"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.)

Comments

What I like best is

[rsilvergun]

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?

Re:What I like best is

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably never

Then again, thanks to the internet, maybe locked out content will be treated as damage and routed around. I mean as much as love movies I feel like that industry is fading. It'll still kick around, like theatre, but it won't be the same.

In a perfect world big stupid companies like Disney fight and spend stupid amounts of money to keep the rights to all this garbage just in time for nobody to give a shit anymore

I'll take my rights now

[jdavidb]

In the meantime, I'll just keep practicing civil disobedience.

Mickey and Pooh leave prison in 2024

[tepples]

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?

Re:Read: "Warner avoids massive class-action lawsu

[KGIII]

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).

Re:Chemo

[jc42]

Yes! Down with copyright! Musicians and writers should never be paid!

Most of them never have been paid. Copyright as interpreted by the courts in the US and many other countries is basically a tool for the publishing and recording industries to insist that the creators sign the copyright over to them, otherwise their newly-created works will never be seen or heard by the public. Once an artist signs the "standard" contracts, they have no further rights over their creative works, and only get paid the minimum that their corporate masters decide will keep them producing.

Of course, the internet has made some inroads on that. I know a number of musicians who are making more from their personal web site than they'd ever get from a recording-industry contract. But the legalities surrounding this are a bit tricky, and lots of artists get tricked into signing away the rights to their output anyway.

(I've had fun pointing out the statement in many ISP and other "hosting" companies contracts saying that anything copied to their machines become the property of the company. ISPs routinely ban and block web servers on customers' sites, and generously offer to host the web site on the company's machine. Then, when a musician or writer produces a best seller, the ISP can step in and claim the income for themselves, since the artist agreed to the contract that transfers the copyright to the ISP. The ISPs can make it rather tricky to avoid this gotcha.)