Need another reason to hate WMG?

[Thorvald of Lym]

They own the copyright to the Happy Birthday song, and aren't afraid to flex it.

From arstechnica.com

Filmmaker picks a copyright fight with “Happy Birthday”
The copyright on the world's most popular song? A new lawsuit says it's bogus.
by Joe Mullin - June 14 2013, 1:45pm EST


Filmmakers and TV producers have long been harassed by Warner/Chappell Music, a subsidiary of Time Warner that enforces the copyright on "Happy Birthday," probably the most popular song in the world. If that song pops up in any TV show or movie, the creators are sure to get a hefty bill. The makers of the critically acclaimed 1994 documentary Hoop Dreams had to pay $5,000 for a scene of one of the protagonists' families singing the song. By 1996, Warner/Chappell was pulling in more than $2 million per year from licensing.

Now there's a new documentary about the song, and of course, the filmmakers had to pay the fee for a "synchronization license"—it was $1,500.

But it sure didn't sit well with them. Yesterday, Good Morning To You, the company that made the documentary, filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to prove once and for all that the copyright on "Happy Birthday" is long dead. The lyrics are extremely similar to an 1893 song called "Good Morning to All," published in a book called Song Stories for the Kindergarten. The lawsuit contains numerous other early examples that predate the official claimed "Happy Birthday" copyright registration date of 1935.

The idea that the "Happy Birthday" copyright is bogus isn't new. A heavily researched 2010 legal paper out of George Washington University found that the song "is almost certainly no longer under copyright, due to a lack of evidence about who wrote the words; defective copyright notice; and a failure to file a proper renewal application." In his dissent in Eldred v. Ashcroft, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer cited the song when he denounced endless copyright extensions, noting that it is based on an 1893 melody.

The lawsuit seeks class-action status; the filmmakers are hoping that everyone who has paid illegitimate license fees for singing "Happy Birthday" from June 13, 2009 until present will get a check from Time Warner.

“Before I began my filmmaking career, I never thought the song was owned by anyone," Jennifer Nelson, the filmmaker who made the movie, told The New York Times. "I thought it belonged to everyone.” Nelson is featured in this morning's edition of the NYT, holding a 1924 songbook called "Harvest Hymns," which includes the Happy Birthday song.

Advocates for copyright reform have resented the Happy Birthday copyright for some time now and are looking forward to its being challenged. "This is gonna be great," writes Cory Doctorow at BoingBoing. The full lawsuit is available at Techdirt.

Further details and the lawsuit submission can be read here.

I gather that copyright in the music industry is already largely rent-seeking, but I am utterly astounded by this.

Although it does explain why, despite being such an iconic song, I've almost never heard it in film or television...

 

[SamSniped]

Just a bit absurd? -.-

 

[JohannaK]

Long live Warner.

 

[Zelig]

I hope this somehow results in WMG getting all of their copyright nullified.

 

[kramerfan86]

The various RIAA labels are a joke, their own incompetence and failure to adapt to the times is ignored and instead they desperately lash out through the courts to recoup falling sales.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

They own the copyright to the Happy Birthday song, and aren't afraid to flex it.

From arstechnica.com



Further details and the lawsuit submission can be read here.

I gather that copyright in the music industry is already largely rent-seeking, but I am utterly astounded by this.

Although it does explain why, despite being such an iconic song, I've almost never heard it in film or television...

We sing the Beatles' Birthday Song. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHRMX9Brq0s

Much cooler.
Sent via mobile; apologies for any mistakes.

 

[warpus]

The Happy Birthday song is actually a song that was written a couple decades earlier (IIRC, could have time timespan wrong), with the lyrics replaced. The people holding the copyright don't really have any legitimate claim to have written it. These intellectual property extension things are just rich people patting themselves on and scratching eachothers' backs. It's not good for innovation and it's not good for America

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I think we all know that and agree with you. And I bet the same pretty much applies to the American people. Yet nothing happens. I suppose it is because it is a democracy.

 

[aelf]

Without copyright, who will write our future birthday song?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The song used in the SCA is a lot more fun (if a bit depressing). You get to pound your fist on the table, while singing about burning, pillaging, looting, and dying...

 

[danjuno]

I've heard that Copyright can be expanded until 70 years after the owner's death (but don't quote me on that), while patents go for ~20 years and are nonrenewable. If anything, copyrights should expire sooner than patents, because songs and movies can fall out of relevance much quicker than physical products.

 

[AlpsStranger]

While we definitely need something a lot like copyright law ( and I'm simply going to ignore anyone naive enough to entirely deny this ) I think it clearly isn't "working as intended." It should protect and reward innovation, not provide endless perks based on weird technicalities and gimmicks.

 

[Antilogic]

Although it does explain why, despite being such an iconic song, I've almost never heard it in film or television...

It's also why restaurants have their own happy birthday tunes, because otherwise they are risking a similar lawsuit.

I've heard that Copyright can be expanded until 70 years after the owner's death (but don't quote me on that), while patents go for ~20 years and are nonrenewable. If anything, copyrights should expire sooner than patents, because songs and movies can fall out of relevance much quicker than physical products.

Those numbers sound about right, although patents can be complicated because you have the traditional patents that we think of when hearing the word and now you have "design patents" that are more like super-protected service- and trade-marks. Like Apple's rounded corners on their iPhones, which they sued Samsung over--that mostly fell under a design patent claim, if I remember the case correctly.



We desperately need some pushback against the garbage that passes for copyright laws in the US. I'm looking forward to hearing how the lawsuit progresses.

 

[azzaman333]

This only serves to confirm that WMG is dildos.

 

[Quintillus]

I've heard that Copyright can be expanded until 70 years after the owner's death (but don't quote me on that), while patents go for ~20 years and are nonrenewable. If anything, copyrights should expire sooner than patents, because songs and movies can fall out of relevance much quicker than physical products.

I think that is about accurate. I have no idea why it's till 70 years after the owner's death, other than greediness on the part of whoever inherits them after the owner's death. You really don't need to keep the copyright on something after you're six feet under. I agree that the term should be much shorter. How long exactly can be debated.

I also think the patent system is way too general in the U.S. My top two revisions would be requiring that you are actively selling or developing a product to be able to sue for patent enforcement (thus eliminating most/all patent trolls), and disallowing overly general patents such as patenting rounded rectangles and a method for exercising a cat. Beyond that, I'd probably disallow patenting ideas without a product, and patenting things that are naturally occuring in nature. I'm also against being able to require royalties for planting seeds that came from a plant you grew. Charging more for GMO seeds the first time you buy them makes sense, but doing that for years on end when the farmer's not actually buying any seeds from you doesn't.

 

[warpus]

While we definitely need something a lot like copyright law ( and I'm simply going to ignore anyone naive enough to entirely deny this ) I think it clearly isn't "working as intended." It should protect and reward innovation, not provide endless perks based on weird technicalities and gimmicks.

They keep extending that "70 years" or "lifetime of creator" thing because every time a certain number of songs get close to falling into public domain, the holders of those certain copyrights, who are filthy rich and have a lot of influence, "convince" lawmakers to extend it even further. It's a big joke at this point

 

[God of Kings]

You should watch this video by CGP Grey:


Link to video.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

U.S. judge rules copyright for 'Happy Birthday' invalid
By Andrew Chung - Tue Sep 22, 2015 10:25pm EDT

A U.S. judge on Tuesday ruled that Warner/Chappell Music does not own a valid copyright to one of the world's most recognizable songs, "Happy Birthday to You," a decision that brings the song into the public domain.

The highly-anticipated ruling comes in a putative class-action lawsuit filed by several artists against Warner/Chappell, the music publishing arm of Warner Music Group, over the song in 2013 seeking a return of the millions of dollars in fees the company has collected over the years.

In order to make his ruling, U.S. District Judge George H. King had to delve into the song's long and complicated history, which began in 1893 with the publication of a melody called "Good Morning to All" in a kindergarten songbook, written by a Kentucky woman named Mildred Hill and her sister, Patty.

That melody eventually came to be sung with the familiar Happy Birthday lyrics, which Patty also claimed to have written, according to court records.

Warner's copyright originated with the Hill sisters' publisher, the Clayton F. Summy Co, later known as Birch Tree and acquired by Warner in 1988. Summy had obtained registrations to "Happy Birthday" in 1935, according to court papers.

"Defendants ask us to find that the Hill sisters eventually gave Summy Co. the rights in the lyrics to exploit and protect, but this assertion has no support in the record," King wrote in his 43-page opinion.

"The Hill sisters gave Summy Co. the rights to the melody, and the rights to piano arrangements based on the melody, but never any rights to the lyrics," he added.

Warner could not be immediately reached for comment.

"'Happy Birthday' is finally free after 80 years," Randall Newman, an attorney for the artists including filmmakers working on a documentary about the song, told the Los Angeles Times. "Finally, the charade is over. It's unbelievable."

The case garnered attention from around the world not only because the tune is so commonly performed, but because many were not aware it was still under copyright, let alone purportedly owned by a major corporation.

People who sing Happy Birthday in their homes or at private gatherings have typically never been at risk of a lawsuit. But when the song has been used for commercial purposes, such as in films, Warner has enforced its rights, and takes in an estimated $2 million in royalties for such uses each year.

(Additional reporting by Curtis Skinner in San Francisco; Editing by Stephen Coates)

www.reuters.com

[youtube=300]oTB46FJOF5w[/youtube]

Link to video.

 

[trader/warrior]

A sensible ruling on copyright law?!

I always just sang Hapi Berth Dey instead.


Link to video.

 

[Ice_Tyrant]

I remember watching this japanese show from a few years ago back in March, Kamen Rider OOO. Birth was a theme in the series (apparently) and the song played in the show quite often. Now I'm wondering if they just stole the song and disregarded the copyright.