“Happy Birthday” is not in copyright | Hacker News Reader

“Happy Birthday” is not in copyright

boingboing.net

57 pointsspountzy19 comments

Since "corporations are people my friend" expect congress and the supremes to extend copyright to the life of a corporation instead of original author. Impossible but greedy 200-300 year copyrights will be common by the end of the century.

And a corporation nearing the end of its life can sell its copyrights to other, younger corporations - if that's the case, the copyrights would last forever.

Misleading post title. Claimed, in a lawsuit.

I hope they win, but this is definitely not decided.

One of the worst misleading titles. It should definitely be changed and I flagged it in hopes that it will. I thought the case was decided and gave it an upvote before clicking through to read the article.

It's a disappointment.

So the story here is, nothing has happened in a year. See previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5878417

The lawsuit is moving forward, with Warner's motion to dismiss being denied. You can read about it at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You#2013_law... and the cited links.

This should have been a number one priority for all the organizations concerned about copyright problems. There is no clearer example of a broken system and yet we still haven't completed the first thing in making this a clear example to the public and government of mishandling of copyright and public domain.

The mishandling of public domain and public funded publications by corporations was the reason why Aaron Swartz was pulling down JSTOR documents at MIT. Why haven't we as a tech community just jump on an easy win?

So if the lawsuit succeeds, does that mean restaurants can serenade us with the actual "Happy Birthday To You" song? That might revolutionize birthday dinners.

Are you kidding? A waiter can't sing you happy birthday?

> Does this mean that everyone who warbles "Happy Birthday to You" to family members at birthday parties is engaging in copyright infringement if they fail to obtain permission from or pay royalties to the song's publisher? No. Royalties are due, of course, for commercial uses of the song, such as playing or singing it for profit, using it in movies, television programs, and stage shows, or incorporating it into musical products such as watches and greeting cards; as well, royalties are due for public performance, defined by copyright law as performances which occur "at a place open to the public, or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered." So, crooning "Happy Birthday to You" to family members and friends at home is fine, but performing a copyrighted work in a public setting such as a restaurant or a sports arena technically requires a license from ASCAP or the Harry Fox Agency (although such infringements are rarely prosecuted).

[formatting is mine]

http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp

Nope, public performance of copyrighted material. Thats why chains have their own birthday songs. A small restaurant might sing happy birthday anyway.

Only in the US of A. Copyright, like the patent system and the roads and bridges, is broken.

tldr: Yes.

They can sing it now now, but copyright holders have 100 year to indefinite monopoly and can to charge any price for licenses. The system has been corrupted.

Restaurants still do that? Someone needs to bring a lawsuit.

If they did have to return the money - who would they return it to?

So technically is it illegal to sing happy birthday at a family gathering? That's amazing. Almost seems like censorship?

Illegal, in the sense of a criminal offence? No. Breaching copyright is not a crime, except in a few circumstances (which vary from place to place, but often include e.g. commercial exploitation). It's generally a civil wrong.

And it's probably not even a civil wrong. The acts restricted by copyright are limited and enumerated. E.g. you generally need a copyright licence to perform a work in public, to communicate it to the public, to lend it to the public, and of course to copy it (among others). In most places, you wouldn't need a licence to sing it at a private family gathering. Though IANAL.

where does copyright law draw the line?

i ask because i have heard that specifically, it is illegal to recite happy birthday for commercial purposes. so, to use it on your YouTube video, for instance.

but as far as i'm aware, Lady Gaga is well under copyright but i'm not breaking any laws by singing along when it's on the radio. so i don't see why it would be unlawful to sing happy birthday in a private setting, copyright or not. is my logic or information flawed?

This would be a civil issue where you owe the copyright owner a fee. It is up to the owner to enforce use. It is literally nothing like censorship.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com