Slashdot Mirror
"Happy Birthday To You" Set To Finally Reach the Public Domain
schnell writes: The New York Times reports that "the world's most popular song" is at last poised to be released into the public domain. From the story: "In September, a federal judge ruled that Warner Music, the song's publisher, did not have a valid copyright claim to 'Happy Birthday,' which has been estimated to collect $2 million a year in royalties. But what that ruling meant for the future of the song — and Warner's liability — was unclear, and a trial had been set to begin next week. In a filing on Tuesday in United States District Court in Los Angeles, the parties in the case said they had agreed to a settlement to end the case. The terms of that deal are confidential. But if the settlement is approved by the court, the song is expected to formally enter the public domain." (We mentioned the case in September, too.)
They made hundreds of millions of dollars off of a single fraudulent copyright claim and will experience no repercussions. These are the people RIAA is fighting for.
"Happy Birthday" is for LUDDITES. Modern app appers sing "Appy Appday to App!"
Apps!
Happy birth... sorry I'll cease and desist my rendition of your song in text form... Pleasant Day of Birth to you, Pleasant Day of Birth to you..
That Happy Birthday of all things could have stayed so long locked under copyright is the prime example of why Copyright is such a horrible cancer for society.
This is not about anything but making more profit for big labels.
Happy Birthday to you.
So we will have to hear it even more often ?
Warner's extortion plan had some positive aspects indeed.
For years we've waited with bated breath for such a revelation. Now that happy birthday is truly free, armies of Applebees servers, waitresses, and line cooks can rejoice as through their dead posture and vacant saccharine manufactured glee theyre paraded out in front of yet one more table of midwestern suburbanites to sing the true call of happy birthday to a fourty-something housewife checking her phone.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Better just walk away and let it go then have the court establish a precedent of how to "force" works into Public Domain.
that the copyright on a song whose melody was composed in 1893 and lyrics in the 30s is _still_ being contested. IIRC nothing has lapsed into the public domain since 2010, and that's not likely to change. Anyone remember when the Mouse is up for another extension?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Then why are the terms of the deal confidential ? If this results in the song entering the public domain, it is essentially a complete loss for Warner Music. It is hard to imagine that Warner would see the need for a confidential deal in that case.
Isn't the most popular song that "Watch me whip, now watch me neigh neigh!" song?!
No, it will NOT enter the public domain. It will become an orphan work.
How much other material is hiding behind the same kind of false copyright terms?
The song has been in public domain for many decades now. Warner Bros has just falsely taken money from people. Perhaps they should be sued?
Warner Bros is wrong as they are on so many of their other expired copyrights and the courts are just stupid. But when the rich pay for the laws to be written by political brides, this is what we get.
They made hundreds of millions of dollars off of a single fraudulent copyright claim and will experience no repercussions. These are the people RIAA is fighting for.
These people fund the RIAA (along with the other major labels), so naturally the RIAA fights for them.
In the meantime, I'll just keep practicing civil disobedience.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
They made hundreds of millions of dollars off of a single fraudulent copyright claim and will experience no repercussions. These are the people RIAA is fighting for.
What exactly prevents any individual who paid the license fees to request a refund plus interest?
Happy birthday to you,
Happy birthday to you,
Unless you're Warner Music,
In which case sod off.
That's kind of the point of the settlement. If you didn't already jump on board, I'm not sure if it isn't too late. :P
wait, no. ban /. .
The only thing that happened here is that Warner Music has been forced to release their unlawful claim to the music. It already is in public domain.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
They probably signed a license agreement that prevents them from doing so. Whether that contract would stand up in a court of law is undetermined.
I'd have thought the only reason Warner would have settled would have been because that avoided Happy Birthday going into the public domain.
the copyright on a song [from] the 30s is _still_ being contested.
U.S. copyright in works of authorship first published in 1923 through 1977 or later subsists for 95 years after the end of the year in which the work was first published. If a song's lyrics were first published in the 1930s, it would have fallen under this rule. A pre-1923 publication, on the other hand, would have put the lyrics in the public domain.
Anyone remember when the Mouse is up
The keystone of copyright in Mickey Mouse is three short films published in 1928: Plane Crazy, The Gallopin' Gaucho, and Steamboat Willie. Likewise, the keystone of copyright in Winnie the Pooh is the books Winnie-the-Pooh and The House at Pooh Corner, the latter having been first published in 1928. Under current law, copyright in these works expires at the end of 2023, meaning those characters become fair game starting in 2024. (And before you say "trademark", read through Dastar v. Fox.)
for another extension?
The Supreme Court has allowed re-extension of a copyright term that had already been extended, but only when the extension has had the intent of harmonizing the term to that of another major developed market. For example, the Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft allowed the 1998 extension to let the U.S. harmonize with the European Union but was careful to distinguish it from what copyright reform advocates have since called "perpetual copyright on the installment plan." With which major developed market would a subsequent term extension prior to the end of 2023 harmonize?
In addition to a declaration that copyright did not subsist in "Happy Birthday to You", the lawsuit sought a refund of royalties to the class of licensees. I imagine the confidentiality relates to Warner's payout under that claim.
trademarks do not expire
Trademarks die once they are no longer distinctive. Exclusive rights under the Lanham Act cannot be used to extend the effective term of an expired U.S. copyright. See Dastar v. Fox .
So this may be the case for the USA, but what about other countries?
It looks like they settled before class-action status was granted. Or even asked for? If class-action status was granted, this would be dragging out for another year or more as they looked for people to join the action, put it before a judge, and negotiate a settlement.
And the real harm was the chilling effect on using the song. Harder to measure that in monetary terms.
I actually find it hard to believe that this is true. I'm half-tempted to make a bet that, within a year, this will be back in court.
Hmm... Anyone want to take the bet? I'll sing and upload the song if it's not back in court within a year from today if anyone wants to take the opposite bet where they sing and upload the song (and accept the consequences).
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
In a twist to the case, the Association for Childhood Education International, a nonprofit group that was co-founded by Patty Hill [the sister of the composer of the song] and has collected a large portion of the song’s royalties, filed a motion last month arguing that if Warner did not control the copyright to “Happy Birthday,” then it did.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I'll sing...
NO! Please don't! I believe you!
I wondered after 20 year imprisonment for copyright infringement in the UK if people with birthday parties on facebook would get prison time.
God spoke to me
I need citation. I think it might be natives anglophone's most popular song, but not world's. I been around the world and most cultures have their own song song for birthdays totally different than the english happy birthday. The one song I have found in common amongst Christians has been holy night, which is a german song, I think
Beatles' songs are covered by copyright — Yes, the (mostly) Lennon/McCartney lyrics and music. But the audio recordings are covered by a completely different beast, the "related performance rights", which have their own rulebook.
I agree it's a sneaky way to win a bet...
When I break out in song the top request is "The refrain from singing"...
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
Why would it be invalid? License agreements for patents between corporations are generally like that [anything paid for a royalty/license fee is non refundable, even if patent is later found to be invalid]. Hell, just recently the precedent was set that patent holders can't force royalty payments for time periods after the patent has expired [patent runs out in 2 years, but holder says you pay royalties for 5 or 10 years or you have to wait].
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Let me guess: "If we can keep the royalties we've unlawfully forced people to pay, we won't fight this in court for another ten years."
Confidential is confidential because they don't want the public to know.
The plaintiff would need to show that Warner knew or should have known that the copyright was expired. Then the contract might be thrown out by a judge for being fraudulent.
The RIAA is truly the association of death. They are evil, they hate us and want us to die. They raped my teddy bear. They raped my teddy bear. Moo.
2 million per year for more than 100 years. Sounds like $200,000,000 that doesn't belong to them. Time to pay that money back.
The real harm was all the creation of all those corporatized chant/non-happy birthday songs.
Who can forget such gems as ..
Applebeeâ(TM)s is fun, itâ(TM)s true,
Especially when we sing for you.
Good news is we sing for free!
Bad news is we sing off key!
Chevys
Happy, happy birthday,
Todayâ(TM)s your birthday day!
You are one year older,
And so weâ(TM)re here to say:
First you get your flan,
And then you eat it, too.
So happy, happy birthday,
From all of us to you!
Ole!
Chuck E. Cheese
Clap your hands!
Now stomp your feet!
Youâ(TM)re a Birthday Star at Chuck E. Cheese!
Youâ(TM)re our special guest,
We all aim to please
Youâ(TM)re big time, big stuff, going far
Hereâ(TM)s to you, our Birthday Star!
Chiliâ(TM)s
Happy happy birthday,
From the Chiliâ(TM)s crew,
We wish it was our birthday
So we could party too.
HEY!
LongHorn Steakhouse
Fried chicken,
Country hog,
Itâ(TM)s your birthday:
Hot dog!
Olive Garden
From the pasta we make
To lasagna we bake
Ba ba ba ba
Weâ(TM)re wishing you a happy birthday!
We hope you will remember
This fond event forever
Weâ(TM)re wishing you a happy birthday!
Itâ(TM)s like family and friends
At the Olive Garden
In the true Italiano way
Hey! Hey!
So if youâ(TM)re looking for some fun
Try Hospitaliano
Have a happy happy day!
Hey!
---
It hurts even to read them.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
One of the rules of contracts is that both parties must get something. Called "Consideration", in contract law. It doesn't strictly have to be of equal value (I can sell a gold plated car for $1 if I want) but both parties must get something.
So based on my complete absence of expertise, I'd guess the contract could be invalidated on the basis that the recipient didn't get anything of value. That's assuming Warner only licensed the song, of course. They might have licensed rights to a catalogue of songs of which only Happy Birthday is actually worth anything.
so, how is this news 4 nerdz?
This will not happen, I can assure that Happy Birthday will not be entering the public domain any time soon. When there is money to be made the corporate scumbags will do anything to keep this copyrighted perpetually.
Are they that much worse than the original?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I've read that harmonizing for less would be perceived as a 'taking' under the Fifth Amendment and would thus require the logistical nightmare of providing "just compensation" for all copyright owners for the portion of the copyright term "taken for public use".
I wonder if they'll wipe the massive debts of all those 6 year olds busted for singing that song in public.
Not really. But they contribute additional badness to the world.
Did Warner ever sue Marilyn Monroe for singing "Happy Birthday" to JFK?
Yet another secret out-of-court settlement. And somewhere (not the Times article) I read that both parties agreed to vacate the previous ruling. So NOTHING is official.
And a reminder, the court ruled that Warner Music did not have valid copyright. That's not the same as ruling that "Happy et al" is public domain. American courts never do something so useful. Instead they leave the situation open to future litigation.
Are they that much worse than the original?
Remember that the original was intended for young children. It wasn't supposed to be a great work of musical art; it was intended to be something that a 5-year-old could easily learn to sing.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
The plaintiff would need to show that Warner knew or should have known that the copyright was expired. Then the contract might be thrown out by a judge for being fraudulent.
The "smoking gun" in the whole thing was the copy of the original publication that Warner presented to the court. It has a smudged-out piece of text that they claimed no knowledge of. Someone found a copy of the book in a library, and the text wasn't smudged out. It was the original copyright information.
Ya can look it up ... (Try googling "Happy Birthday smudge" .;-)
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Wow wow! This is much better:
Fried chicken,
Country hog,
It's your birthday:
Hot dog!
No company. No slogans. Just fun.
Why does that mean it has to be shit? There are plenty of children's tunes that aren't.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."