Lawsuit Filed To Prove Happy Birthday Is In The Public Domain | Hacker News Reader

Lawsuit Filed To Prove Happy Birthday Is In The Public Domain

techdirt.com

262 pointschaostheory30 comments

The neatest outcome would be that restaurants will (should?) stop singing their alternative non-infringing songs to those celebratimg birthdays.

On a possibly related note, here's something I've been wondering about. A few years ago phrases like "I love LA" or "I love New York" became "I heart <whatever>". Is this also some kind of a copyright issue? It sounds so ridiculous that I couldn't imagine radio and tv stations using using it if not by force.

"I ♥ NY" was part of a campaign to attract tourism, and became a pop-culture symbol; it's not an issue of copyright. In fact, using the heart is more likely to get them in trouble, since it's trademarked by NY and they go against imitators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Love_New_York

Related and just as daft:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cafe_Hon#.22Hon.22_as_a_tradema...

I worried a little when I started selling this shirt: http://mrcoles.com/media/img/cool-harold-i-ny-ny-fractal-shi... but I figured it was either different enough or could be applied as a parody? (Or probably just no one cares, since it's not popular enough…)

It also seems like a lot of amateur t-shirt sites have tons of custom i <3 shirts.

"The neatest outcome would be that restaurants will . . . stop singing . . . songs."

IANAL, but I believe that particular practice is prohibited under the auspices of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which, while not legaly binding as such, forms the linguistic basis of legal constructs within binding covenants and treaties to which the United States is a signatory.

The fact that this practice continues should surely be pursued with the utmost priority by all those concerned with probity and justice among civilized peoples.

You must be fun at parties.

Yikes! I literally have no clue what you are saying. Not sure how we connect alternative happy-birthday songs at restaurants with human rights.

Are you joking? Maybe this is just sarcasm bordering on being a little dark, but it would be funny. This is where seeing someone's face uttering the words would convey a lot more information.

It's a joke. I would rather have a root canal than have the wait staff of a chain restaurant come around and sing me one of their obnoxious birthday ditties.

The copyrights were filed with the U.S. copyright office at some point. If the copyright should be found invalid, does that obligate the former copyright holder to return licensing fees? I somehow doubt it. The licensor acted in good faith; if you now own a worthless license, that is not their fault. Indeed, Warner themselves probably bought the copyrights from someone else (they were founded in 1958) believing them valid. Willful fraud, on the other hand, is another matter.

Shouldn't the question of willful vs. accidental fraud be the decider in whether penalties are faced, rather than just returning incorrectly claimed fees?

The same way that if someone accidentally pays too little tax they'll be told to pay the difference and will do that, whereas if they lie to try and pay less taxes then not only do they have to pay the difference, they'll also get slapped with fines and/or prison time.

Otherwise the model is there to claim fees you don't have a right to, wait until you get stopped, put your hands up and say "oops we didn't realise" and keep all that money.

edit: Should point out I am giving an opinion on the logic, not the law.

If you accidentally pay too little tax, you will still get fined (at least in the US).

If I'm not mistaken, accidental fraud just penalizes for the value of the fraud, and may wind up being limited to restitution for those who had WB come for collections AND come forward about it. Willful fraud come with treble damages. But I am not a lawyer.

I always cringe when I see this "treble damages" because it must be a person who doesn't understand English very well. Tri_p_le is spelled with a _P_ after all, isn't it?

Then I googled it and found out that is actually the name of the law. It means triple damages. It's from British English and the phrase is still correct in American English.

facepalm

There are people who seemingly understand English just fine but they carry around a labtop in their bag.

Arabs often drink bebsi because in their native language, there is no letter p. For everyone else, there's no excuse! /rant

Triple is used more than Treble in British English as well, but both are completely correct here.

Double/treble

Duplicate/triplicate

Duplex/triplex

Duple/triple?

'Triple' is the weird root-isolation here.

double/triple/quadruple?

double/treble/quadruble?

I'm more familiar with treble being used in music but I'm aware of various uses of representing three in some way.

The idea being the English language is a fun thing.

The original Latin verb from which numerals are built is "plicare", which is why in italian you have basically the same word as the original Latin: multiplicare (multiply), duplicare (to double), triplicare (to triple) etc.

I guess the softer "b" versions come from some French influence.

Well, the melody of "happy birthday" is written in the treble cleff.

There are a lot of copyright and IP blogs out there. I'd wait to hear some legal opinions from them. Still sounds like a fun project!

From reading the suit, it appears that what they're arguing is that the total fees collected by Warner/Chappell would, if Warner/Chappell had no right to collect it based on copyright, become damages the class-action plainttiffs would then recover back from Warner/Chappell. There may also be provisions in the California Unfair Competition act which would allow the court to order repayment.

Until this happens, one could use something like this :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f2PCWYAZQc

It blew my mind when I heard that "Happy Birthday" was copyrighted. So glad to find out that it's bullshit. Make those lousy, greedy bastards pay for being epic trolls.

Title is unclear -- I thought this meant that it was now out of copyright, not that someone has field suit.

It is out of copyright by any reasonable definition, but the copyright office has so far failed to recognize this.

It would seem the lyrics would be hard to enforce copyright on, because you change the lyrics for each person you sing to. Happy Birthday Dear (your name here), etc.

Yes, I'm being overly technical. :)

The article isn't clear on the current copyright status for the song. It was first published in 1918. Copyright for songs published prior to 1978 runs out after 95 years. Therefore it should fall into the public domain this year, regardless of any lawsuit.

The lawsuit is seeking to divest Warner of the hundreds of millions of dollars they've been paid for something they didn't have the rights to.

There are all kinds of entities that have a claim to own a copyright. Some of them are true, some if them are false. If you aggressively enforce a copyright that ultimately turns out to not be yours to enforce, there should be stiff penalties over and above the fees you collected.

When the reconstituted SCO was suing everyone over Linux licenses over bogus copyright claims, they were unfortunately let off pretty easily.

The article is blogspam. You want this one:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130613/11165823451/filmma...

Which also has the full text of the filing. Basically they argue that the melody dates to at least 1893, first copyrighted in 1896, and that this copyright expired in 1921. The lyrics were first mentioned in a 1901 newspaper article. No attempt to copyright them is known until 1912, through a songbook in which they would not have been eligible for copyright as a new song. Although a series of copyrights were also filed in the 1930s, they were all for specific new arrangements of the melody, never for the melody itself or for the lyrics, since the melody and lyrics already existed, and the melody had already been copyrighted once and expired.

If their historical research is correct, then neither the melody nor the lyrics could possibly be under copyright in the present day, and most likely could not have been under copyright even when some of the earliest lawsuits for infringement were filed; the latest the melody could have been under copyright was 1921, and the latest the lyrics could have been under copyright (from the original filing of the 1912 songbook) was 1930.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com