Slashdot Mirror
Birthday Song's Copyright Leads To a Lawsuit For the Ages
New submitter chriscappuccio sends this excerpt from the NY Times:
"The song 'Happy Birthday to You' is widely credited for being the most performed song in the world. But one of its latest venues may be the federal courthouse in Manhattan, where the only parties may be the litigants to a new legal battle. The dispute stems from a lawsuit filed on Thursday by a filmmaker in New York who is seeking to have the court declare the popular ditty to be in the public domain, and to block a music company from claiming it owns the copyright to the song and charging licensing fees for its use. The filmmaker, Jennifer Nelson, was producing a documentary movie, tentatively titled 'Happy Birthday,' about the song, the lawsuit said. In one proposed scene, the song was to be performed."
I've copyrighted the phrase "fuck all the lawyers", so you need to send me a check if you want to use it.
Right? /sarcasm
I'm glad someone is pushing this topic (finally) and this is the perfect example. It's one thing to protect artists but the never-ending copyright extensions doing nothing of the sort. They ensure the media companies can generate recurring profits but, by and large, provide limit benefit to those actually responsible for the work. Oh wait...corporations are people now too.
Hopefully this is decided firmly, not on some silly technicality, and sets a precedent for other cases so common-use media can be pushed into public domain. Maybe someone will rule that copyright law is unfair, unconstitutional, or similar and FORCE our government to review this and move to a more rational policy.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
"By the way, today happens to be my birthday."
Bring back the original copyright terms:
The original length of copyright in the United States was 14 years, and it had to be explicitly applied for. If the author wished, he could apply for a second 14year monopoly grant, but after that the work entered the public domain, so it could be used and built upon by others.
How about "25 years without any extension, then it goes into the public domain". What these money-hungry Hollywood and publishing executives don't seem to realize is that everything DRM'ed will be lost in time, like tears in the rain.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Constitutionally, copyright is meant to be for a limited time. What we have today hardly reflects the constitutional intent behind allowing the concept, originally used in other countries as a form of censorship, in the fledgling States.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
- Originally copyrighted in the 1930s.
Welcome to the Machine.
Come with me. On behalf of Pink Floyd's publishers, we have matters to discuss.
I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
...already IN the public domain! Hapi Berth Dey Two Ewe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f2PCWYAZQc
Happy happy birthday from the Chili's crew, we wish it was our birthday so we could party too. HEY!
Carraba's:
Tanti auguri a te
Tanti auguri a te
Tanti auguri a te from Carraba's
Tanti auguri a te.
Bennigan's:
Happy Happy Birthday
On your special Day
Happy Happy Birthday
That's why we're here to say
Happy Happy Birthday
May all your dreams come true
Happy Happy Birthday
From Bennigans to you!
All Chotchkie's waiters are required to wear at least 15 pieces of flair.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
the song is over a hundred fucking years old. its practically an american standard and so ubiquitously used as to be unenforceable. in any other country a judge would laugh the plaintiff out of the god damn room. if it doesnt go public domain we can definitely start a campaign against it. banthebirthdaysong.com or nomorebirthdaysong.org should point to a creative-commons or public-domain version of a song that anything from a synthesizer to a ten year old can sing without having to hire johnny cochran.
Good people go to bed earlier.
... Which is why they're gonna rule in favour Warner, because screw the public. They aren't a corporation. What business do they have owning things that can be owned privately and exploited by individuals. Individuals meaning individual corporations: The real people.
This is the best restaurant I ever eat in
This sort of thing is why copyright should only last for 10 year (or less). No extensions. No nothing. 10 (or less) years. If you can't profit in that amount of time, that's life.
Sort of, the tune itself is public domain, but the words aren't. The public domain words, IIRC, are the ones for "What day is today?" Pretty much as sung by Elzar on Futurama.
And their movie is about the song (censored), so the trial itself could become part of it.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
What really pisses me off is that even a public domain work these days is subject to being "reclaimed" into copyright, if there is money to be made. Just look at "It's a Wonderful Life." No one would have even remembered that movie if it hadn't fell into the public domain and became popular to air around Christmas (since anyone could do it). But when someone realized it was actually making money and had became popular again, of course some corporation immediately sweeps in and reclaims copyright on it. Now it only airs once or twice a year on NBC and no one gives a shit.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
They do not foster innovation, they impede it. Nor do they benefit the inventors, almost all "inventions" now go to big corporations. Who then abuse them all the more.
Very few musicians see even 10% of the $$$ their music earns.
Our present IP laws are so horrendous, society would be better without them. Sadly, politicians are so bought so we'll only see it get worse.
***
And yes there are better solutions. Patents, should only be held by inventors. And should only be granted for truly novel and new inventions. Nor should a patent prevent anyone else from building a better/cheaper mousetrap. Rather, a patent should merely grant a 10% tax break to the holder or the company of their employ.
This would encourage innovation, keep inventors employed (instead of immediately being laid off by companies after their invention is complete), rather companies would put inventors on their payroll just for the tax break. And then they'd be free to stay home and continue inventing.
That is a far far better solution than our current system which is forcing companies like Google to spend $8 billion buying Motorola to defend themselves against frivolous patents granted to Apple on decades old technologies. And in most cases, not an invention but the mere patenting of a use.
When I violated Guns-n-Roses' copyrights, Axl Rose not only sued me, he threw me out of Guns-n-Roses. I never even knew I was *in* Guns-n-Roses!
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized corporate personhood since at least 1819. By 1886, the justices were unanimous that at least the equal protection provision of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to the associations of individuals called "corporations" as much as it does to the individuals severally.
Then don't include life of the author in the equation at all. Give individual works the same copyright term as works made for hire.
Copyrights are supposed to encourage the creator to create more work. As soon as the creator is dead, the chances of her/him creating more work are somewhat diminished.
Post-mortem copyrights are supposed to encourage the author's estate to complete the author's unfinished works rather than shredding them. With no post-mortem copyright, Christopher Tolkien might not have allowed The Silmarillion to see publication.
You're confusing copyright and trademarks, which are legally unrelated. They don't even fall under the same branch of government. Trademark is under the Dept. of Commerce (Executive branch), and copyright is under the Library of Congress, which is administered directly by Congress.
The maintainers of Upton Sinclair's estate would like to have a few words with you.
Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
Looking at Wikipedia page it indicates the song is from 1893 (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You). How the heck can anyone claim copyright on it at this point? Sure the last of the two artists died in 1946, meaning it is currently death+67 years, but I still think it is way overboard and agree with it finally needing to be put into the public domain.
I think we need to revise copyright such that the copyright after death is much shorter, but add a notion of attribution in each place for after its expiration.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
You are extremely confused when it comes to IP laws.
Copyright != Trademark.
Laches defense would only exist if they had not actively been pursuing violators, which they have. How can you say "there has been no enforcement over the years", There has been so much enforcement the ridiculousness of it has entered our pop culture (The Simpsons have joked about ti, so has Futurama, iCarley, Sports Night, the Venture Brothers and so many more). I mean have you ever wondered why you never hear it on TV, you always here "For he's a jolly good fellow" because that is in the public domain.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
This is the sad fact. The "Happy Birthday" song shouldn't even be copyrighted.
It is a derivative work on an older song in the public domain(Good Morning To You) and is far too short to receive a copyright.
In other words, imagine if you changed the ending to the alphabet song and then tried to get it copyrighted. That would be laughable, even in our modern pro-IP courts.Yet someone did exactly that decades ago, and then some company has maintained the copyright on the "Happy Birthday" song for all of these years? It is a joke. Fixing this shouldn't even be the first blow for fixing our IP problems. It should just have been challenged in court by someone by now, but the company who "owns" the song only brings it up when they know that it is a large media company who would rather just license the song than try to challenge in court.
With every possible name inserted into line 3?
Have gnu, will travel.
Terms could still be scaled back without withdrawing from any worldwide treaty. Berne requires life plus 50 years for individual works or 50 years for works made for hire. The United States currently goes above and beyond this by recognizing life plus 70 years for individual works or 95 years for works made for hire.
A finished house is instantly worth money while creative endeavours are often not. Maybe for big corporations there are instant profits to be made but a band or artist that spends 10+ years developing a following and perfecting their artform will often be working for nothing in the hope that eventually it will all pay off. Copyright is abused by Big Media but Copyright is also the only thing that stops Big Media from exploiting independent artists.
no one gives a shit becasue its out of fashion. What you seem to fail to realize is that it's still on the air.
I mean, yeah reclaim copyrights are crap for a number of reasons, but people loosing interest with an available work isn't one of them.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
To my mind the problem is the "corporations are people" mantra is only trotted out when it's legally convenient, and is promptly ignored when personhood would be inconvenient. Basically they get all the benefits of being a legal person, with none of the downsides.
So just as an idea, what if we we also classify corporations as something they are much more similar to? Another institution explicitly created for the concentration and leveraging of power (wealth being one form of power). Governments. Let the default assumption be that corporations have to comply with all regulations and constitutional limits imposed on the governments of the jurisdictions that they do business in. Cleary that might require some fragmentation - Google China and Google US would be subject to some fairly incompatible regulations, but that might be for the best. Do we really want to live in a world where corporate power rivals or exceeds that of many/most governments? (Democratic) governments are at least titullarly under the control of their populations, but I realy don't see global cooperation reaching the point where governments can effectively reign in the power of international mega-corporations any time soon, and even if the cooperation existed there doesn't seem to be the will. Not surprising since corporations (and the powerful people controlling them) are themselves largely responsible for selecting and empowering the candidates that the rest of us get to choose between.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Then if a member performs an illegal act, is not the association also performing the same illegal act?
An excellent question. If the association (a corporations) has the rights of a person should it not also have the responsibilities of one?
Every time this suggestion comes up, I repeat that I don't want the law to create more incentives for homicide.
Easily solved. If the individual dies of anything other than natural causes the work immediately become public domain at the time of their death.
Postmortem of death + N years is to allow companies to contract with a copyright holder without fear that the idiot stepping in front of a bus ends the copyright tomorrow.
A flat term of 14 years after first publication, renewable once if the work is still in print at the end of the first term, would have the same effect.
There is no reasonable argument I can think of for post-mortem copyrights to last that long.
Other than that a country's trading partners happen to have made a business decision to erect trade barriers against countries that use reason. Most favored nation status often requires WTO membership, and WTO requires TRIPS, and TRIPS requires Berne, and Berne requires life + 50.
Other than that a country's trading partners happen to have made a business decision to erect trade barriers against countries that use reason.
That's not a reasonable argument. That is merely a statement of the status quo. So my original statement stands. I have never seen a reasonable argument for why post-mortem copyrights should last as long as they do.