"Happy Birthday" Hits Sour Notes When It Comes To Song's Free Use

vivaoporto writes: NPR reports that "Happy Birthday to You", one of the most recognized songs in the English language, is the subject of a class action complaint over the validity of its copyright. The publisher Warner/Chappell Music owns the copyright to the "Happy Birthday" song and anyone who wants to use the song must pay a licensing fee. How did Warner/Chappell get the rights? "This is where it gets complicated," says Jennifer Nelson. She is working on a documentary about the song and paid for the rights to use it. Now she's suing Warner/Chappell to get her money back, arguing it's part of the public domain. "I think it's going to set a precedent for this song and other songs that may be claimed to be under copyright, which aren't," says Newman. The Courthouse News Service have more information about the pending suit.

Comments

A better solution

[Krishnoid]

1. Pay songwriter to compose alternative song
2. Record song
3. Release recording with a Creative Commons license
4. Send postcards to every restaurant in the country, letting them know it's free to perform and encouraging them to sing it
5. ?
6. Profit!

Re:A better solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Admittedly, I can be daft... so forgive me and please enlighten me...

EXPENSES:
>> Pay songwriter to compose
>> Record
>> Send postcards

INCOME:
>> it's free

BUSINESS MODEL:
>> Profit!

I'm confused how INCOME - EXPENSES = "PROFIT!" ?!?

Re:A better solution

[dunkindave]

"Release recording with a Creative Commons license" and "Send postcards to every restaurant in the country", then "Profit"?

Not sure where the profit will come from. You just gave away the song, and spent a boat load of money sending all those postcards.

Re:A better solution

[Daemonik]

..the a large copyright aggregator like Rumblefish comes along, claims over and over again that they own the rights getting your accounts suspended while they rake off a profit from their own monetization of said music.

Re:A better solution

[OverlyGenericUsernam]

The 'Step 1 - something, Step 2 - ?, Step 3 - profit' is a meme from south park. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnomes_(South_Park)

Re:A better solution

[hawguy]

Admittedly, I can be daft... so forgive me and please enlighten me...

EXPENSES:
>> Pay songwriter to compose
>> Record
>> Send postcards

INCOME:
>> it's free

BUSINESS MODEL:
>> Profit!

I'm confused how INCOME - EXPENSES = "PROFIT!" ?!?

Well sure, you might lose a little money on each one, but you can make it up in VOLUME!

Re:A better solution

[tylersoze]

That's all we do, make change.

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-ni...

Re:A better solution

[tylersoze]

That's all we do, make change.

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-ni...

LOL of course that linked video leaves out the punch line at the end. "How do we make money? The answer is simple, volume"

Re:A better solution

[sjames]

And surrender another part of our culture to a soulless corporation.

Re:A better solution

[roc97007]

As anyone who has climbed out of their parents' basement in the last 20 years knows, restaurants are using "happy happy birthday, happy happy birthday" sung to The Lone Ranger theme (or William Tell overture if you're being pedantic) for some years now. Life finds a way.

Re:A better solution

[techno-vampire]

Even better, use something like The Birthday Party Polka, which isn't copyrighted at all, and has been use since at least 1952, making it hard for anybody to claim the rights at this late date.

Re:A better solution

[rubycodez]

35 cents times 616,008 restaurants in the USA = $215,602.80

Re:A better solution

[ArcadeMan]

Life finds a way.

I'm not quite sure how this situation relates to dinosaurs...

Re:A better solution

[roc97007]

I'd say that "happy birthday to you" (written in 1893) sorta qualifies as a dinosaur.

Re:A better solution

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I think bitch slapping a company falsely claiming to hold copyright on things they do not is the better idea.

Re:A better solution

[omnichad]

When Warner really shouldn't own the copyright in the first place. The melody was written in 1893 and wouldn't be covered under any of the newer copyright extension laws. And the lyrics were in common use before someone tried to copyright those later.

Re:A better solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly this. They way to deal with copyright trolls is to make sure that it isn't profitable and that those who engage in copyright trolling gets bankrupt really quick.

Re:A better solution

[Smidge204]

Already done, decades ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

The tune was written to avoid said copyright, and the writer (Mike Jittlov) allows anyone to use it royalty-free. I don't think it's been properly licensed as such, though, since CC didn't exist at the time.
=Smidge=

Re: A better solution

[AgNO3]

Thats a joke right? When does losing a little in volume ever make a negative, positive.

Re:A better solution

[mysidia]

File suit against the copyright aggregator.

Re:A better solution

[Daemonik]

Yeah, because struggling artists are well known for their crack legal teams.

Re: A better solution

[hawguy]

Thats a joke right? When does losing a little in volume ever make a negative, positive.

It's no joke, this business strategy has been been used by a number of internet companies during the first dotcom boom and the model has been extremely profitable to executives and early investors. Webvan and Pets.com both come to mind as early adopters of this strategy, but they are far from the only ones.

Re:A better solution

[tchdab1]

Embed ads in the song, and data-mine the information in the requests you get.
Where have you been for the last 20 years?

Re: A better solution

[Jason Levine]

As hawguy mentioned above, it can be profitable to executives and early investors. It's essentially a pyramid scheme. Say your product costs $1.10 to make and you sell it for $1. You get a big round of funding and put some of that towards "executive salaries." Then you build hype about your product/company increasing the "value" of your company and getting more and more people to invest in it. As more money pours in from investors, you squirrel more money away as "executive compensation."

Just before the whole thing collapses, you bail out taking as much money with you as possible. The company folds and creditors are paid off, possibly including those earliest investors. The people who came in at the bottom of the pyramid get nothing, some investors walk away with their money back, and you walk away rich.

Of course, if the authorities realize it's all a scam you might go to jail, but most of the people who did this played it straight enough to get away with it. Sometimes multiple times in a row. Sometimes fooling the same investors who kept hoping that this time they could jump off the pyramid before it collapsed.

Re:A better solution

[Jason Levine]

Even better, use something like The Birthday Party Polka, which isn't copyrighted at all, and has been use since at least 1952, making it hard for anybody to claim the rights at this late date.

Considering that "Happy Birthday To You" (the song and lyrics) date back to 1912, if not earlier, don't assume it would be hard for someone to claim copyright on it.

Re:A better solution

[techno-vampire]

You misunderstand. The song wasn't written in 1952, it was a prominent part of an Los Angeles TV show that started in that year. Just about anybody who grew up there in those days knows the words, although they may not know the song's name. It's rather like asserting copyright over the tune of The Bear Went Over The Mountain, which can be traced back to the Crusades.

Re: A better solution

[brantondaveperson]

Note that the above being true, and the original statement being a joke, are not mutually exclusive propositions.

Webvan and Pets.com were both pretty good jokes, after all.

Re: A better solution

[AgNO3]

Oh you mean the Amazon model.

Re:A better solution

[DougReed]

A better solution is the solution proposed. This is EXACTLY the same situation as the SCO lawsuit where white collar criminals have taken a song they have nothing to do with. Warner has simply taken a song that has been in the public domain for years, hired a bunch of lawyers to find some way to make a claim to it, and then demand royalties. People don't want to hassle with the lawsuit, so they pay the ransom.

This case should be another to go to the Supreme Court, and the rampant song theft needs to be stopped. Paul McCartney does not even own his own songs because these big corporations take pride in stealing music.

Happy Birthday is the poster child for this case. The song has been in the public domain until 1935 when the criminal du jour Preston Ware Orem was able to falsely copyright a song that existed before he was born, then Warner bought him out, and now you can technically be sued for singing it to your child on their birthday.

Re:A better solution

[QQBoss]

That meme was a meme long before South Park and long before the word meme was coined. We joked about it in managerial accounting classes in the mid-'80s (software engineering major, business minor). A personal favorite variation from a cartoon that I remember from the cartoonist Sidney Harris "And then a miracle occurs..." which was first published in American Scientist in 1977.

Re:A better solution

[Jason Levine]

And the Happy Birthday song's copyright is being asserted based on the fact that the piano arrangement was published in 1935 (IIRC) while the song itself is much older. So it still wouldn't surprise me if someone claimed copyright on a song because a TV show used it in 1952 despite the song being really old. Especially if that someone were a big company with enough legal resources to scare off any lawsuits challenging their claim.

I wish Jennifer Nelson luck in fighting this battle. If she wins, I propose that every year, on her birthday, we all sing her Happy Birthday to commemorate the victory.

Re:A better solution

[Paradise Pete]

35 cents times 616,008 restaurants in the USA = $215,602.80

I've heard that song all over the world. Just a few days ago in Thailand. All Thais, singing in English, except for the "Dear <name>" part, where they sang the words Happy Birthday again.

Re:A better solution

[davester666]

Hey, let's sing the "Amazon Prime Birthday Song"

Re: A better solution

[TheRaven64]

It was jokingly stated as Amazon's business model back in the first dot-com boom, but others have used it since. The serious idea behind it is that you start making a small loss on each sale to increase the volume that you're shipping and, as your volume increases, your per-unit costs go down. Eventually that small loss per sale becomes a small profit per sale multiplied by a really huge volume, and then you're raking in cash. Of course, if your volume doesn't grow enough or you can't lower your costs enough, then it's just a good way of losing a lot of money.

Re:A better solution

[Anonymous Coward]

That meme was a meme long before [...] the word meme was coined. [...] "And then a miracle occurs..." which was first published in American Scientist in 1977.

The word "meme" was coined in 1976 by Richard Dawkins in "The Selfish Gene" (Chapter 11: Memes: The new replicators).

Re: A better solution

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously don't know anything about common core mathematics!

Re:A better solution

[Drethon]

http://ars.userfriendly.org/ca...

Re:A better solution

[AmiMoJo]

How is that not theft? Surely when they try to do that, the first call should be to the FBI.

Re: A better solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats a joke right? When does losing a little in volume ever make a negative, positive.

I'm guessing when your signed-long underruns and (if coded properly) "subtracts" to a really big positive number? At that point liquidate the company/organization.

Re:A better solution

[Gravitron 5000]

The profit is in Karma, not dollars. You can spend it being an asshole :)

Re:A better solution

[Registered Coward v2]

1. Pay songwriter to compose alternative song
2. Record song
3. Release recording with a Creative Commons license
4. Send postcards to every restaurant in the country, letting them know it's free to perform and encouraging them to sing it
5. ?
6. Profit!

Even better, everyone can modify it and add the updated lines to the song; so eventually you'll have gone from 4 basic lines to thousands of lines, so every possible need for a song is satisfied. Of course, some will want to fork it into the languages and others will fork it because the whole idea of singing a song dedicated to getting a year closer to death is absurd; but hay, it's free.

Re:A better solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Paul McCartney does not even own his own songs because these big corporations take pride in stealing music.

Blame Michael Jackson (and Paul for not splashing out on something he could have easily afforded at the time) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony/ATV_Music_Publishing

Re:A better solution

[morphotomy]

And the word dinosaur came after all of them were gone, but they're still dinosaurs.

Re:A better solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Better, sing on similar tune "f* the Warner and it lawyers, F* stupid laws and greedy managers ..."

Re:A better solution

[_KiTA_]

1. Pay songwriter to compose alternative song
2. Record song
3. Release recording with a Creative Commons license
4. Send postcards to every restaurant in the country, letting them know it's free to perform and encouraging them to sing it
5. ?
6. Profit!

This only works if you're Glee.

Re:A better solution

[rubycodez]

Yes but that part of the world is happy pirate place, you can buy packs of any DVD movie or TV series for a few bucks at stores in major malls. Bangkok, Phnom Penh, Udan Tani.... been there done that 8D

Re:A better solution

[stealth_finger]

That's the whole root of the problem. Some people can only see the profit.

Re:A better solution

[louaish88]

It is in this video: http://www.nbc.com/saturday-ni...

Re:A better solution

[Anonymous Coward]

but i dont want to use your crappy song. i want to use happy birthday.

Re:A better solution

[Anonymous Coward]

This is only an issue in the USA. As someone who has ventured out of my mother's metaphorical basement in the last 20 years I wouldn't know what is sung in American restaurants instead of "Happy Birthday". Over in England we actually use the traditional "Happy Birthday" song that is the subject of this article.

Re: A better solution

[Anonymous Coward]

That why kickstarter exists.

The obvious test case for ludicrous copyright

[cascadingstylesheet]

Music can easily become "classic" or "folk" in a century or so.

it's not like your future great grandchildren are going to encourage you to make more music, so they can profit. Or in this case, future huge music conglomerates.

Re:The obvious test case for ludicrous copyright

[Greyfox]

Damn straight! 200 years from now NPR will be playing classical rap music. The commentator will come on and be all like "That was Puff Daddy's 'Kill a Ho'... in D Minor. Coming up after the break will be Snoop Dog's 'All my Bitches,' in C. This was a very influential work at the time, in which Snoop Dog asserted that all the bitches were, in fact, his. Many other rappers at the time tried to get the bitches back, but their efforts were, ultimately, fruitless."

I predict that "Happy Birthday" will still be under copyright at the time.

Re:The obvious test case for ludicrous copyright

[sconeu]

See, it's attitudes like this that hurt artists...

I mean, if we don't keep extending copyright, how can we encourage Elvis to keep singing new music?

P2P Killed Elvis!!!!

Re:The obvious test case for ludicrous copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the obvious test case was when I saw a company selling prints of the US constitution with a copyright notice on it. Of course, the argument would be that they weren't copyrighting the words but the formatting if you actually took them to court over it, but still.

Re:The obvious test case for ludicrous copyright

[omnichad]

Not even the formatting, but the photo they took of it. Which is a separate work. If you want to sell Constitution prints, take your own photo.

Re:The obvious test case for ludicrous copyright

[Jason Levine]

Zombie Elvis writes the best songs:

"Falling In Love With BRAAAINNNS"

"...Don't shuffle on my blue suede shoes..."

"I'm a zombie in disguise. Oh yes I am. Zombie in disguise."

"Well, since I didn't eat brains,
My hunger started to swell.
With luck I'll find some brains to eat,
at Heartbreak Hotel."

Ah, the classics!

Re:The obvious test case for ludicrous copyright

[imboboage0]

oh what I would give for mod points.

Re:The obvious test case for ludicrous copyright

[catsRus]

As long as we still condone government corruption it will still be copyrighted in 100 years.

Re:The obvious test case for ludicrous copyright

[pubwvj]

Elvis is alive and well. He lives in the next town over from me. I see him down at the general store time to time. He moved here to get away from all the glitz. Very nice guy.

Re:The obvious test case for ludicrous copyright

[ArylAkamov]

Yeah, there was no way I couldn't save this post for all of eternity.

http://imgur.com/MC7wU7q

Re:The obvious test case for ludicrous copyright

[istartedi]

Snoop Dog's 'All my Bitches,' in C

SEGFAULT.
NPR announcer: We don't know much about Snoop, but apparently he was a pointer who liked to run free.

Re:The obvious test case for ludicrous copyright

[ihtoit]

if Elvis were alive today he'd be in deeper debt than the United States and he'd weigh like twelve hundred pounds.

Re:The obvious test case for ludicrous copyright

[Opportunist]

That alone should be grounds to not only make P2P legal but mandatory.

Re:The obvious test case for ludicrous copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Poser. Everyone knows 'Kill a Ho' is in E flat major.

Re:The obvious test case for ludicrous copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

I can tell by the pixels that is fake and gay

Re:The obvious test case for ludicrous copyright

[dargaud]

It's not like classical music doesn't have its own skeletons in its closets: Lick my ass, by Mozart nonetheless.

Re:The obvious test case for ludicrous copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Where did I say anything about a photo?

Re:The obvious test case for ludicrous copyright

[pubwvj]

You're making the classic graphing error of assuming the data set will continue. The reality is hockey sticks and other curves tend to level off at some point. Back in the 1970's they were worried about the Population Bomb. What they didn't account for was that as the level of education went up people had fewer children so the Population Bomb fizzled and the curve leveled off. Same thing with Elvis. He finally realized the error of his ways, got away from all those people who were a bad influence, moved to Vermont, lost hundreds of pounds and is doing great. :)

Re:The obvious test case for ludicrous copyright

[j-beda]

It's not like classical music doesn't have its own skeletons in its closets: Lick my ass, by Mozart nonetheless.

The more you know....

I can't believe it.

[DoofusOfDeath]

Warner wouldn't steal a car, would they?

Re:I can't believe it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure they would. Why do you think they're so worried someone might steal their shit?

Re:I can't believe it.

[Greyfox]

Son, Warner would steal your organs and sell them on the black market if they could get away with it often enough.

Re:I can't believe it.

[93 Escort Wagon]

Warner wouldn't steal a car, would they?

They also wouldn't shoot a policeman and then steal his helmet.

Re:I can't believe it.

[Opportunist]

Depends only on fine, profit and chance to be caught.

Whether a law is upheld by a corporation is a matter of risk management and accounting, not legal.

That ain't workin' that's the way you do it

[Anonymous Coward]

I want my MTV

Now look at them yo-yo's that's the way you do it
You play the guitar on the MTV
That ain't workin' that's the way you do it
Money for nothin' and your chicks for free
Now that ain't workin' that's the way you do it
Lemme tell ya them guys ain't dumb
Maybe get a blister on your little finger
Maybe get a blister on your thumb

We gotta install microwave ovens
Custom kitchen deliveries
We gotta move these refrigerators
We gotta move these colour TV's

See the little faggot with the earring and the makeup
Yeah buddy thatâ(TM)s his own hair
That little faggot got his own jet airplane
That little faggot heâ(TM)s a millionaire

Gotta install microwave ovens
Custom kitchen deliveries
We gotta move these refrigerators
Gotta move these colour TV's

I shoulda learned to play the guitar
I shoulda learned to play them drums
Look at that mama, she got it stickin' in the camera
Man we could have some
And he's up there, what's that? Hawaiian noises?
Bangin' on the bongoes like a chimpanzee
That ain't workin' that's the way you do it
Get your money for nothin' get your chicks for free

We gotta install microwave ovens
Custom kitchens deliveries
We gotta move these refrigerators
We gotta move these colour TV's

Look a' here
That ain't workin' that's the way you do it
You play the guitar on your MTV
That ain't workin' that's the way you do it
Money for nothin' and your chicks for free
Money for nothin' and chicks for free

Money for nothin' and your chicks for free

Look at that, look at that

Money for nothin' and your chicks for free
I want my, I want my, I want my MTV
Money for nothin' and chicks for free

(Fade)
I want my, I want my, I want my MTV

Re: That ain't workin' that's the way you do it

[Anonymous Coward]

Now see, that's a song. Here's my solution: you can only copyright a song with more than 25 notes.

Futurama

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Ever notice they don't sing happy birthday in Futurama? "What day is today? It's Bender's birthday! And you smell like one, too!"

Re:Futurama

[samwichse]

I thought it was:
"What day is today? It's Bender's birthday! What a day for a birthday. Let's all have some cake!"

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

It's clearly out of copyright

[wylderide]

The melody is surely public domain based on Good Morning to All and putting new lyrics on it doesn't change that. That's why the rights reverted to the authors of Good Morning to All. You can't have it both ways. Haha, just kidding, a corporation wants it both ways, so the government will be happy to bend over for them. Still, if you want alternatives: http://mycloudplayers.com/?id=... http://users.aei.ca/robr/Birth... http://users.aei.ca/robr/Birth... http://users.aei.ca/robr/Happy...

Re:It's clearly out of copyright

[houghi]

If you are not happy with the governement, why don't you buy your own?

Re:It's clearly out of copyright

[jordanjay29]

I tried, but Donald Trump outbid me.

Re:It's clearly out of copyright

[rubycodez]

That's not what the funding fathers did, they killed and maimed people and blew up shit

Re:It's clearly out of copyright

[ArcadeMan]

Yeah, well... I'm gonna go make my own government, with blackjack and hookers.

Re:It's clearly out of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally like this alternative https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f2PCWYAZQc

Re:It's clearly out of copyright

[cascadingstylesheet]

Alternatives? There's always Las mañanitas ...

Re:It's clearly out of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

So did the Boston bombers. Looks like you only get celebrated as a hero if you go for a larger scale.

Re:It's clearly out of copyright

[DeanCubed]

funding fathers

I see what you did there

Re:It's clearly out of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

you also need a manifesto

Re:It's clearly out of copyright

[rubycodez]

Situation of punks representing no one don't compare to people separating from oppressive government.

Re:It's clearly out of copyright

[rubycodez]

The Revolutionary War started over a year before the manifesto was written and signed; I consider it part of the real First World War (Britain, India, Mysore, France, Spain, Colonies, Native American tribes)

Re:It's clearly out of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Charlie Sheen? Is that you?

Marilyn Monroe Complicated Things...

[Irate Engineer]

Happy birthday to you

Happy birthday to you

Happy birthday Mr President

Happy birthday to you

Thanks, Mr President

For all the things you've done

The battles that you've won

The way you deal with U.S. Steel

And our problems by the ton

We thank you so much

Everybody, happy birthday

Re:Marilyn Monroe Complicated Things...

[Anonymous Coward]

why is this chick considered to be attractive?

if anything she's just a plain jane.

Re:Marilyn Monroe Complicated Things...

[93 Escort Wagon]

why is this chick considered to be attractive?

if anything she's just a plain jane.

We'll see how good YOU look after you've been dead 50 years...

Re:Marilyn Monroe Complicated Things...

[ArcadeMan]

She might seem "plain jane" to you in 2015 because today's women walk around half naked.

Re:Marilyn Monroe Complicated Things...

[Anonymous Coward]

nudity aside, imo her face is nothing special.

Re:Marilyn Monroe Complicated Things...

[ArcadeMan]

Tastes change between generations. Centuries ago, men used to find fat women attractive and thin women were viewed as weak, fragile and sick.

Re:Marilyn Monroe Complicated Things...

[Jason Levine]

In those days, weight was a status symbol. If you were heavy it meant you could a) afford tons of food and b) hire people to do various chores for you. Meanwhile, those starving peasants were thin because they had to work hard to be able to afford small amounts of food. A heavy woman meant that she came from a rich family and thus was considered very attractive. Imagine what a nobleman time travelling from that time period to today would think. "Everyone in America is obscenely wealthy!!!!"

Re:Marilyn Monroe Complicated Things...

[Bite The Pillow]

Because she was the first in many regards. And, after all if these years, there are few who can claim to be admired on the percentage base she had.

Looks have evolved, but unless you can go back in time, you can't top her.

Context matters.

Re:Marilyn Monroe Complicated Things...

[swilly]

And he would be right. By historical standards, everyone in America is obscenely wealthy.

Re:Marilyn Monroe Complicated Things...

[ChrisMaple]

Jean Harlow.

Re:Marilyn Monroe Complicated Things...

[Anonymous Coward]

All those fat people still go to work and still do their chores. Few of us can afford a horse, let alone enough land to graze a sheep, which may make us seem the opposite once the nobleman has a chance to really look around. Rather, food in America is obscenely cheap. It may not always be so. We can farm this land for the next million years, but not the same way we have been for the last 200.

Re:Marilyn Monroe Complicated Things...

[Anonymous Coward]

Limited exposure to the diversity of human appearance at the time of her rise to fame.
Far, far, far fewer opportunities for the common person to see a wide variety of pretty much anything.
So, if the movie theatres put up a picture of a woman and tell you she is super hot you tend to follow along.

Today you can find more videos of a wider array of women in 10 minutes than you could have in your entire life at the time of her peak fame.
Main reason.

Re:Marilyn Monroe Complicated Things...

[operagost]

Well, considering that Monroe's fame exploded when she appeared nude in Playboy, I'm not sure that clothing level was an issue.

I'm guessing that the lack of artificial enhancement is the problem. If you don't have fake DD cups, 40% tattoo coverage, and multiple body piercings, you don't register. For these folks, even Bettie Page is too tame and boring.

I always knew there was a reason...

[chasm22]

My criminal tendencies date back to when I was a little tyke and grandma made me sing that song.

I coulda been a champion grandma.

I almost want

[Anonymous Coward]

I almost want the copyright to be upheld so in 200 years from now (or whatever copyright gets extended to next), when hopefully sane people are around, they will have a hysterical laugh at how bad we let things get that we can't frigging distribute a singing of Happy Birthday without worry.

Alternative song

[Anonymous Coward]

We have used this version for years... and there are hundreds of verses and variations

To the tune of the Volga Boatman:
Happy Birthday! Happy Birthday!
So you've aged another year
Your demise is surely near
Happy Birthday! Happy Birthday!

Performed:
https://youtu.be/8H8e-2TLgpA

History:
http://wiki.caid-commons.org/index.php/Mongolian_Birthday_Song

Re:Alternative song

[ArcadeMan]

I'd like to see a "happy birthday" song to the music of "Chacarron" by El Chombo.

Re:Alternative song

[vonart]

Would you have to change any lyrics? I mean, how do you know he's *not* singing happy birthday?

There's already an alternative

[Pfhorrest]

There's already an alternate birthday song sun in every restaurant I've ever been to that had sang to people on their birthdays:

Happy happy birthday
From all of us to you!
We wish it was our birthday
So we could party too!

I always like to sing along under by breath a little parody I made up on the very topic of this article:

Happy happy birthday
From all of us to you!
We'd sing you "Happy Birthday"
But then we would get sued!

Re:There's already an alternative

[jhecht]

Happy Birthday to you You belong in the Zoo You look like a monkey And you smell like one too.

Re:There's already an alternative

[Anonymous Coward]

Happy Birthday to you
You belong in the Zoo
You look like a monkey
And you smell like one too.

Racist as fuck..

Re:There's already an alternative

[Anonymous Coward]

Happy Birthday to you
You belong in the Zoo
You look like a monkey
And you smell like one too.

Racist as fuck..

Why is that racist? Says more about you I think. The version I was taught as a kid used the word 'Elephant' (you can make the line drag out much better before the punchline with the words '... an Elephant').

Re:There's already an alternative

[Opportunist]

THAT is racist. On the racism scale from black to white, that's at least Mexican.

Re:There's already an alternative

[umghhh]

You may be showing your inner racism by connecting smell and race.

Re:There's already an alternative

[Drethon]

But if you use the same tune they will probably still sue you even if the words are different.

Re:There's already an alternative

[NoBrakes58]

Well, at least the lyrics about getting sued would likely qualify as parody and thus fair use.

Re:There's already an alternative

[Pfhorrest]

It doesn't use the same tune. The alternative song I'm talking about was featured in a restaurant in The Emperor's New Groove, so here's a clip from that:

http://youtu.be/q9h57OIaMFs

...or maybe 2025

[michaelmalak]

FTFA:

later, sometime in the '20s, the 'Happy Birthday to You' lyrics were added to the melody, and Summy copyrighted that.

If "sometime in '20s" was 1929, then this copyright calculator says Jan. 1, 2025.

Re:...or maybe 2025

[ClickOnThis]

FTFA:

later, sometime in the '20s, the 'Happy Birthday to You' lyrics were added to the melody, and Summy copyrighted that.

If "sometime in '20s" was 1929, then this copyright calculator says Jan. 1, 2025.

Also FTFA:

[Warner/Chappell] says the copyright that counts is one obtained in 1935, for arrangements of the song. If that's true, "Happy Birthday to You" will eventually go into the public domain — but not for 15 more years, in 2030.

Re:...or maybe 2025

[Mahldcat]

until they decide to extend the copyright another 30 years beyond whatever it is now..... (THANKS Sonny Bono) :(

Re:...or maybe 2025

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't Mickey order a copyright extension before then?

Re:...or maybe 2025

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't really pin that one on him. He was dead by then. He died in a freak skiing accident. Or it may have been a regular one. They just named the bill in his honor, because he was Disney's senator. Or maybe Disney didn't like the idea of the Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act, because it sounds a little cheesy.

Re:...or maybe 2025

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's an alternative copyright calculator that factors in possible future updates to promote creativity, freedom, and the human spirit.

$commentSubject

[Falos]

>How did Warner/Chappell get the rights?

They called dibs. C'mon, even children know how imaginary property works.

Re:$commentSubject

[penix1]

So I see you heard of the dibs protocol and the no take backs accord as well. (Gotten from Red Vs. Blue)...

Corporations are not People

[WillAffleckUW]

Make the copyright only go to the person in 13 year periods, renewable for their life, and with one extension if they have a spouse or children that survive them.

Only allow corporations to rent part of a 13 year period. Forcing them to renegotiate with the living human for each cycle.

Make it so!

Re:Corporations are not People

[PRMan]

And add an order of magnitude for each renewal. Song's not worth $1,000,000 to you? Guess it's in the public domain then.

Re:Corporations are not People

[currently_awake]

Make copyright automatic from publication, with a term of 7 years. If they register it and pay yearly property taxes then they can keep it for 14 more. And that's it, no more extensions.

Re:Corporations are not People

[penix1]

OK... I'm going to play Devil's advocate here and ask you a couple questions...

Assume they do just as you say. What do you do with those that violate even that copyright term? You see, today things are copied usually the day they are released or in most cases even before they are released. Just how do you stop that? If you really intend to be fair, until you can answer those you are just blowing smoke.

Re:Corporations are not People

[WillAffleckUW]

OK... I'm going to play Devil's advocate here and ask you a couple questions...

Assume they do just as you say. What do you do with those that violate even that copyright term? You see, today things are copied usually the day they are released or in most cases even before they are released. Just how do you stop that? If you really intend to be fair, until you can answer those you are just blowing smoke.

Easy. Dissolve the corporation and use it's assets to pay off the national debt.

Since corporations aren't people, this seems more than fair.

Re: Corporations are not People

[Anonymous Coward]

Sue them for $750k power infringement as asked by law?

Re:Corporations are not People

[flopsquad]

Returning copyright terms to a reasonable length is about fairness to society. It has nothing to do with fairness to content creators or preventing infringement.

We the people grant a limited monopoly on creative expression in order to promote more creative expression (paraphrasing Article I, Section 8, Clause 8).

Among the arguments in favor of this monopoly right, "fairness" (i.e. I should control how this gets used because I worked hard to make it) is perhaps the least compelling.

Re:Corporations are not People

[ArsonSmith]

yearly renewal with exponential growth for as long as it is worth it to renew. If a company finds a single song worth billions in tax payment then it's a win for both the company as they've found some great way to profit off it and society as they git a huge drop in the tax bucket.

Re:Corporations are not People

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I gave them 20 years (1 generation), but each time the copyright is sold, the remaining term is cut in half. So the author sells to a corporation, 10 years. 2 years later corporation sells to another corporation, 8 years becomes 4. Seems fair and reasonable.

Re:Corporations are not People

[Anonymous Coward]

OK... I'm going to play Devil's advocate here and ask you a couple questions...

Assume they do just as you say. What do you do with those that violate even that copyright term? You see, today things are copied usually the day they are released or in most cases even before they are released. Just how do you stop that? If you really intend to be fair, until you can answer those you are just blowing smoke.

How are the 2 even related?

Do you believe reducing copyrights to 7 years should be balanced by requiring the death penalty for offenders?

Should corporations be allowed to steal for as long as we won't submit to their will?

See how easy it is to be the Devil's advocate.

Re:Corporations are not People

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess we should shortening the term first and see if people start respecting copyright law. Right now a lot of people don't respect it simply because it's current state doesn't respect normal people.

Re:Corporations are not People

[jaklode]

So, to prevent the selling halfing the term, split up the company, and sell the newly created subsidiary?

Re:Corporations are not People

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer making them pay per year of copyright and doubling the cost every time they extend it.
This way there will be a breakeven point where it stops making sense to extend copyright.

Re:Corporations are not People

[Anonymous Coward]

not only that, but "how hard you worked" is entirely irrelevant. If you scan an 18th century map and spend hours painstakingly cleaning it up your reward for that is... it still remains in the public domain. The reason is that what actually matters is that the work done was not transformative and did not create a new work -- in fact, the entire point of the effort is to preserve the original. Therefore the copyright remains with the original and, being public domain, it remains public domain.

This is well established in the courts, though companies continue to lie and claim copyright on works that reside in the public domain. In general, you can't win against them because they have sufficient money and unless you can afford a lengthy lawsuit to prove *yet again* that such items are in the public domain you will lose.

Re:Corporations are not People

[Anonymous Coward]

even the MPAA has been caught violating copyright
but claim it's ok because they are the MPAA and can do whatever they want.

The MPAA admitted to making copies of the film contrary to Dick's wishes[7] although they contend that doing so did not constitute copyright infringement or a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)

.

Re:Corporations are not People

[j-beda]

yearly renewal with exponential growth for as long as it is worth it to renew. If a company finds a single song worth billions in tax payment then it's a win for both the company as they've found some great way to profit off it and society as they git a huge drop in the tax bucket.

This type of thing is what I have always supported. Make the first N years free and automatic, and allow people to pay multiple years at a time to keep the book-keeping easier, if the first paid year was $1 and it doubled for each subsequent year, after 20 years the bill is a bit over a million while the first 10 years were only about a thousand bucks. If the "free" period was 7 or 10 years, people would have time enough to decide if it was valuable enough to protect for longer, and the vast majority of stuff would quickly fall into the public domain without hurting people who actually have produced something of extended monetary value. Mickey Mouse type products would generate considerable tax revenue, and a whole lot of stuff would quickly fall into the public domain.

Re:Corporations are not People

[Anonymous Coward]

1. By public-domaining a bunch of stuff, it lets authorities focus on the stuff that should be protected instead of running around protecting a song written almost a hundred years ago.

2. Same thing society-wise. Right now violation is the norm, because EVERYTHING is under 'protection'. Once downloading a copy of Ghostbusters to watch and reminisce is no longer breaking the law, then breaking the law no longer the status quo. For the ones who do continue to pirate - see point 1.

Once upon a time...

[thogard]

Long ago on usenet, someone who seemed to be against the long term copyright extensions was asking people to send in video of politicians singing happy birthday in public. I don't remember the specifics and I suspected it might have been a lobist or someone working for the rights holder.

I still think it would be cool for someone like the EFF to start collecting this so the next time Disney wants another 20 years, they can come out and list a whole bunch of pirates that are in congress.

Re:Once upon a time...

[Anonymous Coward]

I still think it would be cool for someone like the EFF to start collecting this so the next time Disney wants another 20 years, they can come out and list a whole bunch of pirates that are in congress.

Similar things have been tried and doesn't work.
The copyright holder doesn't want to piss off the politicians so they don't sue politicians for copyright infringement. Rather they just give the politician a license to use their IP in that context.

Re:Once upon a time...

[wasteoid]

Great idea! Congressmen won't vote for something that jeopardizes themselves.

"Authors and Investors"

[Dereck1701]

"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."

Key words spelled out right in the constitution at least here in the US are "Authors and Inventors" and "limited Times", both of which appear to be FAR beyond the veil here. The artists have been dead since 1946 and no one with their head screwed on straight wound consider over a hundred and twenty years to be a "limited time" especially when you take into account that at the time the constitution was written you considered yourself lucky if you lived into your 40s.

Re:"Authors and Investors"

[Foobar of Borg]

The artists have been dead since 1946 and no one with their head screwed on straight wound consider over a hundred and twenty years to be a "limited time" especially when you take into account that at the time the constitution was written you considered yourself lucky if you lived into your 40s.

Well, lawyers have successfully argued in court that it does constitute a "limited time" since it is not infinitely long. Oh wait, I think I just made your point for you!

Re:"Authors and Investors"

[westlake]

Key words spelled out right in the constitution at least here in the US are "Authors and Inventors" and "limited Times", both of which appear to be FAR beyond the veil here.

"Limited" means nothing until the terms are fixed in legislation. It demands a judgment call, a policy decision, a political decision.

Re:"Authors and Investors"

[tao]

Also, the intention is clearly to to benefit the Authors and Inventors. NOT publishers. NOT performers. NOT record companies. NOT patent trolls. NOT descendants of the original Author/Inventor.

Re:"Authors and Investors"

[ChrisMaple]

It's my understanding that in common law anything less than 100 years is considered finite, 100 years is unlimited.

Re:"Authors and Investors"

[j-beda]

Also, the intention is clearly to to benefit the Authors and Inventors. NOT publishers. NOT performers. NOT record companies. NOT patent trolls. NOT descendants of the original Author/Inventor.

Actually the intent is not to "benefit the Authors and Inventors" but to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".

The real story is even worse

[SoftwareArtist]

This article isn't very accurate. The real story make the copyright claims even more absurd. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... The melody and general idea of the lyrics date back at least to the mid-1800s. The song "Good Morning to All" was published in a song book in 1893, but the authors of that book had been singing it with their kindergarten class for many years, and it's not clear they were the original authors of it. The same melody with the words "Happy Birthday to You" was, it appears, an innovation of children who had been in their class, who started singing it at birthday parties. The tradition spread, and it appeared in print at least as early as 1912.

So what do they actually have a copyright on? Well, a piano arrangement was published in 1935. And years later someone came across that piano arrangement, found that a copyright had been registered on it, and (presumably being ignorant of the actual history of the song), thought they owned a copyright on the song and started trying to enforce it.

Re:The real story is even worse

[omnichad]

And no one really uses that piano arrangement (my guess), so almost none of the enforcement should ever have been valid.

Re:The real story is even worse

[AthanasiusKircher]

And no one really uses that piano arrangement (my guess), so almost none of the enforcement should ever have been valid.

But the problem is that U.S. court precedent has mostly considered the idea that melody is the primary determinant of copyright. For better or for worse, that's generally the standard. Now, whether this particular arrangement is the earliest to contain proper notice and copyright registration, as well as a properly filed renewal (as was required during that period)... well these are all interesting questions.

The claim to copyright today is completely bogus. But the specific piano arrangement is legally irrelevant for the copyright claim, only the melody and proper copyright for any fixed publication of that melody.

Re:The real story is even worse

[jdavidb]

And years later someone came across that piano arrangement, found that a copyright had been registered on it, and (presumably being ignorant of the actual history of the song), thought they owned a copyright on the song and started trying to enforce it.

When it comes to copyright, never attribute to ignorance that which can be adequately explained by malice. They always try to enforce the rights further than they know they are entitled to.

Thank God!

[Anonymous Coward]

If they didn't have such long (limited, but retroactively extendable) copyright terms, we'd never have even more innovative happy birthday songs to sing!... wait, that is the point, right?

No worries for Warner/Chappell

[portwojc]

The mouse goes public domain in 2024. I'm sure this will be fixed soon.

Copyright Extensions Unconstitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

It is about time someone started challenging the extension of existing copyrights as invalid as being ex post facto laws.

Re:Copyright Extensions Unconstitutional

[russotto]

It is about time someone started challenging the extension of existing copyrights as invalid as being ex post facto laws.

Lawrence Lessig did. He lost, as usual. That was Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003)

Re:Copyright Extensions Unconstitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, unfortunately. "Forever minus a day" seems legislatively possible, probably in increments. We're just about due for a new extension (2018 is 20 years after the 1998 extension). Hopefully there won't be political will to do that.

Re:Copyright Extensions Unconstitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

He lost, IMHO, because he focused on the "limited term" part and not the "promote the progress" part of the clause.

Re:Copyright Extensions Unconstitutional

[Areyoukiddingme]

Lawrence Lessig did. He lost, as usual. That was Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003)

At least he has a good idea what he did wrong. Whoever tries again will avoid that mistake, at least.

NEW Lyrics?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the lyrics are what they claim copyright on, but its likely created written by her. She simply wrote it down in a music book.

The thing is that because everyone is dead, you can't call them to testify in court under oath, so this cannot be investigated or ruled on by a court with any likely hood of facts.

Which points to the big issue: Copyright continuing long after the death of everyone involved in the original work/contracts/rights!

Singing Happy Birthday in a restaurant too !

[SlashDotterOne]

Singing Happy Birthday in Public is Really Copyright Infringement - or is it ?

In recent years, some legal scholars have pointed out a number of potential problems with Warner/Chappell's claims to copyright ownership of "Happy Birthday to You," namely that there is little or no evidence that Patty Smith Hill actually wrote the lyrics to the song, that the first authorized publication of "Happy Birthday to You" bore an improper copyright notice (resulting in forfeiture of copyright protection), and that the copyright renewals filed in 1963 by Summy-Birchard covered only particular arrangements of the song and not the song itself. In June 2013, a film company working on a documentary about "Happy Birthday to You" filed a class action lawsuit which seeks to invalidate Warner/Chappell's claim to copyright ownership of the song and force the company to return millions of dollars they have collected over the years for wrongfully asserting copyright ownership Do you know what this would mean ? Every restaurant in the world would be singing "Happy Birthday" instead of some lame locally made up song. We would be hearing "Happy Birthday" at every TV show birthday party! That song will inundate society more than it already does. At present, many restaurants make up their own "Happy Birthday" songs to avoid copyright issues.

Sad Happy Birthday baby

How Can I Help Stop Infringement?

The best way to stop infringement is to tell the authorities and the owners so that they can follow up and arrange for a license and for royalties to be paid. Licenses for Happy Birthday are controlled by ASCAP. While monetary royalties will be negligible for a single restaurant performance, it is the principle that is at stake. If you have seen someone singing Happy Birthday in a restaurant, a park, or at a school, you should tell ASCAP so that they can arrange for a license. If you are an offender, you should apologize and offer to pay whatever is due — a nickel, a quarter, a dollar — whatever ASCAP demands. There is an overwhelming amount of copyright infringement of Happy Birthday. Let's right the balance and tell ASCAP about every one of these violations! There are many ways to get in contact with ASCAP:

Email licensing@ascap.com

Scène à faire

[Anonymous Coward]

The copyright should be unenforceable against a TV show or restaurant that uses the song during a birthday celebration. The doctrine is called "Scène à faire", that which must be done. In the United States, this song is almost always sung at a birthday and if it wasn't sung, you'd have to explain why. This is a case where copyright cannot apply because the song has to be sung. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sc%C3%A8nes_%C3%A0_faire

Money for nuthin' (On Topic)

[Anonymous Coward]

1) If you listen to current versions they've changed the lyrics a bit. They've removed the 'banging on the bongos' part and changed it to random mumbles. I think some other stuff was changed to make it more PC as well.
New Version

2) Sting was brought in to sing the "I want my MTV" lyrics for Dire Straits. Legend has it, he fairly quickly figured out that the melody and rhythm to "I want my MTV" was part of his song "Don't Stand So Close to Me". He is now listed in the credits for this song, and I assume gets a piece of the royalties.

Greedy bastards

[RogueWarrior65]

Witness the greed of people who expect to be paid perpetually for something they may or may not have created years ago. I'll bet anyone would take that action if they could. "Hey, man, I made what you called an awesome cheeseburger last year. You owe me royalties." Oh, wait, that does sound stupid.

confused

[micahraleigh]

If a lot of people came over to my house, would it become public property?

I'm not sure I understand what this post is trying to say.

Ruining the copyrights to all songs

[Keith Henson]

A few years ago there was a legal decision that you could not copyright a score that was the output of an algorithm. Pi is the output of an algorithm. If you code a song's score into a string of digits, and go searching for that sting in pi, you are sure to find it. Ergo, no song can be copyrighted.

Expired

[hucker75]

Huh? Copyright expires in 30 years doesn't it? It's WAY older than that.

Thieves get it in the end..

[Anonymous Coward]

..and it's pretty common knowledge that the birthday song was stolen from the public domain over a hundred years ago, by changing two wortds only. Besides, no sympathy should be afforded a family who regularly goes after kids birthday parties for fifty grand.. I really hope they do get what's coming to them.. in the end...

Re:nike air max 90 Pas Cher Femme

[doccus]

Wow! What a list! And ALL counterfeit. THat's something you can take to the bank. Oh forgot.. "Replicas" Well, that's all right then eh?