Slashdot Mirror


"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.

5 of 178 comments (clear)

  1. Re:A better solution by Daemonik · · Score: 3, Informative

    ..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.

  2. The real story is even worse by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
  3. Re:Copyright Extensions Unconstitutional by russotto · · Score: 3, Informative

    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)

  4. Scène à faire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    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

  5. Re:The obvious test case for ludicrous copyright by dargaud · · Score: 4, Informative

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

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?