Filmmaker picks a copyright fight with “Happy Birthday”

The copyright on the world's most popular song? It's a scam, lawsuit argues.

Read the whole story

 

[Wickwick]

Finally the poor waiters at Chili's won't have to sing that silly substitute song they sing.

OK, so not exactly an earth-shattering consequence but it's always bugged me.

 

[Jakelshark]

My only complaint is we will miss out on so many amusing meta jokes and alternate versions of the song.

*Edit* Thinking about it: 30 Rock and Futurama both lampooned it, and there have been some hilarious rock operas by Jack Black on SNL and Master Shake on ATHF.

 

[cvarner]

There's a steakhouse chain here in Pennsylvania that sings a silly substitute, set to the tune of "I've Been Workin' On The Railroad". The staff always seems painfully embarrassed by it, to the point of singing it as quickly as humanly possible. (Although in fairness, I suppose they might rush through HBD2U as well.)

 

[doubleyewdee]

How can I donate to this legal fund because seriously this is asinine.

 

[charleski]

a check from Time Warner.

Well, I can't see that happening, though it would be fun. TW will just pull the same 'good faith' bullshit that protects all those erroneous and negligent DMCA takedowns.

It's going to be interesting to see how hard TW fights to protect their counterfeit copyright. They could take the tactic of throwing a few million at it, if they feel there are other spurious copyrights that might be left vulnerable. I suspect, though, that they'll fight just hard enough to cause Nelson et al. financial pain.

 

[voodoochile81]

lordcheeto[/url]":2mqdfo9e]It should probably be expired, but I disagree with class action status and retroactive payments. The date seems completely arbitrary. Why June 13, 2009?

Statute of Limitations? (but IANAL)

 

[Chemical Tribe]

Wickwick[/url]":1f7l62wt]Finally the poor waiters at Chili's won't have to sing that silly substitute song they sing.

OK, so not exactly an earth-shattering consequence but it's always bugged me.

Wait so that's actually the reason?

WTF?

 

[InflictStrain]

I hope they win. The copyright on the "Happy Birthday" song has always been absurd.

 

[GenocideOwl]

Thank Disney lobbying for asinine bullshit like this

 

[Tdots]

Wow, I would have never thought in my right mind that something as basic and widely used as the happy birthday song was copyrighted.

Nothing in the legal system surprises me anymore.

 

[Ironicending]

Wickwick[/url]":1qgdruq6]Finally the poor waiters at Chili's won't have to sing that silly substitute song they sing.

OK, so not exactly an earth-shattering consequence but it's always bugged me.

The fact they feel the need to sing anything at all irks me.

(and the fact they dont really require proof which led to some purposefully embarrasing moments)

 

[Langdon]

Best of luck to them and I hope they prevail. I also hope they are well funded because TW has some deep pockets and I expect some 3rd parties with vested interests in keeping the copyright law they way it is are going to be lobbying and filing briefs in favor of the copyright.

 

[kleinma]

lordcheeto[/url]":2tvzugyv]It should probably be expired, but I disagree with class action status and retroactive payments. The date seems completely arbitrary. Why June 13, 2009?

Considering today is June 14th, my guess would be some sort of statute of limitations at 4 years on how far back they can seek retroactive compensation.

 

[carldjennings]

I remember a couple years ago the girl scouts were sued for singing it around their campfires.

 

[ninjaburn81]

And copyright laws do not need to be fixed...same with patent laws...everything is JUST FINE...sigh...

 

[Cherlindrea]

I've known for many years (I think I found out some point in high school) that restaurants don't sing "Happy Birthday" because of copyright reasons. I'm surprised there are still those finding out about this, but then I've always had an interest in copyright, so I'm not a good litmus test for common knowledge on that front.

I agree that it is LONG overdue for the song to be back in public domain (and the most important caveat to that being that no other entity ever gets to re-file for it being put back under copyright). But since it's Time-Warner that has it (I was not aware they were the holders to the copyright), I'm not holding my breath on this one. Media conglomerates like that have all sorts of horrible cheat books that let them get around these kinds of limitations that were obviously meant just for us simpletons and not them (/sarcasm).

 

[Cherlindrea]

carldjennings[/url]":ncq8asg3]I remember a couple years ago the girl scouts were sued for singing it around their campfires.

Holy crap, dude! I'd never heard that. I was a Girl Scout and we sang lots of songs that likely were under copyright. That's just sad. We never recorded, distributed, nor profited from the singing, but obviously you can't trust little girls.

 

[OoklaTheMok]

I've been hoping for several years that someone would have the guts to sue over this. I read that legal paper when Ars linked it a few years back, and I'm convinced.

 

[carldjennings]

Cherlindrea[/url]":2nzwc73p]

carldjennings[/url]":2nzwc73p]I remember a couple years ago the girl scouts were sued for singing it around their campfires.

Holy crap, dude! I'd never heard that. I was a Girl Scout and we sang lots of songs that likely were under copyright. That's just sad. We never recorded, distributed, nor profited from the singing, but obviously you can't trust little girls.

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/17/nyreg ... all&src=pm

More than a couple of years ago, but still relevant I think.

 

[TheFLP]

Fuck your "copyright" to you,
Fuck your "copyright" to you,
Fuck your "copyright" Time-Warner,
Fuck your "copyright" to you.*

Oh, and kindly set your lawyers on fire. Thanks!

* Air quotes optional but highly recommended

 

[skyywise]

Time-Warner: extracting nuisance settlement fees based on specious copyright claims long before Prenda Law.

 

[wallinbl]

Jakelshark[/url]":2bo7toem]My only complaint is we will miss out on so many amusing meta jokes and alternate versions of the song.

*Edit* Thinking about it: 30 Rock and Futurama both lampooned it, and there have been some hilarious rock operas by Jack Black on SNL and Master Shake on ATHF.

I actually learned about the issue from an episode of SportsNight.

 

[kindakrazy]

Cherlindrea[/url]":3tbpzeqk]

carldjennings[/url]":3tbpzeqk]I remember a couple years ago the girl scouts were sued for singing it around their campfires.

Holy crap, dude! I'd never heard that. I was a Girl Scout and we sang lots of songs that likely were under copyright. That's just sad. We never recorded, distributed, nor profited from the singing, but obviously you can't trust little girls.

Those songs greatly enriched your lives, and big business wants their cut. Only, say, 5% of all your future earnings for having a happy childhood, for which they are solely responsible for.

 

[charybdisjim]

I thought the following would help give an idea of how similar the "Happy Birthday" song is to the songs for which it is argued to be derivative, specifically "Good Morning to You"

Song from hymn played on piano:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glK1LojN6yg

Easy to read sheet music for song played in video (note it was composed by Mildred J Hill who died in 1916 and so obviously predates even Harvest Hymns):
http://cantorion.org/music/490/Happy-Bi ... oice-Piano

Actual page scans from 1924 "Harvest Hymns" by Robert Henry Coleman:
http://www.hymnary.org/hymn/S4SS1921/page/167

 

[bettercitizens]

InflictStrain[/url]":s6ebcgbz]I hope they win. The copyright on the "Happy Birthday" song has always been absurd.

Absurd to the tune of generating a couple million a year in revenues. Not bad for such a simple song.

Alternatively I wonder how much it cost for the synchronization fee if you want to use The Beatles "Birthday" off the "White Album"?

 

[fferitt25]

The lawsuit contains numerous other early examples that predate the official claimed "Happy Birthday" copyright registration date of 1935....

....Nelson is featured in this morning's edition of the NYT, holding a 1924 songbook called "Harvest Hymns," which includes the Happy Birthday song.

Gee. Wait. Gimme a minute. I think there might be something here. Hmm....

 

[taraba]

fferitt25[/url]":32pftr92]

The lawsuit contains numerous other early examples that predate the official claimed "Happy Birthday" copyright registration date of 1935....

....Nelson is featured in this morning's edition of the NYT, holding a 1924 songbook called "Harvest Hymns," which includes the Happy Birthday song.

Gee. Wait. Gimme a minute. I think there might be something here. Hmm....

Yeah, the copyright will just transfer to whoever owns the rights to that book now. Maybe that's Penguin Publishing.

 

[Synthe]

The Red Robin we visit occasionally stopped doing their homegrown happy birthday songs about a year ago, and now just sing the standard version. My thinking the first time I heard it was that maybe the RR lawyers either licensed the song (like all of the reproduction artwork in the restaurants) or decided that the copyright was expired and weren't going to do the hokey songs anymore.

 

[vishnu]

I hope the copyright gets invalidated, but unfortunately it won't set any interesting precidents. They aren't arguing that it should be invalidated because it is fucking old, which honestly, is why it really should be invalidated. They're arguing other stuff that will actually work in court. The supreme court (sadly) has already decided that "it is fucking old" is not a reason to invalidate a copyright. So, we're left waiting for the legislature to reign in copyright law, which of course they'll never do.

Copyrights should last ten, maybe twenty years, tops. None of this death of the author + 70 years bullshit.

 

[joemullin]

wallinbl[/url]":ibhoxbzw]

Jakelshark[/url]":ibhoxbzw]My only complaint is we will miss out on so many amusing meta jokes and alternate versions of the song.

*Edit* Thinking about it: 30 Rock and Futurama both lampooned it, and there have been some hilarious rock operas by Jack Black on SNL and Master Shake on ATHF.

I actually learned about the issue from an episode of SportsNight.

That episode is the first link in this story!

 

[crhilton]

kindakrazy[/url]":13yninn9]

Cherlindrea[/url]":13yninn9]

carldjennings[/url]":13yninn9]I remember a couple years ago the girl scouts were sued for singing it around their campfires.

Holy crap, dude! I'd never heard that. I was a Girl Scout and we sang lots of songs that likely were under copyright. That's just sad. We never recorded, distributed, nor profited from the singing, but obviously you can't trust little girls.

Those songs greatly enriched your lives, and big business wants their cut. Only, say, 5% of all your future earnings for having a happy childhood, for which they are solely responsible for.

Woah woah, nobody said responsible! Let's just say you owe them for any happiness you had.

 

[charybdisjim]

taraba[/url]":cl71ix2z]

fferitt25[/url]":cl71ix2z]

The lawsuit contains numerous other early examples that predate the official claimed "Happy Birthday" copyright registration date of 1935....

....Nelson is featured in this morning's edition of the NYT, holding a 1924 songbook called "Harvest Hymns," which includes the Happy Birthday song.

Gee. Wait. Gimme a minute. I think there might be something here. Hmm....

Yeah, the copyright will just transfer to whoever owns the rights to that book now. Maybe that's Penguin Publishing.

That was just a reprint of an existing hymn. An earlier example is its composition by Mildred J. Hill (lived 1859-1916). At its latest possible date of publication (couldn't find when it was actually published except that it was published within her lifetime) this material would still be well within the public domain at this point.

 

[nowimnothing]

lordcheeto[/url]":2c8to8pm]

voodoochile81[/url]":2c8to8pm]

lordcheeto[/url]":2c8to8pm]It should probably be expired, but I disagree with class action status and retroactive payments. The date seems completely arbitrary. Why June 13, 2009?

Statute of Limitations? (but IANAL)

That makes absolutely no sense.

Warner/Chappell Music has a valid copyright on the song. It was valid in 2008, 2010, 2013, and every year since 1935. The argument over whether or not it should be invalidated now is completely irrelevant to that fact.

Blame the courts, blame copyright law, blame whoever you'd like, but there is no legal basis for restitution on a completely legal licensing arrangement. Now, if Warner/Chappell Music were shaking fees out of people for something they didn't have a valid copyright on, class action it up.

That is the point of the suit, that they never did have a valid copyright on it due to the various reasons outlined above. If they win then no they did not have a valid copyright in 2008, 2010 or 2013 and any monies they collected would be forfeit.

 

[Tom Brokaw]

lordcheeto[/url]":3a7gimk9]

voodoochile81[/url]":3a7gimk9]

lordcheeto[/url]":3a7gimk9]It should probably be expired, but I disagree with class action status and retroactive payments. The date seems completely arbitrary. Why June 13, 2009?

Statute of Limitations? (but IANAL)

That makes absolutely no sense.

Warner/Chappell Music has a valid copyright on the song. It was valid in 2008, 2010, 2013, and every year since 1935. The argument over whether or not it should be invalidated now is completely irrelevant to that fact.

Blame the courts, blame copyright law, blame whoever you'd like, but there is no legal basis for restitution on a completely legal licensing arrangement. Now, if Warner/Chappell Music were shaking fees out of people for something they didn't have a valid copyright on, class action it up.

That's exactly the suit, that the copyright was, in fact, invalid.

 

[JEDIDIAH]

lordcheeto[/url]":r95xb8gq]

voodoochile81[/url]":r95xb8gq]

lordcheeto[/url]":r95xb8gq]It should probably be expired, but I disagree with class action status and retroactive payments. The date seems completely arbitrary. Why June 13, 2009?

Statute of Limitations? (but IANAL)

That makes absolutely no sense.

Warner/Chappell Music has a valid copyright on the song. It was valid in 2008, 2010, 2013, and every year since 1935. The argument over whether or not it should be invalidated now is completely irrelevant to that fact.

Blame the courts, blame copyright law, blame whoever you'd like, but there is no legal basis for restitution on a completely legal licensing arrangement. Now, if Warner/Chappell Music were shaking fees out of people for something they didn't have a valid copyright on, class action it up.

They were trolls and they knew it.

Willful fraud? I am sure a creative prosecutor could come up with something. Might even include jail time if they ever had the balls to persue it.