Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

"Happy Birthday To You" Set To Finally Reach the Public Domain

Posted by timothy on from the long-in-the-tooth dept.

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.)

19 of 120 comments (clear)

  1. Read: "Warner avoids massive class-action lawsuit" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  2. Chemo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Chemo by jc42 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    2. Re:Chemo by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      Property doesn't grant copyright (i.e. the right to make copies.) Just as if you buy a copy of a CD, that copy becomes your property, but it doesn't entitle you the right to make copies and distribute (with the exception of fair use purposes.) It would need language like "you agree to transfer all copyrights to anything you upload", and good luck with that if their customers didn't own those rights to begin with (which in many cases they don't, i.e. Apple doesn't own the copyrights to its iTunes songs that it uploads to Microsoft's Azure cloud. And yes, iTunes IS hosted on Microsoft's Azure.)

  3. thank god for that. by nimbius · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  4. What I like best is by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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/
    1. Re:What I like best is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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

    2. Re:What I like best is by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Informative

      Now, the interesting question would be, as a trademark, can Mickey Mouse be used under fair use?

      I would think it'd depend on the precise way the cartoon is used. I would expect that if you posted the early MM movies on your website, under a disclaimer saying that these were produced by Disney and are now out of copyright, that you would be ok. However, if you posted them in a way that made users think your website was Disney approved, then you would be in trouble.

      This site is really good IMHO, (and also check out the section on fair use of trademarks):

      if the mark is being used by another party in such a manner that potential consumers are likely to believe that such use is endorsed by or is otherwise associated with the mark’s owner, then the mark’s owner may have rights to prevent such use and to seek damages and other remedies for the same.

      That page makes clear that trademark rights are not as strong as copyright rights, and they are harder to get. You don't get a trademark just by creating a character.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  5. "World's Most Popular"? by dohzer · · Score: 2

    Isn't the most popular song that "Watch me whip, now watch me neigh neigh!" song?!

  6. Re:Read: "Warner avoids massive class-action lawsu by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  7. I'll take my rights now by jdavidb · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    --
    Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
    1. Re:I'll take my rights now by kheldan · · Score: 2

      I dunno about 'secessionism' being a basic right of all sentient beings, but 'civil disobedience' sure as hell is, or should be; life (the continuance of, and quality of, that is) more important than government, or even laws; those two things are supposed to facilitate life, not the other way around. When they get transposed, then Bad Things are happening; the system is broken and must be 'fixed' -- thus 'civil disobedience'. As someone else once said, 'Soap box, ballot box, and ammo box -- use them in that order'. 'Secession' should the be last resort. If your system of government doesn't allow the first two, and you have to immediately go to the third and last option, then you've got a poorly designed system of government.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  8. Mickey and Pooh leave prison in 2024 by tepples · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Mickey and Pooh leave prison in 2024 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Outside of the US it "harmonizes" copyright to meet the new US duration. So for lots of the world it does extend copyright.

      All it takes is for one country to extend it some more, and then everyone else can ratchet theirs up in the name of consistency.

      3. Profit!

    2. Re:Mickey and Pooh leave prison in 2024 by gwolf · · Score: 2

      In fact... The US is getting its copyright terms extended by the TPP. Mexico has life-plus-100-years since 1995, and as a signer country of TPP, that will make our (stupid) terms become the norm for all of the other partners. Yay for harmonization :-P

  9. Dastar v. Fox by tepples · · Score: 3, Informative

    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 .

  10. Re:Read: "Warner avoids massive class-action lawsu by KGIII · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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."
  11. Here's an interesting twist by phantomfive · · Score: 2

    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."
  12. Re: Read: "Warner avoids massive class-action laws by sjames · · Score: 2

    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.