use going on on wikipedia-l right now and the owner of Bomis is consulting with Richard Stallman and Lawrence Lessig on using poetry under the GFDL. I suggest you join that discussion, and, if you like, submit this page to those eminent authorities (who I am sure you, as a copyright expert, have read as I the non-expert have) and maybe you can get an answer. Personally, it smells like a troll to me, but take it to the top and see how far you get. I don't want to get the Wikipedia in trouble, and I don't believe anything I've done here would do so. In fact, forget about doing it. I will. Ortolan88

That is a perfect first step. The discussion on wikipedia-l is primarily about fair use, which might apply if the attempt was to quote only passages of the lyrics instead of the whole song. You should read carefully what Stallman said about poetry - "Poetry is a different matter. I believe there was a ruling that quotations from poetry are never allowed as fair use. I think you simply cannot include any poetry."
So yes, take it to wikipedia-l for further discussion. But until you get an opinion from someone you respect, the prudent thing to do is to remove the lyrics from this page. I've given ample examples above explaining why these lyrics are almost certainly, de jure, owned by someone, even if we do not know who that someone is. --"TMC"
No need to remove them, any more than we should remove the poetry from William Butler Yeats, which I also suggested these experts have a look at. Ortolan88 00:22 Nov 9, 2002 (UTC)
You don't get it do you? I'll just point out that the poem in question was written before 1922, which is an important distinction when it comes to American copyright law. See [2] and search on 1922 for more information. --"TMC"
As I understand it, Yeats has a copyright for 70 years after his death, which was 1939. Ortolan88

One more point here that I'm surprised that nobody has brought up. Take a look at the wikipedia entry for lyrics.

I think we need to have a nice long talk about when pages should and should not be protected. I basically think they should almost never be protected. I want to edit this article.  :-)

I would rather completely divest all the "sysops" of their powers than live with powers inconsistently applied. Who decided to give sysops the power to freeze articles other than the main page, anyway? I don't remember a debate. (Maybe I wasn't paying attention.)

I think it's pretty obvious that we should have articles about important songs. Maybe this one is important to warrant the article. I also agree that we don't want to violate copyrights, but I don't have an informed opinion on the issue in this case. --Larry Sanger

Well, I've unprotected the page now - I agree they should hardly ever be protected, though I've not been paying attention to what has been going on here, so I don't know if the protection was justified. --Camembert
By the way, I wrote Variant #3, and I do not claim a copyright on it. Ortolan88
Then it sure as heck doesn't belong in Wikipedia, does it?  ;-) --Larry Sanger
We sang it at camp.Ortolan88
You say you wrote it; I thought that meant that you invented, created it. In that case, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. If you're saying you heard it at camp and are writing it down now, that's different--I just misunderstood. --Larry Sanger
No, you understood correctly. We were trying to sing it at camp 50 years ago and couldn't come up with the last line, so, clever 12-year-old that I was, I came up with the Mussolini bit. We all sang it then and I am sure some alumni of Camp Dixie for Boys still sing it that way. I am not exempted from the folk process just because I also contribute to Wikipedia. And anyway, there are thousands of original words by me in the 'pedia and none of them are copyright either.Ortolan88
No, of course you're not exempted, but prove that in fact your version is indeed part of the folk process and not just a lark 50 years ago (sir!). --Larry Sanger

I'm restating my points (again) before I remove the lyrics from the subject page (again).

It is a fact of modern law that practically all works that are created and put into a fixed form automatically have a copyright. There is no requirement for an author to "claim" copyright, it happens automatically. The "thousands of original words" that Ortolan88 has contributed to wikipedia are, like it or not, automatically copyrighted the moment he wrote them. But the magic of the GFDL means that he has granted rights to use his words to the entire wikipedia project.

This is all very directly covered under Wikipedia:Copyrights, but I'm going to rephrase the key point here. All information in wikipedia needs to fall under one of the following categories:

1: It was submitted by the original creator. 2: It is from material licensed under the GFDL. 3: It is from material in the public domain. 4: It is quoted under the terms of "fair use". 5: The copyright holder has granted special permission.

So, with regards to these lyrics, what do we know? We know that they were created circa 1939. This means that, by definition, the have a copyright held by someone, but we do not know who that person is.

They were not created by the submitter, and (as Larry pointed out) if they were they wouldn't belong here. They were not licensed under GFDL. They are not from the public domain (since they were written circa 1939). The copyright holder has not granted us special permission.

The only leg left to stand on would be that we are quoting them under "fair use". But quoting them in their entirity is not "fair use", and (as was pointed out on wikipedia-L) even small quotes from short works (such as poetry) can be difficult to justify under fair use.

--"TMC"

I think the view of many people here is that the lyrics fall under No. 5 of your above list: "The copyright holder has granted special permission" - it has not been granted explicitly, but the fact that the copyright holder (whoever they may be) has not brought an action in the 60-odd years since they created the work, despite plenty of opportunities to do so, is an implicit indication that they do not mind this kind of use. Please note: I'm not endorsing this view (neither am I disagreeing with it), but I thought I'd state it here, because it does seem to be the point of many, and, with all respect, it's a point you don't seem to be getting. --Camembert
If the author has granted "special permission" then it should be trivial to show the name of the author and the date he granted the permission.
I'm going to restate this point in another way. Pretend that the original author suddenly presented himself, had a court order showing proof of a valid copyright, and demanded that we remove this material. Would we remove it? If the answer is "yes", then the material cannot stay. --"TMC"
Yup, that's what I've been trying to say. There is also the angle that surely some things go into the public domain -- jokes, for example. someone must make them up somewhere, but who? By the time you've told a joke to a dozen people, it's spread far and wide. What if you make up a rude song on the way back from a rugby match? Some things are PD because of the way in which they are created and initially distributed -- if you are so concerned, "TMC", maybe we should get a British lawyer in on this. -- Tarquin (paraphrased)
I'm no lawyer. But from reading stuff about other sites that quote song lyrics there is apparently in US law a 'fair use' copyright exemption clause which allows for the publication of lyrics when used in comment, crtisism or parody. [[3]] I think the Hitler thing comes under this. I would also claim that my peice about Alanis's Morrisette's song Ironic is also covered by this exemption.
'fair use' means quoting a small part of something, not quoting all of it. The article in question appeared to attempt to present the complete lyrics. Deciding "how much" of a work can be quoted is a grey area, but quoting all of it doesn't count. --"TMC"
Tarq, we shouldn't branch into jokes, because they aren't exactly the same as songs. But the simple answer to your question that yes, even jokes can copyrighted. If you made up a rude joke on the way back from a rugby match, and you wrote it down, you own the copyright on that joke. You can't stop other people from "telling" it. But you can stop them from writing it down, making recordings of it, or telling it in front of a live audience.
I have explained, over and over, how everything that is created in fixed form is automatically copyrighted. I've provided pointers to explanations of copyright law here on wikipedia, to external links, and to the explicit British statutes that apply. If you really believe that there is some exception that these song lyrics should fall under, why don't you simply provide a reference to that exception? --"TMC"
You're wrong, not everything in fixed form is automatically copyrighted. International copyright law recognizes that a certain complexity is required for a piece of information to constitute a copyrightable work. Otherwise we'd have constant copyright lawsuits over trivial phrases. The amount of complexity required varies, of course, depending on national precedents. The lyrics of the Hitler song do not, in my opinion, meet any reasonable complexity standard. Opinions may differ here, and in general it is possibly best for Wikipedia to err on the side of caution. But with a 1939(?haven't read the entire debate) folk song about Hitler's testicle(s), there seems to be no particular need to be cautious. "TMC", I wrote a small article for people like you, it's called m:Avoid Copyright Paranoia. Please reconsider your stance. --Eloquence 00:29 Nov 10, 2002 (UTC) (paraphrased)

I don't understand. We are an educational source. We are non-profit. We are negative-profit. Aren't we exempt? Lir 00:22 Nov 10, 2002 (UTC)

“If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble, “the law is a ass, a idiot.” Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist. Nonetheless, I surrender to the utter fatuity of intellectual property law that preserves property even where there is no property and there is no owner. (I still don't believe this doctrine has been correctly interpreted but I am sick and tired of this discussion.)

I have rewritten the article including brief snatches of the lyrics, enough to make the point I was trying to make, that they were very popular and had evolved. I have also added a list of other people, commercial users, who have not bothered their heads about this alleged copyright.

I put in some links to web pages with the lyrics. Please go annoy them. Finally, I went back to "Colonel Bogey March" and removed the lyrics from there, where the forces of copyright morality had been too lazy to go. What a saga. Whew! Ortolan88

The chief complainant's user name, which is so vulgar even he won't use it, either here or in signing contributions on his own user pages, does appear in Recent Changes. One casualty of this little tiff here has been the driving off Isis from being sick of seeing it. See Wikipedia:Village pump for the resignation and Recent contributions by Isis to measure the loss. Ortolan88

I believe the use of lyrics as they previously existed on the subject page constituted "fair use" (US Copyright "Fair Use", US Copyright office circular) There is no specific identification of what portion of a song lyric may be used, however the circular states that in the case of poetry a poem of less than 250 words may be copied in its entirety for classroom activity under the terms of fair use.

Here's my full analysis of the situation:

  • No-one has made a substantiated claim of authorship.
  • Given the time period since its invention it is unlikely anyone is going to be able to ever make a substantiated claim.
  • If in any case the author was in the British Army or working for the government in another capacity the work may fall under Crown Copyright which expires after 50 years.
  • If it was invented by an American then its copyright has epired due to non-renewal. The same goes if the lyrics were legally used on American territory within 30 days of invention
  • If it was invented by a non-American then as no Notice of Intent to Enforce a Restored Copyright has been filed any person or business who had previously used it as "public domain" may continue to do so until one year after the NIE is filed.
  • It was almost certainly designed either as a marching song or as a piece of humourous propoganda designed to be distributed by word of mouth. In either case an implied licence is assumed to allow the distribution of the lyrics. As distribution by word of mouth often results in the lyrics changing (with this fact being known at the time of authorship) the implied licence could also be taken to mean that changes were permitted. As at no time the author either made himself known or anonymously objected to this implied licence even though it is likely that he knew of the existence of variants it could be taken to mean that the author clearly agreed with the implied licence.
  • For a licence to be compatible with the GNU FDL it has to allow modification and redistribution for any purpose without limitation, given that implied licence discussed above meets these conditions it is GNU FDL compatible.

In summary:

  • No-one at the moment has the capability of enforcing the copyright, this is likely to be true for the foreseeable future.
  • If it was produced by a government employee it lacks copyright now in both the UK (50 years expiry) and in the US (Governmental works wern't restored by the URAA).
  • The implied licence in this case is very strong for the reasons given above, and the licence is GNU FDL compatible.

In short there is overwhelming evidence that the work is GNU FDL compatible.

--Imran 15:16 Nov 10, 2002 (UTC)


That's good enough for me! I'm restoring the lyrics. (now, why we had to go to this length when NEARLY EVERYONE was satisfied with this already is another matter entirely) -- Tarquin 17:22 Nov 10, 2002 (UTC)

"TMC" is right in almost every respect. I must say I am amazed at how much others are flaunting their utter lack of knowledge of copyright law. If you don't know what you're talking about, then why talk about it! (paraphrased)

The only point on which I disagree with "TMC" is the one about fair use. He says <q>'fair use' means quoting a small part of something, not quoting all of it</q>. In my understanding of US law ('fair use' is a concept unique to that law), what is and what is not fair use can only be established by a court of law, after the fact. However, judges will try and determine if it is a case of fair use based on four criteria, of which the amount quoted is only one, and none of these criteria are absolute:

  • the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
  • the nature of the copyrighted work;
  • the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

In other words, the amount copied will be weighed in with the other factors: in the scientific (literary criticism) dissemination of a poem, it can be necessary to quote the entire poem.

And yes, jokes are copyrighted. As Tarquin mentioned, something must be unique to be copyrightable, but I don't think a joke would be funny if it was exactly like the next joke.

Also, all the derivative versions of the lyrics can be seen as parody, for which copyright law makes an exception.

As for the other stuff that has been said on this page:

  • every creative work has an author and is therefor copyrighted, unless the author has specifically given up copyright (not allowed in some countries!) or the copyright has expired.
  • you cannot renew copyright, nor does copyright have to be asserted in the US to be valid -- what the author was thinking of is related to the amount of damages thatcan be claimed.
  • there is no such thing as an implied license.

branko

On implied licences I suggest you look at the UK goverment IP site,
And on copyright renewal look at Circular 15 at the US copyright office,
Please correct your above statements. As you said yourself if you don't know what you're talking about, then why talk about it!

--Imran 18:56 Nov 11, 2002 (UTC)

I will try and answer this later, for now I paste a link to the text of the UK here for my own reference: http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_1.htm branko

I don't understand. We are an educational source. We are non-profit. We are negative-profit. Aren't we exempt? Lir 18:15 Nov 11, 2002 (UTC)

Exempt from what? Copyright law does make a distinction when deciding wether something is fair use or not, but does not make non-profits impervious to copyright infringement. A non-profit can infringe on copyrights.

Wether somebody made money with copyright infringement may be reflected in the amount of damages awarded (at least in the Netherlands), but unfortunately there is a trend of making more and more forms of copyright infringement a felony. branko

but we are an educational source! Lir 18:35 Nov 11, 2002 (UTC)

How does that change the law? branko

I have gone along with removing the lyrics, putting them back, and removing them. I have tried to participate in this discussion without claiming any particular authority. I spoke up for "Happy Birthday", and I'm just about to warn the authors of Highway 61 Revisited that they are stepping over the line on lyrics, but I really do not understand the idea you are putting forward. As I read it, you are saying that there is no such thing as public domain anymore. Of course, as in today's Wall Street Journal, people are being thrown into jail for "intellectual property crimes" that would never have be crimes in any other context, so maybe it is so. If so, I don't believe that the recent developments in intellectual property law have been at all salubrious. Ortolan88 18:42 Nov 11, 2002 (UTC)

Of course there is such a thing as Public Domain. All works whose copyrights have expired or that have been placed into it, are part of the public domain.

What's more, technically (following the intentions of those that originally drafted US copyright law) all works are in the PD, but some have been temporarily removed from there, allowing publish^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hauthors to make money off them. branko

Public domain is a restricted, and if I may say so, valueless category then. How about folk songs? "I woke up this morning with the blues all around my bed." A thousand guys have recorded it. Most of them claim to have written it. There's a really funny, and profound, article somewhere in my books about the "Black Jack David" folk song, with dozens of people saying, "Oh, it's just something I came up with while we were messing around in the studio." How many times has "Barbara Allen" been "written" and "copyrighted"? My son recorded it on an album as "Traditional, arranged by [band name]". Who could stop them? I just don't see how there can be a copyright on something when no one has claimed it and no one any standing to sue. This position on "one ball" literally does not make any sense to me. I am really trying to understand, believe me. Ortolan88


Perhaps some more research is necessary on this topic. Anyone want to shell out some money for a book? I did a little digging, and I found out that there have been many discussions of the various child's folklore versions of songs (like the "Comet" version of Colonel Bogey's March that I mentioned elsewhere). Example: http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=upugkaoit.fsf%40hpl.hp.com&rnum=2

Just perusing that thread, I saw a reference to something called "GGGG". Turns out that this is a book called "Greasy Grimey Gopher Guts", a book that chronicles various examples of North American children's folklore/songs/chants, the kinds that are sung in camp or on the schoolbus. The "Comet" version of Bogey's March is mentioned. And in the thread, someone quotes from GGGG, saying that Colonel Bogey's March "has been the tune for many a World War II children's parody both in England and America".

Hmmm, how tantalizing.

(The book is available on Amazon, by the way, but I honestly don't know if has anything else useful to say about the various lyrics that have arisen for this song.) soulpatch

Why is this page up for speedy deletion? We should keep the page and lose the lyrics, which are copyright regardless whether the copyright holder suesDr Zen 03:13, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That would be, gosh, just fascinating. Ortolan88 23:48, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
See what I mean? :-D Fishal 16:57, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] (C)

I was reading a forum where an author was saying that he approved of the principle of fan fictions but if he did not protect his copyright then he would lose his claim to it. As nobody is defending their copyright then they have probably lost it, though the best arguments are above. btw 70 years + 1945 = 2015 so this discussion will be completely redundant soon anyway.

Not true, at least not in the UK or America. As I understand it trademarks can be lost if they're not protected by the owner, but copyright can't. Mark Grant 20:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Confirm not true, for Australia or US at the very least. Psychobabble


Yes, of course it might still be in copyright (and yes, I do know about copyright law). But various journalists and historians have attempted to establish beyond doubt the authorship of the best-known version of the song, and none has succeeded. It is inconceivable that anyone could successfully claim copyright ownership at this late date, and there's abundant evidence that nobody would try. In Britain it has been published in various forms, including print and TV, all my life. As you are clearly in no danger whatsoever of a suit for infringement, let's stand aside from academic wrangling and look at the moral question. These lyrics were sung up and down the land while Britain was being blitzed. They therefore provide valuable insight. They are also glorious in their own right, and these pages display them for all to enjoy. You are not deriding them or their author. There is no case to answer. They should be here for all to see. Jy55 19:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] most famous tv usage

I might be remembering this incorrectly but wasn't this song used in a very famous episode of Dad's Army? In the episode where they capture a German U-Boat crew and are holding them prisoner. The young man Pike sings the song. The German Officer says - "your name is going on my list, what is your name?" Captain Mainwaring says "Don't tell him Pike!"

Avowkind 07:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


No, pike sings:

whistle while you work, Hitler is a twerp, He's half barmy, So's his army, Whistle while you work.

I doubt they would have allowed mention of balls on TV back then.

[edit] One BIG Ball

I recall singing "Hitler -- he had just one big ball" in the schoolyard in the 1950s, probably to contrast with Göring's two small ones. Josh-Levin@ieee.org 20:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sea monsters

I have tagged this. Jonah was easten by a whale and managed to survive for example.

N.B. When this verse follows variants 2 there is a continuity error because the members concerned cannot be in the Albert Hall/ Town Hall and also have been consumed by sea creatures. 58.157.241.42 10:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The autopsy: how do you spell Sherovski?

I've added a bit about the interview in The world at war with Sherovski. Does anyone know the correct spelling of his name? Man with two legs 21:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The song in other media

Some of the examples listed are only references to whether or not Hitler had one ball, not to the song itself... Jack the Stripper (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)