“Happy Birthday” is public domain, former owner Warner/Chapell to pay $14M

Winning lawyer says more bogus copyrights may come under legal attack.

Read the whole story

 

[nootau]

Is Disney next? Oh Please let it be Disney...

 

[shelbystripes]

Good: Solid win for the public domain. Not having to hear godwaful alternative birthday songs in restaurants anymore.

Bad: You will long for the day that people used different birthday songs. You hated the overplay of My Heart Will Go On or the Macarena? Imagine that, but FOREVER.

 

[Golgo1]

"It’s a pretty good deal," he added. "It's not one of these settlements where the attorneys get millions of dollars and the class gets a coupon for a free soda. These people are getting real money back. The most important part of the whole case was having the song in the public domain.

*sniff*
Randall Newman, you da real MVP

 

[Uxorious]

Meanwhile, employees at TGI Fridays, Applebees, Olive Garden, et-al expressed a cumulative sigh of relief that they no longer have to spend their own time memorizing silly copyright side-stepping birthday greetings.

 

[Golgo1]

Uxorious[/url]":1q0bfo6i]Meanwhile, employees at TGI Fridays, Applebees, Olive Garden, et-al expressed a cumulative sigh of relief that they no longer have to spend their own time memorizing silly copyright side-stepping birthday greetings.

They will just have to wear more Flair to make up for it

 

[Jurrasic]

shelbystripes[/url]":2i183xc7]Good: Solid win for the public domain. Not having to hear godwaful alternative birthday songs in restaurants anymore.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

My girls couldn't understand why 'happy birthday' was verboten in restaurants, and I didn't want to ruin their illusion of the good of human nature too early, so I always changed the topic: "Look, presents!"

 

[q5ajzvtd]

shelbystripes[/url]":1pyyog4f]Good: Solid win for the public domain. Not having to hear godwaful alternative birthday songs in restaurants anymore.

Bad: You will long for the day that people used different birthday songs. You hated the overplay of My Heart Will Go On or the Macarena? Imagine that, but FOREVER.

Whoa, wait. That was the reason? I just figured all the restaurants wanted to differentiate themselves. Does this mean no more birthday sombreros either?

 

[Electrostatus]

Uxorious[/url]":2du7i4ii]Meanwhile, employees at TGI Fridays, Applebees, Olive Garden, et-al expressed a cumulative sigh of relief that they no longer have to spend their own time memorizing silly copyright side-stepping birthday greetings.

Did they each have their own happy birthday song, or was it all the same like "Happy happy birthday, from all of us to you. Happy happy birthday, here's a pot of fondue!" ? I'm not sure how accurate that is, I haven't heard it in a long time.

In any case it's moot now!

 

[OoklaTheMok]

Our local Olive Garden has been singing the actual Happy Birthday song for a couple months now, and when I asked a server she said the change was made because of earlier rulings in the court case.

Personally, I really want to see the documentary film about this when it's released!

 

[grizzlyaddams]

How can we make sure that all these chain restaurants are aware of the court developments? Even if it's just to make sure that when a Warner exec takes their kid out for their birthday they get a nice treat.

 

[nononsense]

My curiosity is going haywire trying to figure out what other songs he is talking about and I can't think of one.

Most of the sports songs are owned by Queen, I would imagine. Is 'Take me out to the Ball Game' copyrighted?

Ok, checked and the song is public domain and so are the original lyrics, so that ain't it.

This is going to drive me nuts all day, so if any of you have any idea, please post.

What song would be commonly sung that people are claiming copyright where there might be a question?

I'm stumped.

 

[Namel3ss]

The only problem with this ruling is that it should have forced Warner to refund ALL $50M of their ill-gotten "royalties".

 

[Cap'nAwesome]

Good. One bogus copyright down, umpteen bajillion to go. This might take a while...

 

[0megapart!cle]

nononsense[/url]":1v139qv4]My curiosity is going haywire trying to figure out what other songs he is talking about and I can't think of one.

Most of the sports songs are owned by Queen, I would imagine. Is 'Take me out to the Ball Game' copyrighted?

Ok, checked and the song is public domain and so are the original lyrics, so that ain't it.

This is going to drive me nuts all day, so if any of you have any idea, please post.

What song would be commonly sung that people are claiming copyright where there might be a question?

I'm stumped.

I can't think of any either. I'm sure they exist. The reason we can't think of them is because they left popular culture, because they couldn't be shown in commercial/public situations.

 

[Hello Polly]

1. 2. 3.

Happy f*ck you Warner
Happy f*ck you Chappel
Happy f*ck you Warner/Chappel
Happy f*ck you today...

Hip Hip Hooray!

 

[arkiel]

nononsense[/url]":3o4pv73x]My curiosity is going haywire trying to figure out what other songs he is talking about and I can't think of one.

Most of the sports songs are owned by Queen, I would imagine. Is 'Take me out to the Ball Game' copyrighted?

Ok, checked and the song is public domain and so are the original lyrics, so that ain't it.

This is going to drive me nuts all day, so if any of you have any idea, please post.

What song would be commonly sung that people are claiming copyright where there might be a question?

I'm stumped.

Well, anything from the first half of the 20th century might have lapsed copyright back when you had to renew every 20 or so years. That's a lot of songs.

 

[TomXP411]

Quite frankly, I think it's a terrible song that is almost always sung poorly...

but I also believe that Copyright is too strong when it comes to older works, so yay!

 

[jeblucas]

nononsense[/url]":3iluv8gd]My curiosity is going haywire trying to figure out what other songs he is talking about and I can't think of one.

Most of the sports songs are owned by Queen, I would imagine. Is 'Take me out to the Ball Game' copyrighted?

Ok, checked and the song is public domain and so are the original lyrics, so that ain't it.

This is going to drive me nuts all day, so if any of you have any idea, please post.

What song would be commonly sung that people are claiming copyright where there might be a question?

I'm stumped.

I'm with you, totally stumped.

Some thoughts: Camptown Races? Home on the Range? I've Been Workin' On The Railroad? There might be some hymn arrangements or Xmas carols in scope. There's no way Disney is in scope here, their shit is ON LOCK.

 

[jig]

i've read some other articles on this topic, and it doesn't seem like the song is "for sure" going to be in the public domain (an LA Times article made that explicitly clear).

I like that you're quoting Nelson's atty, but I'd like more to go on before we can really say for sure that no one owns something that can be used to control its use in media.

specifically, there's a foundation or two that think they own the copyright. Warner might not ever had the right to assert a copyright against anyone, but that doesn't mean someone else doesn't own that right. based on the comments, that seems less and less likely, but i haven't seen anything definitive (not sure if the public is ever going to see the settlement agreement, though you'd think they'd have to publish it to give putative class members notice that they can request their money back.

 

[it-guy]

0megapart!cle[/url]":1xb5w44x]

nononsense[/url]":1xb5w44x]My curiosity is going haywire trying to figure out what other songs he is talking about and I can't think of one.

Most of the sports songs are owned by Queen, I would imagine. Is 'Take me out to the Ball Game' copyrighted?

Ok, checked and the song is public domain and so are the original lyrics, so that ain't it.

This is going to drive me nuts all day, so if any of you have any idea, please post.

What song would be commonly sung that people are claiming copyright where there might be a question?

I'm stumped.

I can't think of any either. I'm sure they exist. The reason we can't think of them is because they left popular culture, because they couldn't be shown in commercial/public situations.

Mary Had a Little Lamb? Other nursery rhymes?
Silent Night? Other Christmas carols.

 

[operagost]

Golgo1[/url]":vqmjb5ue]

Uxorious[/url]":vqmjb5ue]Meanwhile, employees at TGI Fridays, Applebees, Olive Garden, et-al expressed a cumulative sigh of relief that they no longer have to spend their own time memorizing silly copyright side-stepping birthday greetings.

They will just have to wear more Flair to make up for it

Be like Brian. He has 37 pieces of flair. And a great smile.

 

[Sixclaws]

nootau[/url]":3anjjw6z]Is Disney next? Oh Please let it be Disney...

Ha!

Had it been Disney the ones with the copyright, she would have been the one paying the $14 million + forced to grovel an apology, and the song would remain in Disney's copyright in a perpetual way.

Don't forget to smile or else.

 

[stratozyck]

Every copyright/patent should expire after 30 years or some fixed time. We also need to fix patent trolls too. Also, the legal practice of suing for the sake of suing simply to attempt to drive an upstart out of business needs to be stopped.

 

[Madlyb]

jig[/url]":3jlvx82s]i've read some other articles on this topic, and it doesn't seem like the song is "for sure" going to be in the public domain (an LA Times article made that explicitly clear).

I like that you're quoting Nelson's atty, but I'd like more to go on before we can really say for sure that no one owns something that can be used to control its use in media.

specifically, there's a foundation or two that think they own the copyright. Warner might not ever had the right to assert a copyright against anyone, but that doesn't mean someone else doesn't own that right. based on the comments, that seems less and less likely, but i haven't seen anything definitive (not sure if the public is ever going to see the settlement agreement, though you'd think they'd have to publish it to give putative class members notice that they can request their money back.

Thanks for calling this out.

We have seen time and time and time again how people game the system. For example, when the copyright on "It's a Wonderful Life" was accidentally allowed to lapse a company used the copyright on the soundtrack to prevent use without compensation. Another trick is a colorized version of an old movie in Public Domain is considered a new copyrightable product. Copyright law, in its current form, sucks.

Here's hoping the song has truly made it into Public Domain.

 

[mcmnky]

jeblucas[/url]":3pt340ea]

nononsense[/url]":3pt340ea]My curiosity is going haywire trying to figure out what other songs he is talking about and I can't think of one.

Most of the sports songs are owned by Queen, I would imagine. Is 'Take me out to the Ball Game' copyrighted?

Ok, checked and the song is public domain and so are the original lyrics, so that ain't it.

This is going to drive me nuts all day, so if any of you have any idea, please post.

What song would be commonly sung that people are claiming copyright where there might be a question?

I'm stumped.

I'm with you, totally stumped.

Some thoughts: Camptown Races? Home on the Range? I've Been Workin' On The Railroad? There might be some hymn arrangements or Xmas carols in scope. There's no way Disney is in scope here, their shit is ON LOCK.

The Camptown Races?

 

[stephenb]

Namel3ss[/url]":3eb5ai3y]The only problem with this ruling is that it should have forced Warner to refund ALL $50M of their ill-gotten "royalties".

plus another $100million just for being fuckers. The blurry scan of the name comes to mind.

 

[Mithras Angel]

mcmnky[/url]"lmiuj7q]

jeblucas[/url]"lmiuj7q]

nononsense[/url]"lmiuj7q]My curiosity is going haywire trying to figure out what other songs he is talking about and I can't think of one.

Most of the sports songs are owned by Queen, I would imagine. Is 'Take me out to the Ball Game' copyrighted?

Ok, checked and the song is public domain and so are the original lyrics, so that ain't it.

This is going to drive me nuts all day, so if any of you have any idea, please post.

What song would be commonly sung that people are claiming copyright where there might be a question?

I'm stumped.

I'm with you, totally stumped.

Some thoughts: Camptown Races? Home on the Range? I've Been Workin' On The Railroad? There might be some hymn arrangements or Xmas carols in scope. There's no way Disney is in scope here, their shit is ON LOCK.

The Camptown Races?

I get no kick from champagne...
Mere alcohol doesn't thrill me at all...
So tell me why should it be true...
That I get a belt out of you?

 

[glenalec]

I long ago started singing this at my Nieces' and Nephew's birthday parties. They love it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdIRrmNN_CQ

Now that's worth a royalty payment! (not that I have to at a private birthday party on private premises, of course. Not yet, anyway!)

 

[WaveRunner]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Land_Is_Your_Land

this might be a good one to make public domain.

 

[0010110SYN]

I think those who paid $5000 in the '90s might be owed more than just $5000.

If the studios were backbilling, they would probably count interest and inflation. The little guy should, too. Doesn't the mis-charged payer deserve compensation that is equitable to what he paid?

http://www.fedprimerate.com/fedfundsrat ... istory.htm
http://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculato ... ulator.php

"$5,000.00 in 1990
has the same buying power as
$8,911.44 in 2013."

... in strait dollars adjusted only for cold inflation, but without adjustments for allowing the big corporation to use the money for the time that they held it.

But, to compute the value of the compensation owed to mis-charged payers of this royalty, I think we would need to accept changes in rates of inflation since 1990. Also, it would help to factor in the adjustments in Federal Interest Rates that would affect common savings expectations since 1990. That is, if the Fed would give you 8.25% between January 1, 1990 to July 12, 1990, then monthly (or at least quarterly) interest for that time should be included.

So, as each month went by the interest would compound. As each year went by, an adjustment for inflation would need to be made. The actual value of that $5000 in today's dollars would be much greater than just $5000 cash with a jump in years of inflation. Since the money did some kind of work, the interest should be included in the accruals.

Probably some taxes need to be paid, also. Who knows what kind of amendment nightmare this might create for a company that knows it held money for decades that was not rightfully its own. I guess that's just part of the pleasure of overbilling for decades, without timely correction.

I haven't done the calculations on that money that's probably owed, but I would expect the data set to look similar to this:

Year CPI
1990 130.7
1991 136.2
1992 140.3
1993 144.5
1994 148.2
1995 152.4
1996 156.9
1997 160.5
1998 163.0
1999 166.6
2000 172.2
2001 177.1
2002 179.9
2003 184.0
2004 188.9
2005 195.3
2006 201.6
2007 207.342
2008 215.303
2009 214.537
2010 218.056
2011 224.939
2012 229.594
2013 232.945


Change Date Rate (%)
January 1, 1990 8.25
July 13, 1990 8.00
October 29, 1990 7.75
November 14, 1990 7.50
December 7, 1990 7.25
December 19, 1990 7.00
January 8, 1991 6.75
February 1, 1991 6.25
March 8, 1991 6.00
April 30, 1991 5.75
August 6, 1991 5.50
September 13, 1991 5.25
October 10, 1991 5.00
November 6, 1991 4.75
December 11, 1991 4.50
December 20, 1991 4.00
April 9, 1992 3.75
July 2, 1992 3.25
September 4, 1992 3.00
February 4, 1994 3.25
March 22, 1994 3.50
April 18,1994 3.75
May 17, 1994 4.25
August 16, 1994 4.75
November 15, 1994 5.50
February 1, 1995 6.00
July 6, 1995 5.75
December 19, 1995 5.50
January 31, 1996 5.25
March 25, 1997 5.50
September 29, 1998 5.25
October 15, 1998 5.00
November 17, 1998 4.75
June 30, 1999 5.00
August 24, 1999 5.25
November 16, 1999 5.50
February 2, 2000 5.75
March 21, 2000 6.00
May 16, 2000 6.50
January 3, 2001 6.00
January 31, 2001 5.50
March 20, 2001 5.00
April 18, 2001 4.50
May 15, 2001 4.00
June 27, 2001 3.75
August 21, 2001 3.50
September 17, 2001 3.00
October 2, 2001 2.50
November 6, 2001 2.00
December 11, 2001 1.75
November 6, 2002 1.25
June 25, 2003 1.00
June 30, 2004 1.25
August 10, 2004 1.50
September 21, 2004 1.75
November 10, 2004 2.00
December 14, 2004 2.25
February 2, 2005 2.50
March 22, 2005 2.75
May 3, 2005 3.00
June 30, 2005 3.25
August 9, 2005 3.50
September 20, 2005 3.75
November 1, 2005 4.00
December 13, 2005 4.25
January 31, 2006 4.50
March 28, 2006 4.75
May 10, 2006 5.00
June 29, 2006 5.25
September 18, 2007 4.75
October 31, 2007 4.50
December 11, 2007 4.25
January 22, 2008 3.50
January 30, 2008 3.00
March 18, 2008 2.25
April 30, 2008 2.00
October 8, 2008 1.50
October 29, 2008 1.00
December 16, 2008 0 - 0.25

Looks like someone should maybe write a quick program to calculate all that compounded money owed to the people who payed five grand for "Happy Birthday" in their documentary.

 

[Skyfire77]

Uxorious[/url]":1miyycxy]Meanwhile, employees at TGI Fridays, Applebees, Olive Garden, et-al expressed a cumulative sigh of relief that they no longer have to spend their own time memorizing silly copyright side-stepping birthday greetings.

I did dishes at the only PoFolks north of the Mason-Dixon back in high school '94-'96 (Dammit, made myself feel old again). Ours was to the tune of "Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah": ♫Po-Po-Po-PoFolks wishes you a happy birthday!♫

 

[Skyfire77]

Dupe post, fnord

 

[shelbystripes]

q5ajzvtd[/url]"t5864lu]

shelbystripes[/url]"t5864lu]Good: Solid win for the public domain. Not having to hear godwaful alternative birthday songs in restaurants anymore.

Bad: You will long for the day that people used different birthday songs. You hated the overplay of My Heart Will Go On or the Macarena? Imagine that, but FOREVER.

Whoa, wait. That was the reason? I just figured all the restaurants wanted to differentiate themselves. Does this mean no more birthday sombreros either?

Yep, Warner would threaten to sue the shit out of any company that used the happy birthday song. Chains use written policies to keep the customer experience consistent, but any written policy to use the birthday song would become Exhibit A in a very short infringement case, so they'd write (and copyright) their own birthday songs and instruct their employees to use that instead.

On a similar point, this is why many bars and restaurants have TouchTunes digital jukeboxes. Playing music "commercially" without a license is a recipe for a legal nightmare. What makes TouchTunes popular isn't that the technology is the best or the service is the cheapest way to get music (it's not). TouchTunes has license agreements with record labels that include commercial playback. All the songs they offer are licensed, and like Netflix, they'll pull songs as soon as their rights expire. Those jukeboxes are really just insurance against copyright suits.

 

[Capt_Ender]

nononsense[/url]":234s2nel]My curiosity is going haywire trying to figure out what other songs he is talking about and I can't think of one.

Most of the sports songs are owned by Queen, I would imagine. Is 'Take me out to the Ball Game' copyrighted?

Ok, checked and the song is public domain and so are the original lyrics, so that ain't it.

This is going to drive me nuts all day, so if any of you have any idea, please post.

What song would be commonly sung that people are claiming copyright where there might be a question?

I'm stumped.

'Soft Kitty'?

 

[LrdDimwit]

q5ajzvtd[/url]":24x4auuc]Whoa, wait. That was the reason? I just figured all the restaurants wanted to differentiate themselves. Does this mean no more birthday sombreros either?

Yeah, no, the restaraunts didn't want to pay Warner. Now that they don't have to, I expect it will be "Happy Birthday" pretty much everywhere within a month of this becoming effective.

I'm glad that this was the outcome. The settlement originally didn't disclose any details, so I was left wondering whether Warner just got the plaintiffs to go away by agreeing not to mess with them anymore, or whether they actually toughed it out and forced Warner to acknowledge it's public domain. Happily these people wend the distance. (I'm sure Warner offered them money to just go away and agree never to talk about it again. They obviously didn't take it.)

 

[duncansil]

Quote, "I think there are a few other songs that we're going to attempt to free up next," he told Ars. "I don't want to say the names."

How about "We're not gonna take it. Oh no! We ain't gonna take it, we're not gonna take it anymore!"

 

[s138]

digi99[/url]":2baafyrt]Absolutely dumb. Why bother creating anything anymore if somebody can just say "nah you don't own it anymore, sucker"?

Yeah, being able to milk it for years isn't an incentive. I should be able to make one thing and keep getting paid for it forever...

/s