
Unhappy Birthday - dalek2point3
http://www.unhappybirthday.com/
======
sneak
It's unpopular in our industry, but I personally don't believe in ownership of
ideas or information.

When someone can tell me who owns the number 2, I will tell you who owns our
cultural heritage of songs.

Remember: copyright is a legal fiction created by congress that exists solely
to prop up industries. Most people don't believe in it, as evidenced by the
massive sharing of information on the internet condemned by it.

~~~
anigbrowl
Oh please, your position is very popular in this industry, as you acknowledge
in your third line. I think _Happy Birthday_ is very much out of copyright,
but I don't agree that 'copyright is a legal fiction created by congress that
exists solely to prop up industries.'

Example, I mentioned elsewhere that I'm working on producing a screenplay
which involves the _Happy Birthday_ song. I'm not enthused about having to
budget for license fees for this. On the other hand, without copyright I would
not be able to share the script with other people to get feedback or solicit
their interest in making it into a film, because I would have no way to
protect my interests as an author. From my point of view the screenplay
represents about 4 months' worth of labor, and it will likely be 6 months'
worth by the time it's at a final draft. As director of the project, that
total labor involved will rise to well over a year's worth, more likely two.
My ownership interest in the intellectual property is the only hope I have of
making money off that investment later on should the film get made and prove
popular.

If you don't believe in copyright, what do you think is my economic incentive
to create original work, or anyone else's to commission/purchase such work?

~~~
jonlucc
I've heard many times that copyright of scripts in Hollywood is easily
circumvented, as you can't protect a plot, only the specific words.

~~~
elinchrome
That exact scenario happened with the film "gravity".

[http://www.tessgerritsen.com/gravity-lawsuit-affects-
every-w...](http://www.tessgerritsen.com/gravity-lawsuit-affects-every-writer-
sells-hollywood/)

~~~
anigbrowl
That's very interesting, although the page itself points out that it's a
breach of contract issue at heart rather than a straight copyright one.

~~~
throwaway9324
It's still a copyright issue. Despite what people like yourself say, copyright
doesn't do a very good job of protecting creators.

------
sehugg
You could always sing Steven Colbert's royalty-free birthday song:

[http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/3si7rs/warner-
music-s-...](http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/3si7rs/warner-music-s--
happy-birthday--copyright)

~~~
go1979
I was greeted with a "can't play this video in your country" error (in
Canada). The irony ...

~~~
JackuB
Heh, it played fine in EU. All Comedy Central stuff works here AFAIK.

~~~
afshin
It does not work in the UK.

------
joesmo
I'll just add this to the list of 10,000 other felonies I unknowingly commit
every day.

But seriously, most of the claims here are ridiculous and false. Not
surprising considering the source. What's that anecdote about taking legal
advice off the internet though? That applies to their site as well as my
comment equally.

~~~
jacob019
Criminal copyright infringement requires that the infringer acted for the
purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain. There is a higher
threshold for criminal infringement. Singing happy birthday in public would be
a civil offence, not a criminal one.

~~~
syntheticnature
I think the relevant bit, amid the satire, is that restaurants, regardless of
size, whose employees are caught singing "Happy Birthday" are hit fiercely by
this. Ever wonder why the employees at chains sing something else?

~~~
developer1
To be a little more specific, there is no risk when a group of friends sing
happy birthday to someone they know in a restaurant. However, if a
restaurant's staff routinely sings the song to customers, then people will
come to that restaurant specifically to receive this service - which is
profiting off the song.

------
mxfh
The sorry and incoherent state of copyright law in the year 2015:

 _Richard Prince_ 's version of Fair Use [1] and the other extreme which
consists of this song and the _Marvin Gaye_ vs. _Thicke_ / _Williams_
situation [2]. It's just crazy that these two extremes co-exist under the same
law.

How is putting in a different name of the jubilant and some variation in the
performance not on the same level of appropriation and fair use compared to
_Prince_ 's instagram-plus-a-comment work?

[1] [http://petapixel.com/2015/05/21/richard-prince-selling-
other...](http://petapixel.com/2015/05/21/richard-prince-selling-other-
peoples-instagram-shots-without-permission-for-100k/)

[2] [http://qz.com/360126/a-copyright-victory-for-marvin-gayes-
fa...](http://qz.com/360126/a-copyright-victory-for-marvin-gayes-family-is-
terrible-for-the-future-of-music/)

~~~
couchand
Thanks for linking the article about Richard Prince, I hadn't heard that
story. The artnet article they link to, Richard Prince Sucks [0], is even
better.

"Here's what I've got by way of reflection: Prince likes images of breasts. We
can trace appropriation precedents back to Warhol, and Prince as an early
adopter, but who cares? Copy-paste culture is so ubiquitous now that
appropriation remains relevant only to those who have piles of money invested
in appropriation artists. The work on canvas looks about as good as you'd
expect for a tiny, 72 DPI image, which is to say they are fuzzy and better
viewed on a phone."

[0]: [https://news.artnet.com/art-world/richard-prince-
sucks-13635...](https://news.artnet.com/art-world/richard-prince-sucks-136358)

------
strathmeyer
I've met people who work for the copyright office in DC. They've never heard
of fair use, they think that it means when you use their content that you have
to pay them fairly. They think they work for the big corporations and prevent
the rest of the people from stealing things from them.

------
greggyb
You could just sing about an Egyptian river god instead:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f2PCWYAZQc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f2PCWYAZQc)

~~~
lifeformed
I've always wondered about that. Does that legally work?

~~~
greggyb
I truly don't know, but I imagine that if you were wearing birthday hats,
consuming cake or some other celebratory baked good, and clearly not
worshiping an Egyptian river god, there may be a problem or two convincing
someone you weren't singing the copyrighted words.

------
trothamel
There has been a lawsuit (actually several, since consolidated) about this
winding its way through the courts since 2013.

[http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/u2yv5yz8/california-
central...](http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/u2yv5yz8/california-central-
district-court/rupa-marya-v-warner-chappell-music-inc/)

~~~
vesinisa
According to this analysis linked from the article, there are several
challenges in Time Warner's copyright claim, so common sense might even one
day prevail:

> The claim that “Happy Birthday to You” is still under copyright has three
> principal weaknesses. Most significantly, there is a good argument that
> copyright in the song has never been renewed. [...] Second, the first
> authorized publication of “Happy Birthday to You,” in 1935, bore a copyright
> notice that was almost certainly not in the name of the owner of copyright
> in the song. Under the law in force at the time, publication with notice
> under the wrong name resulted in forfeiture of copyright protection. Third,
> the current putative owner of copyright in “Happy Birthday to You,” can only
> claim ownership if it can trace its title back to the author or authors of
> the song. Yet it appears that the only possible authors to whom it can trace
> title are Mildred and Patty Hill themselves, and there is scant evidence
> that either of them wrote the song.

[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1111624](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1111624)

~~~
astrodust
It'll probably prevail in 2029 giving us one bonus year of "Happy Birthday"
singing without royalties.

~~~
mark-r
Not to worry, copyright terms will be extended again long before "Steamboat
Willy" expires. Disney has lots of friends in Washington. Nothing copyright
after 1927 will ever be in the public domain.

In case you think I'm kidding:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act#Su...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act#Support)

~~~
pluma
In case anybody else is wondering, Steamboat Willie currently will expire in
2023. If the timing of the previous copyright extension acts continues, we
should see a new copyright extension act within the next three years or so.

Assuming, of course, it isn't entirely coincidental that the copyright
extension acts tend to pop up every time Steamboat Willie gets close to
entering the public domain.

I wonder how Steamboat Willie entering the public domain would affect the
Mickey Mouse related trademarks (e.g. the mouse ears and such), considering
that most of it is simply derived from the character first publicly introduced
in that film. I know that trademark law is orthogonal to copyright, but it
would certainly allow diluting the brand.

------
davnicwil
Futurama's re-work of the 'happy birthday' lyrics, seemingly because they've
changed in the future, dodges this nicely:

What day is today? It's X's Birthday, What a day for a birthday, let's all
have some cake!

~~~
jerf
In theory, this is copyright law working as designed, because there's a
bajillion "Not-Actually-Happy-Birthday Happy Birthday" songs, in TV shows and
restaurant chains. Creativity has nominally bloomed.

In practice it's a powerful demonstration of how copyright can make something
that is really part of our cultural canon now something that somebody owns. We
wouldn't be having this discussion if copyright terms were limited to
something resembling sanity.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
But, its every songwriters dream that their invention become part of 'our
cultural canon'. ITs catch-22. This argument goes: a successful song, that
always was 'something that somebody owns' by law, become public domain the
minute it becomes popular?

------
noonespecial
_You can support us by buying overpriced items in the official Unhappy
Birthday store._

This site strikes me as a masterful troll utilizing Poe's law that might
actually turn a profit! Genius.

~~~
vcarl
I love the line,

"Let's right the balance and tell ASCAP about every one of these violations!"

That's where I realized it wasn't a serious enforcement piece, and something
encouraging malicious compliance.

------
anigbrowl
Why nothing in there about the current lawsuit?

[http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/u2yv5yz8/california-
central...](http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/u2yv5yz8/california-central-
district-court/rupa-marya-v-warner-chappell-music-inc/)

This is a topic that's dear to my heart since I've written/am producting a
screenplay that uses the Happy Birthday song twice, and am thus in the
position of having to budget for either a performance license or legal action
over a song which is almost certainly in the public domain.

Edit: I see another commenter brought it up earlier today.

~~~
jonlucc
Why have you decided to keep that song in instead of replacing it with
something else or creatively omitting it? It seems that it would be worth the
effort to avoid the complication of obtaining the license.

~~~
anigbrowl
Good question. A few reasons, in reverse priority order. First, the licensing
fee is likely to be under $5000, which would be bearable (though painful) in
budgetary terms. Related to that, I might consider joining the existing class
action lawsuit and am not above milking that to get some extra publicity out
of it.

Second, it was the original inspiration for the story. Now I was already well
aware of the license issue so as soon as that key story element fell into
place I knew it would have some sort of price tag attached, but sometimes you
just have to trust your instincts.

Third and most important, it's because it's so universally well known that it
works. I have one other piece of music I anticipate licensing in there, but if
I had to for $$ reasons I'd explore alternatives.During early drafts I noted
several good musical cues that would enhance or complement the story action,
but while they'd still be my ideal creative selections that would probably
unaffordable on my budget, and so I'm happy to work around those.

But 'Happy Birthday' is not just an expression of my taste, it's so
universally known in the English-speaking world and beyond as to be a major
cultural signifier. If I were to use some alternative birthday song like 'Woot
woot, it's ya birthday' or something, it would be a huge distraction from the
emotional content of the scenes, and turn them into something lame, at best,
or comic, at worst. I listened a few of the alternative birthday songs linked
elsewhere on the page, but (unsurprisingly) I forgot all of them within 60
seconds. You only get a few key moments in a film where characters are
_really_ strongly defined as individuals - you know, the lines that you can
quote from a famous movie that _everyone_ recognizes, eg 'I'm gonna make him
an offer he can't refuse' or 'You talking to me?' or 'There's no place like
home.' You have to keep things simple because audience connection with a
character is a matter of feeling rather than thought, and if you're trying to
process something else to evoke the same idea, then you're not emotionally
engaged with it in the moment.

To some extent, I'm leveraging the strong emotional connotations that the song
already has for in order to intensify the dramatic impact of the scenes where
it is used. In the same vein, those scenes also involve a birthday _cake_ as
opposed to a birthday apple pie or indeed a birthday steak - cake is a cliche
but cliches are useful for drawing attention to the _ab_ normal things about
the situation for dramatic effect. I want to make sure that people remember
those scenes where it's used.

Mind, my issue with Warner/Chappell here is that I really don't think _Happy
Birthday_ is actually eligible for copyright protection. If I was going for
some other emotional situation that just _had to have_ a particular piece of
music whose copyright status wasn't in doubt then that wouldn't bother me,
although there are very few pieces of music that are so iconic that they can't
easily be substituted for - the only one I can think of is the Bridal Chorus
from Wagner's Lohengrin, better known as 'Here comes the bride...' for use at
weddings, or maybe Taps for military funerals, but even that is a specifically
American thing.

~~~
pluma
There's also _For He 's a Jolly Good Fellow_, although its use doesn't seem to
be limited to birthdays, so it's probably less iconic.

------
DigitalSea
What would happen if people started flooding ASCAP with these violation
notices? Could we perhaps send a message over how ridiculously common it is to
sing this song in public by overloading them with so much paperwork it ends up
costing them more money than they receive in collecting royalties? Just a
thought.

~~~
crpatino
They don't have to process _every_ violation notice, you know. They can just
index them, put them in long term storage somewhere offline, and wait until
they want to make an example of someone for a wholly unrelated reason...

------
karamazov
It's about time someone took this seriously.

------
uiberto
Satire, ya'll: [http://mako.cc/fun/](http://mako.cc/fun/)

~~~
baking
He calls it "a DoS of ASCAP's licensing enforcement infrastructure" so
presumably random letters about unauthorized "performances" will rack up huge
legal bills to investigate hopeless dead ends or something like that. At least
to the point that the legal costs will outweigh any potential revenue.

------
javajosh
Someone needs to build Shazam, but instead of just identifying songs, it
identifies the people singing them (perhaps via the owner's Facebook
profile?), and informs ASCAP.

------
olefoo
From the title I was hoping this was about Morrissey.

    
    
        I've come to wish you an unhappy birth-dayyy.
        because you're evil and you lie and I wish you would die.
    

Which, I'm thinking that he should have gotten a decent life out of writing
those songs and I hope Jeff Bezos pays him for all the plays I run up on
Amazon [ [http://amzn.to/1cXjn7f](http://amzn.to/1cXjn7f) ]

That's the essential tension, we want to reward artists for brightening our
lives and making music; but we don't see why a bunch of gentlemen in 3 piece
suits who don't make music or write stories or do much of anything but attend
meetings and put the hurt on the regular people should be getting mad money
out of the deal based on a government controlled monopoly.

The rentier class needs to be disbanded.

------
fffrad
Is this why in restaurants, the staff always have a unusual shorter version
that I cannot follow along?

------
franciscop
IANAL, but this seems completely backwards:

> However, if you do it in an restaurant — and if the restaurant hasn't
> already worked out a deal with ASCAP — you may be engaging in copyright
> infringement.

If the RESTAURANT sings it, with its indirect commercial advantage, then this
could be true. However, if YOU sing it and you don't belong to the
restaurant's payroll, how can you be getting "advantage" of it?

------
amelius
Here is an interesting documentary about the history of copyright, the role of
Big Content, and a future vision on copyright [1] Also covers the happy
birthday song.

[1] Rip: a Remix Manifesto,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EnX0vACj4Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EnX0vACj4Q)

------
ohitsdom
Tried sending a sarcastic email, but it bounced. Here's the message:

We're writing to let you know that the group you tried to contact (licensing)
may not exist, or you may not have permission to post messages to the group. A
few more details on why you weren't able to post:

* You might have spelled or formatted the group name incorrectly. * The owner of the group may have removed this group. * You may need to join the group before receiving permission to post. * This group may not be open to posting.

If you have questions related to this or any other Google Group, visit the
Help Center at
[http://support.google.com/a/ascap.com/bin/topic.py?topic=258...](http://support.google.com/a/ascap.com/bin/topic.py?topic=25838).

Thanks,

ascap.com admins

------
ableal
Anyone knows what's up with foreign translations?

If the music is in the public domain and it is the English lyrics that are
copyrighted, perhaps the Klingon - for instance - version is not subject to
enforcement, due to lack of interest or known rights.

------
bandrami
The judge hasn't ruled yet[1], so this "grassroots" ( _ahem_ ) movement may be
a little premature.

[1]
[http://www.law360.com/cases/51c4a8e9bbec94458c000001?article...](http://www.law360.com/cases/51c4a8e9bbec94458c000001?article_sidebar=1)

------
eikenberry
"Jessica Hill published and copyrighted Happy Birthday in 1935. While the
copyright should have expired in 1991..."

1935-1991 is a 56 year term? Why did they pick that particular length (the
1909 extension)? Seems rather arbitrary and goes against the point that the
extensions are bad.

~~~
astrodust
Copyright was originally set at lifespan of the creator plus some arbitrary
amount of time that has changed over the years.

There's still about a few dozen rules that apply in the US:

[https://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm](https://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm)

Every country has similarly confused systems.

~~~
michaelhoffman
Copyright in the U.S. was originally set at 14 years, renewable for another 14
years.

~~~
pluma
Considering how much culture seems to have accelerated (via mass media, long
distance communication and so on), it would seem obvious that if 28 years was
enough back then, it should be more than enough today.

The only thing the current copyright length is helping with, is establishing
and perpetuating monopolist corporations. It's killing innovation and
cementing the status quo. Even from a market standpoint this is a bad idea --
not to mention what it looks like from a social standpoint.

It's anti-capitalist and extremely un-American, really. Speaking as a
"socialist" European.

~~~
astrodust
Early America, not unlike China today, was extremely hostile to the idea of
"intellectual property". Patents and copyrights made it difficult for domestic
producers to compete with established companies from Europe.

Brushing all those concerns aside made it a lot easier for companies to
produce whatever goods and services were necessary for the local population.
Instead of having to pay royalties to a company overseas for having "invented"
something, which to people who'd fought for independence from that sort of
tyranny, would probably seem absurd.

------
egonschiele
I've come to wish you an unhappy settlement

Because you're evil

And you lie

And if you should die

"Good riddance Time Warner" I'll cry

~~~
esfandia
The Smiths should sue these bastards for copyright infringement!

([https://youtu.be/-VjbuM4i--A](https://youtu.be/-VjbuM4i--A) for those who
missed OP's reference and downvoted)

------
venomsnake
The problem is not copyright, but copyright terms ... a 3-5 year term will
allow such problems to not exist. And 90% of monetization is during that
period anyway.

------
mobman
these copyright and patents are a huge hindrance to creativity. Now you cannot
make a new product because somewhere someone has it copyrighted. I had at
least 5-7 products in mind but could not build it , because my patent filing
team says, we will end up paying huge royalties if we go on with this project.
I wish i could burn all patents and copyright and recreate everything open
source.

------
collinmanderson
The song is soon to be owned by Charter Communications. Maybe they could
include a free license for their internet or TV service customers. :)

------
steveax
Obligatory link to Everthing is a Remix:

[http://everythingisaremix.info](http://everythingisaremix.info)

~~~
dorgo
the site is totally broken without content from third-party. not easy fixable
in ublock.

~~~
kuschku
Direct links:

[https://vimeo.com/14912890](https://vimeo.com/14912890)
[https://vimeo.com/19447662](https://vimeo.com/19447662)
[https://vimeo.com/25380454](https://vimeo.com/25380454)
[https://vimeo.com/36881035](https://vimeo.com/36881035)

Additional videos:

Embrace the Remix [https://vimeo.com/47322970](https://vimeo.com/47322970)
Case Study: the iPhone
[https://vimeo.com/81745843](https://vimeo.com/81745843) Rise of the Patent
Troll [https://vimeo.com/91363809](https://vimeo.com/91363809)

------
johladam
I honestly can't tell if this is supposed to be a sarcastic comment on current
state of copyright and copyright enforcement in the US, or if this is actually
suggesting that people contact ASCAP and Time Warner about violations. I'm
quite sure that it is actually talking about the difficulty of enforcing bans
on popular songs that the general public assumes are in the public domain.
Maybe my Aspergers is showing...

~~~
tnorthcutt
It is satire: [http://mako.cc/fun/](http://mako.cc/fun/)

~~~
dean
From that link:

"Unhappy Birthday is satirical project commenting on the fact that the song
Happy Birthday To You is under an actively enforced copyright held by Time
Warner. This site gives folks the tools and information they need to report
unauthorized public performances of that work wherever they may occur.

If educating people and upholding the principle of copyright means risking a
DoS of ASCAP's licensing enforcement infrastructure, it's a risk I'm willing
to take. Please help spread the word!"

------
th0br0
I find it a fun coincidence that the guy's last name, in whose name the domain
is registered, is also Hill.

------
mkagenius
About us part is very funny. Can't stop laughing! I bet Louie CK will agree.

------
barhum
Write a public domain song called "Joyful day of birth to you"

------
axus
Mr. Rogers wrote another happy birthday song, smart guy

------
matchagaucho
The term of copyright is lifetime plus 70 years.

So the "real" question is why a song written in 1893 is not in public domain?

~~~
desdiv
It _is_ in public domain.

>The tune was first published in 1893 in the book Song Stories for the
Kindergarten. The melody has since passed into the public domain, and is safe
to hum in public without permission.

------
ExpiredLink
I reckon this article is against freedom and democracy.

~~~
johndevor
How's that?

------
cekanoni
I had no idea about this .. lol ?

------
number_six
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8ecm0ljl3s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8ecm0ljl3s)

