"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

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: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.