Happy Birthday Copyright Tossed

[MikeEdgerton]

And Warner loses 2 million a year they should have never had in the first place. Hopefully the folks that own restaurants will read this and get rid of those awful replacement birthday songs.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/22/medi...you/index.html

[journeybear]

Yay!

[Tobin]

It sounds like it's not a totally done deal yet, though. Apparently the argument revolved around whether the melody was protected under the same IP rights as the words, and the judge ruled no. But does that mean the words are still protected? The melody ain't much good without the words. Am I understanding the case correctly?

And for a potential $2 million per annum loss, I'm betting they will appeal this as high as they can.

[MikeEdgerton]

U.S. District Judge George H. King ruled in their favor: "Because Summy Co. never acquired the rights to the Happy Birthday lyrics, Defendants, as Summy Co.'s purported successors-in-interest, do not own a valid copyright in the Happy Birthday lyrics," he wrote.

That's not real ambiguous.

The music for "Happy Birthday" was written by a pair of sisters, Mildred and Patty Hill, sometime before 1893 when they assigned their rights to the music to Clayton F. Summy.

Emphasis is mine. They may have trouble holding the music as well.

[MikeEdgerton]

And the final straw:

Good Morning To You Productions, the plaintiffs in the case, are making a documentary about "Happy Birthday" and were asked to pay a $1,500 fine. Instead, they filed a lawsuit, arguing that the only copyright Warner/Chappell could possibly claim is on a limited piano arrangement, rather than the song itself.

It's like those fine folks that claim a copyright to Soldiers Joy and other traditional songs when all they own is the arrangement.

[houseworker]

Apparently the argument revolved around whether the melody was protected under the same IP rights as the words, and the judge ruled no.

No. Copyright long since expired on the melody, and now the judge has ruled that there's never been a valid copyright on the words.

Warner's claim of copyright on this has always appeared utterly ridiculous. It's difficult to see quite how they could mount a successful appeal.

[Polecat]

In these days of creative commons, musicians making their music available on a "pay what you can afford" basis on Bandcamp and the like and earning far more than they ever would in royalties, this story reminds me of the last days of Rome, or the band playing "Nearer my God to thee" as the Titanic sinks.

The world is changing.

[Willie Poole]

Some years ago I was watching The Johnny Carson show and a lady came on and said she had applied for and received a copyright for the words to "Happy Birthday" and was going to sue them for singing it to some guest, up until then it was classified as public domain and she checked it out, she never did sue really but just wanted to make a point, which I don`t know what that was, I guess she wanted to show them that a "Public domain" song could be again copyrighted, search me...

Just think of the many time I have played it by requests at the places that I have played at

Willie

[journeybear]

The copyright claim as laid out in the article looks pretty specious. And what's really funny about this is the suit was brought and won by a small documentary film crew, while for so long the major film studios (and everyone else) meekly paid the exorbitant usage fees rather than face legal action from the Warner/Chappell Music Goliath. Bravo, David!

Never mind all that. I'm celebrating!

[MikeEdgerton]

The question now is how fast people will go after Warner what they already paid.

[k0k0peli]

Doesn't bother me. I've been doing the Hare Krishna version for years:

Happy birthday, happy birthday
Birthday birthday, happy happy!
(repeat as needed)

[mrmando]

One of the nails in the coffin here came when Warner was compelled to release some of its own research on the song's history, which showed that it had been published in a songbook years before the edition on which Warner claimed to have bought the copyright. In other words, the company had evidence showing that its own claim was specious, but sat on said evidence until compelled by the court to hand it over.

[journeybear]

But ... Warner wasn't claiming authorship, but ownership. So it didn't have to own the original composition, just the rights to it. Not that I'm on their side, just trying to be fair.

BTW & FWIW, the name of the plaintiffs, Good Morning To You Productions, refers to the original version of the song, "Good Morning To All," the first line of which is "Good morning to you."

[DHopkins]

Finally, I can sleep at night. This has been the reason my hair is turning grey and turning loose.

Maybe not.

[Petrus]

In these days of creative commons, musicians making their music available on a "pay what you can afford" basis on Bandcamp and the like and earning far more than they ever would in royalties, this story reminds me of the last days of Rome, or the band playing "Nearer my God to thee" as the Titanic sinks.

As I get older, "Happy Birthday" is gradually being replaced by "Nearer My God to Thee" as my go-to birthday song.

[journeybear]

Really. I can't tell you how many times this has happened, when it turns out someone in the audience has a birthday and wants to share celebrating the event with all in attendance. Oh, all the times someone has come up and thrown a five, a ten, a twenty into the tip bucket and asked for this. I just can't say.

[Mandoplumb]

I know that Warner has claimed ownership and requested payment to use it, bit I wonder how many times they have sued someone for not paying. Restaurants wouldn't sing it but churches would.

[zedmando]

Hopefully the folks that own restaurants will read this and get rid of those awful replacement birthday songs.

That was my first thought on hearing the news.

[k0k0peli]

Did Warners ever claim to own my favorite childhood version?

Happy birthday to you
You belong in a zoo
You look like a monkey
And you smell like one too

Note: No racial overtones were implied at the time.

[Bertram Henze]

Doesn't bother me. I've been doing the Hare Krishna version for years:

Happy birthday, happy birthday
Birthday birthday, happy happy!
(repeat as needed)

Good one. Or you could always have done something like this:

[Petrus]

Really. I can't tell you how many times this has happened, when it turns out someone in the audience has a birthday and wants to share celebrating the event with all in attendance. Oh, all the times someone has come up and thrown a five, a ten, a twenty into the tip bucket and asked for this. I just can't say.

The old copyright situation works great when busking. "Sure, I'd love to play Happy Birthday for you, but you realize every time I play it I've got to pay $5 to the copyright owner, right? If you're willing to chip in, I'll play it."

[journeybear]

Hmmm? I was talking about "Nearer My God To Thee." What are YOU talking about?

OK, if we've got that bit of folderol behind us, I've never had any problem doing "Happy Birthday" on request for people at a gig. Whether solo or in a band, instrumental or vocal, no one seemed to mind, and no rep came up to try an collect royalties. Many times the person requesting tipped in advance, and twice that was $100. It's fun, it makes the birthday boy/girl's day, everyone else there smiles and a lot of them sing along - how can this be wrong? Add into it the odd musical setting of a jug band or skiffle band, and it really is just plain silly fun.

[Bertram Henze]

[MikeEdgerton]

Restaurants wouldn't sing it but churches would.

As long as they sing happy birthday as part of the religious service churches would be fine. The church exemption can be complicated.

https://www.christiancopyrightsoluti...Copyrights.pdf

Restaurants on the other hand are already a big target.