Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by spodek | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

spodek

Then let me be the first to draw clearly from the public domain:

Happy birthday to you

Happy birthday dear [someone]

Happy birthday to you!

(I hope the ruling doesn't get reversed and let Warner come after me)

View on HN

technically its not in the public domain, it's an orphan work, since the ruling says warner had no grounds to claim ownership of the copyright on the famous arrangement. someone can still come forward and present the evidence that secures them the copyright until the end of its term

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works

There are multiple issues, and today's ruling only seems to have covered one of them (namely, whether the Warner/Chappell copyright covers the song, or just an arrangement of the song -- the judge ruled it was the latter, which leaves Warner/Chappell without a copyright claim to the song).

The next important step is a piece of evidence unearthed during discovery in this lawsuit: a songbook, whose fourth edition from 1922 contains the lyrics of "Happy Birthday". Since the lyrics had been published in 1922, and the melody is known to date to the 1890s, there is no way for either to currently be protected by copyright in the United States, as all copyrights dating from prior to 1923 are conclusively known to have expired.

Off by just a year, what a crazy coincidence.

Given that 1922 was the fourth edition, it's likely that the lyrics were actually published earlier. It's just that you don't need to go back further, since once you reach a date earlier than 1923 you know it's public domain.

Well, unless they decide to retroactively extend copyright and bring works that were once open back under copyright...

I read that in Micky Mouse's voice.

Is it, or is that just the most likely year anyone would start their search for prior art?

> someone can still come forward and present the evidence that secures them the copyright until the end of its term

You mean with the current copyright regime, whoever manages to produce good enough forged evidence, can collect on this forever?

Because it's well known that copyright no longer expires. And that means there's no end of term either.

Does that mean Warner infringed on copyrights and should probably be punished for it?

>that secures them the copyright until the end of its term

Practically, once you are granted copyright it's secured until Disney goes out of business thanks to the Mickey Mouse Protection Act[1] and inevitable future Disney lobbying.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

Reply on news.ycombinator.com