"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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

[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.

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: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.

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: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: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...

$commentSubject

[Falos]

>How did Warner/Chappell get the rights?

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

Re:It's clearly out of copyright

[ArcadeMan]

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

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: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: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: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: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.