[78-L] copyrights and birthday cakes - we've heard this tale before...but....

Rodger Holtin rjh334578 at gmail.com.invalid
Tue Jul 28 21:37:04 PDT 2015

My wife found this and sent it to me.


We've discussed this here before.  This time the legal songsters may get a
new coda..




The world's most popular song dates from 1893, but a studio has been forcing
people to pay for it all the same. Now, last-minute evidence in a
closely-watched court case could make "Happy Birthday" free at last, and end
one of the most controversial copyright claims in history.


The evidence comes in the form of a book of music from 1927 titled "The
Everyday Songbook," which was put before a federal judge in California this
week. There, in its pages, is a copy of the words and melody of "Happy
Birthday," whose appearance should serve to put the famous song in the
public domain once and for all - and end a licensing gig that reportedly
nets publisher Warner/Chappell's $2 million per year.


In case you're wondering how we even got here in the first place, the court
case began in 2013 when a film-maker objected to paying $1,500 to license
"Happy Birthday" and filed a class action suit against Warner/Chapell. She
argued the song has been in the public domain for decades and no one should
have to pay anything to use it.


To understand the legal issues, you have to go back to the 1890's when
sisters Mildred J. Hill and Patty Smith Hill composed "Good Morning to All,"
which contains the familiar melody we know today. Soon, versions of that
song began to appear with the Happy Birthday lyrics and, in 1935, a
publisher called the Clayton F. Summy company obtained a copyright.


The copyright passed down through successor companies and Warner/Chappell
obtained the rights as part of a $25 million acquisition in 1988. The
problem, however, is that the copyright appears to have been no good in the
first place due to a problem with the registration; until this week, the
case hinged on whether the sisters had actually abandoned the copyright
through a technicality (in those days, you had to stamp the famous (c) on a
work to preserve your rights).


That has been the focus of the court case so far. But now the discovery of
the 1927 songbook appears to blow away that issue since the appearance of a
published version of "Happy Birthday" means the 1935 copyright is invalid.
Here's the smoking gun (courtesy TechDirt) which shows the lyrics, melody
and also a "special permission" notice that appears instead of the (c)
notice that would be required to preserve the copyright:


Happy Birthday

C Provided by Fortune Happy Birthday

The film-maker has just submitted the 1927 songbook ahead of a hearing,
scheduled for Wednesday, at which a judge is to consider the abandonment
issue. Now, the judge may simply use the new evidence to rule Happy Birthday
is clearly in the public domain.


Such a ruling would certainly be good news for birthday celebrants
everywhere, but may also raise the larger question of why songs from the
1920's and 1930's are even subject to copyright in the first place. While
copyright law is nominally about incentives, the U.S. entertainment industry
has repeatedly lobbied to extend its terms, which critics say results in
retroactive windfalls that amount to corporate welfare.







For best results use Victor Needles


More information about the 78-L mailing list