

Does the infamous "Happy Birthday to You" copyright hold up to scrutiny? - JacobAldridge
http://www.slate.com/id/2298271/pagenum/all

======
TravisLS
It's kind of cringe-worthy that a copyright from 1935 isn't public domain,
regardless of the circumstances of its issue.

~~~
asmithmd1
US lawmakers have signaled that nothing created after 1928 will ever become
public domain. Why 1928? That is the copyright date for Mickey Mouse and he is
worth too much money to let become public domain.

If you doubt that congress has messed with copyright over the years here a is
(7 page!)"cheat sheet" for when something will become public domain.
[http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/docs/copyrightterm.pd...](http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/docs/copyrightterm.pdf)

~~~
aplusbi
Pedantic here - while Mickey Mouse was created in 1928, the cut-off for public
domain works is 1923. Also there was a long period of time where works needed
to be registered (and re-registered) so there are plenty of works that have
fallen into the public domain since 1923 (Night of the Living Dead being a
prominent example).

~~~
asmithmd1
You are exactly right and Congress "fixed" that. Currently no copyrights will
expire until at least 2019. Anyone want to bet Congress passes another
copyright law before then that extends copyright terms?

------
riordan
As a former copyright activist, we used to hold up "Happy Birthday To You" as
the quintessential example of everyday activities that were copyright
infringements, like when Lawrence Lessig went through the formalities to
perform the song at the anniversary of Free Culture [1].

Yet the questionable legitimacy of the "Happy Birthday To You" copyright claim
is something I only recently started to hear about, first from Ben Sisto's
Ignite NYC talk [2] and then again from several other copyright activist
friends.

While even litigating the validity of Warner's copyright over "Happy Birthday"
would be a symbolic victory for copyright activists, it likely wouldn't get
very far. And let's not forget that Congress could be moved to pass a law
granting "Happy Birthday" its own copyright exemption in response to the
actions of a court.

[1]: <http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.07/posts.html?pg=7> [2]:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkUFlZ05EiI>

------
jessriedel
For critics of copyright law, it really doesn't matter whether WMG has a great
case or not. At the end of the day, they extract $2 million per year, and many
businesses (such as restaurants) must expend resources to avoid or defend
themselves from lawsuits. So there's a serious problem.

~~~
asmithmd1
Even worse in my mind is that this supposed incentive to creativity is
destroying our culture. A parent at my daughter's school wanted to video a
school performance and then distribute copies for the cost of duplicating
them. He is a lawyer so he looked into what he would need to do to be above
board with regard to copyrights of the songs. To make a long story short - it
is not possible - he would need to negotiate a deal with each copyright
holder. This problem is blocking other people also:
[http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wkrp-and-stupid-
copyright-l...](http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wkrp-and-stupid-copyright-
laws/)

------
timjahn
I remember learning about this in a college IP law class. After that, I
started to notice how every restaurant sang their own unique version of this
song.

~~~
Natsu
It made me notice that when McDonalds started playing music, they played
exclusively classical music, which I thought to be out of place. Now I wonder
if they're using public domain works, or perhaps arrangements thereof which
they have copyrights on.

I'm starting to think that we need a free music movement, where people start
creating music that can be used freely in personal videos, school plays and
whatnot without all these copyright shenanigans. A good place to start would
be the public domain classical music. There's a lot of good stuff there.

~~~
M1573RMU74710N
It's certainly possible. I'd note there are a variety of services who exist
solely to provide "in store music" to stores, which handle all the
copyright/broadcast rights etc....and they are generally pretty affordable.

Still I wouldn't be surprised if there was a discount for stations that are
pure public-domain or if small franchises were just playing it themselves
(though presumably the recording/performance itself is still protected and
they might not be in the clear legally if they were say, just playing a CD)

>I'm starting to think that we need a free music movement,

It already exists, it's called the Open Source Movement (well, amongst
others). There is a variety of music available under say, a Creative Commons
license...and many websites devoted purely to free-music.

~~~
Natsu
Not all CC licenses are free for commercial use, though. In fact, most of them
aren't. And you're right that one has to have _all_ the relevant copyrights to
avoid legal hot water. I think that there's a different right for just about
every little piece, from the arrangement of the music to the lyrics to the
recording and performance rights.

Combine those two points and you see that getting strings-free music is a
little harder than usual. And precedents like that nonsense about a 5-note
hook from a long time ago don't help when it comes to issues of derivative
works.

~~~
M1573RMU74710N
>Not all CC licenses are free for commercial use, though. In fact, most of
them aren't.

Sure, it wasn't my intention to imply that. I'm talking explicitly about music
that is completely free to use, and music licensed under certain CC licenses
is just an example to illustrate the point.

Thank's for clarifying for other readers though.

It was also not my intention to imply that getting free music is easy. Of
course much music is commercial, many people are reluctant or unable to give
away products of any type.

My point was only that there are in fact _a lot_ of people creating music and
releasing it explicitly to provide music which can be used for any purpose
commercial or not, and a variety of websites which catalog this music.

These people/websites are a boon to many, like podcasters who require
into/outro/background music.

I'm not saying this movement could not use more momentum, support, etc....the
contrary in fact. I'm saying only that it already exists.

~~~
Natsu
Fair enough. I'm just trying to advocate for more music and fewer strings
attached. I know that some exists, but, as you point out, things are still far
from simple.

------
joejohnson
Everytime I read about Warner Brothers (or any of the big 4), it seems like it
is only a matter of time until their house-of-cards business model is
dismantled. However, like this article say, it seems like even when they don't
have outdated IP laws protecting their dubious claims to works, they still
wield the threat of expensive litigation.

Someday, IP laws will be forced to change. But currently the biggest
impediment is large corporations like WB gumming up the legal system to
prevent any minority opinions.

~~~
foob
You make it sound like these absurdly long copyright terms are some relic of
the past and it's only a matter of time before they're shortened. In reality
they have been repeatedly extended over the last century (as recently as 1998)
and there's no indication that this trend has turned.

------
colomon
Err... maybe I just didn't read the article closely enough, but if both the
music and the words predate 1900, how can there possibly be a valid copyright
on it today? I mean, I'm sure it would cost big bucks to prove in court that
it should be public domain, but WB wouldn't actually have a leg to stand on,
would they?

~~~
lambada
Because there is nothing showing the tune and the words together (i.e. sheet
music) with some kind of statement that involves copyright. It's a shaky leg,
but a leg nonetheless.

~~~
blahedo
But even if they were combined without permission, wouldn't that invalidate
the later copyright? I know copyrights aren't exactly like patents, but was it
really possible to take something someone else had written (decades earlier!),
and copyright it yourself?

------
DrJokepu
1978? Really? So Marylin Monroe was a time traveller?
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4SLSlSmW74>

(Also, if she _was_ a time traveller, I wonder whether copyright laws are
prepared for cases where time travellers are infringing copyright before the
work was created)

------
stcredzero
However, someone with foresight would instead US copyright Spanish language
birthday songs and repeat the same business model based on an expanding
demographic. </irony>

