Slashdot Mirror
"Happy Birthday To You" Now Public Domain
New submitter Duckman5 writes: As mentioned on multiple occasions, the popular song "Happy Birthday To You" has recently been the subject of a lawsuit between a couple of documentary filmmakers and Warner/Chappell Music. The judge in the case, George H. King, has finally issued his ruling and according to NPR and the LA Times, that song is finally in the public domain. Warner is still apparently "considering our options," so this may not be the end of it, but it seems to be a turn in the right direction. Also at the Washington Post, among many others.
It should be public domain due to how old it is, not that Warner doesn't have a valid copyright.
THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
Copyright law is a ridiculous monster these days. All effort and energy wasted in this case is bewildering. People spent many years studying this case to free this one song, to prove that it isn’t “owned” by anyone. This is ridiculous, a hundred years after who wrote the melody died. We are holding our culture, our art, at ransom in the hands of faceless greedy corporate entities, for the benefit of nobody. Copyright was originally meant to encourage more art to be created, not this.
This is a misreport. The judge didn't say that the Happy Birthday song was in the public domain. What he said was that the folks who claimed to own it failed to prove that they owned it. No one could produce an evidence trail substantiating that the folks who filed for copyright in the 1930s actually owned it. That makes the claimed copyright invalid but it doesn't preclude the existence of a copyright.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
I'm sorry but I read your submission and it quotes the article saying "the world’s most popular song belongs to...the world." What other interpretation is there besides that meaning it's public domain? As the AC below (and the articles) state, the song was published in 1922 without a notice of copyright. Under the laws governing copyright at the time, that means that they could not assert copyright on the Happy Birthday words. It's public domain.
I guess, theoretically, some cockroach could crawl out of the woodwork tomorrow and say "but look, my great grandaddy published the words WITH the copyright statement in 1921! I own the words!" Yes, it's possible, but not particularly likely. The only group to ever assert copyright on it was Warner and the chain of holders before they finally purchased it. At this point it might as well be over.
My guess is they'll still be litigating this ridiculous nonsense in 100 years, or by the time we have flying cars, whichever takes longer.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
It doesn't matter, because the very existence of that songbook means the song predates 1922, which would mean even an "authorized" 1922 publication's copyright would have expired.
Now let's see if Warner has to return the monies they took for licensing a song that they didn't actually own.
They ought to pay at least $10,000 per infringement -- that is, for each person who wanted to hear that song but was denied because Warner was claiming copyright. So, every time you heard a weird birthday song, $10,000 for each person present. And that's being generous, it should cost much more to directly infringe on people's liberties than to refuse to honor someone's state-granted monopoly.
Stealing from the public domain ought to hurt.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways