Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Birthday Song's Copyright Leads To a Lawsuit For the Ages

Posted by Soulskill on from the and-many-more dept.

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."

16 of 442 comments (clear)

  1. In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've copyrighted the phrase "fuck all the lawyers", so you need to send me a check if you want to use it.

    1. Re:In other news by Algae_94 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I am referring to all of the lawyers that would argue either side of a case depending on which side offered them more money. These people are not driven by an inner sense of justice and making the world a better place, but simply following their own motivations of greed and rationalizing away any negative effects their greedy actions are causing society.

      It's almost like it's a job for them to argue cases, not some quest to improve the world.

  2. Protecting the arts and artists by torkus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Protecting the arts and artists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Culture is being held ransom; music, literature, film, television... any medium you can think of is illegal to share, perform or otherwise widely enjoy without paying a gatekeeper. Thanks to the nature of the system if something isn't "saleable" it is left forgotten to rot in some media archive somewhere.

      Back at the turn of the 20th century piano roll music was quite popular and sophisticated however much of it is lost forever because of the same kind of greed.

    2. Re:Protecting the arts and artists by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1) Put in reforms that revert copyright back to a shield and curb it's use as a sword.

      And one of the best ways to do that is...

      2) Disallow corporations to own copyrights. Require that they be in the name of actual persons and make it so they can only be leased to a corporate entity. That way the corporation is beholden to SOMEONE.

      and of course

      3) Get rid of Micky Mouse copyright.

    3. Re:Protecting the arts and artists by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Just posting for the hell of it. The message is in the sig... It is a universal truth.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:Protecting the arts and artists by Sloppy · · Score: 5, Funny

      I have a plan for changing this at the basic political level, finally getting rid of absurdly-long copyright terms. (And coincidentally, my plan should work for addressing the overbroadness domestic surveillance powers, too.)

      The plan is to vote for Republicans or Democrats. (I haven't yet decided which; that's a minor detail.) This way, I can get Republicans or Democrats into key policy-making positions, where they will finally be able to enact the changes they have been promising.

      Everyone, if you think the current laws are unfair and ridiculous and you want to Do Something about it, November 2014 will be your first big chance: vote to finally get some Republicans or Democrats into congress. And then in November 2016 vote for a Republican or Democrat president too. (Can you imagine the changes we would see at DoJ, if only we were to have a Republican or Democrat president? Can you imagine the reforms we would see in copyright law, if only we have a Republican or Democrat majority in the houses? Can you imagine what limits would be imposed upon the NSA by the president, if only we were to elect a Republican or Democrat to that job?)

      CHANGE CAN HAPPEN, if you do what is necessary to make it happen. For that, the parties (Republicans and Democrats) who are against the status quo, and instead, support common-sense reform, need your support. These parties have never had the opportunity to show their colors, and if only we would give them the chance, I'm sure they wouldn't let us down.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    5. Re:Protecting the arts and artists by Dr.+Sheldon+Cooper · · Score: 5, Informative

      Whoosh. Bigtime.

      --
      Bazinga.
    6. Re:Protecting the arts and artists by j-beda · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'd rather just a straight up term of 30 years (or whatever number is most reasonable), regardless of whether or not the author is still alive.

      First decade for free, $10 registration for the next year, doubling every year after that, in perpetuity. This allows the "owner" to extract any economic value they can see in the item, and very quickly puts the vast majority of works into the public domain. Central registration also makes it easy to find the owner if you actually do want access to the work for licensing or the like, or to find out if the work has been registered. Each ten years the cost go up by a factor of 1024.

      Year 11 - $10 (total $10)
      Year 12 - $20 (total $30)
      Year 13 - $40 (total $70)
      Year 14 - $80 (total $150)
      etc.

      Price for year "n" = $10 x 2^(n-10)
      Total price to pay for every year up to and including year "n" = $10 x ( 2^(n-9) - 1)

      Year 20 costs $10240, total cost $20470
      Year 30 costs $10,485,760, total costs $20,971,510

      The details of the free period length or the first yearly amount can of course be changed, but the doubling rate is what makes this type of system work. Make it five years free and one dollar for the 6th year, and it works great too. Heck, one penny for the first year gets you to the ten bucks level in a decade, so maybe that's the way to go.

  3. I hope the judge opens the case by saying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "By the way, today happens to be my birthday."

  4. We need more than that by ArcadeMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  5. Re:The word "limited" by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What I find funny is that the "strict constitutionalists" in our politics today have no problems with IP. People like Clarance Thomas talk about "original intent" but never have a problem with these matters. If there is one thing that has outstripped original intent of the constitution it's copyright. It wasn't put there for people to make money. It was put there to encourage people to be creative. Copyright in perpetuity does NOT encourage people to be creative.

  6. Re:factoid by Mitchell314 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  7. Re:factoid by TWiTfan · · Score: 5, Funny

    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."
  8. Re:Dartmouth v. Woodward; Southern Pacific by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Semitroll: wasn't slavery abolished? How did that wording go? What's the legal basis for a person being able to own a person-like entity?

  9. It shouldn't even be copyrighted by PuckSR · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.