18 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
18 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Copyright Ridiculousness

by SteveJohnson
15 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
    • |
When companies pull crap like this, it's hard to be sympathetic.

Singing ‘Happy Birthday’ Leads To Lawsuit Threat For Local Café « CBS San Francisco
  • Profile picture of the author onSubie
    Snopes has a detailed history of the song and copyright:


    snopes.com: Is 'Happy Birthday to You' Protected by Copyright?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9951139].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Well, they have NOT, at least until recently, tried to call notice to the song being copyrighted. Last I knew, copyrights expired.

    https://copyright.cornell.edu/resour...blicdomain.cfm

    LIKELY US CASE:
    1923 through 1977
    Published without a copyright notice
    None. In the public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities SONG NOT COPYRIGHTED!

    IF 100% LEGIT:

    1923 through 1963
    Published with notice and the copyright was renewed8
    95 years after publication date

    SO, the MUSIC and the CONCEPT are PUBLIC DOMAIN as of 1988!

    BEST CASE:

    1923 through 1977
    Published in compliance with all US formalities
    (i.e., notice, renewal)11
    95 years after publication date or 2030

    SO, assuming you follow the LYRICS, 2030!

    SO, it IS debatable!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9951170].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author onSubie
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      ...


      SO, assuming you follow the LYRICS, 2030!

      SO, it IS debatable!

      Steve
      Your assumptions are correct:

      Under the laws in effect at the time (1935), that copyright would have expired after one 28-year term and a renewal of similar length, falling into public domain by 1991. However, the Copyright Act of 1976 extended the term of copyright protection to 75 years from date of publication, and the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 added another 20 years, so under current law the copyright protection of "Happy Birthday to You" will remain intact until at least 2030.

      Read more at snopes.com: Is 'Happy Birthday to You' Protected by Copyright?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9951210].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by onSubie View Post

        Your assumptions are correct:
        AGAIN, that is on the LYRICS! As I said, DEBATABLE! A product can NOT be removed from the public domain! HECK, ask the last company that bought the SCO rights! They tried the old POLLUTE AND SUE trick! IT FAILED!

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9951230].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author onSubie
          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

          AGAIN, that is on the LYRICS! As I said, DEBATABLE! A product can NOT be removed from the public domain! HECK, ask the last company that bought the SCO rights! They tried the old POLLUTE AND SUE trick! IT FAILED!

          Steve
          Yes, I included "It's debatable" when I quoted your assumptions... because it is debatable...

          But no court has ruled on either side of the argument.

          In recent years, some legal scholars have pointed out a number of potential problems with Warner/Chappell's claims to copyright ownership of "Happy Birthday to You," namely that there is little or no evidence that Patty Smith Hill actually wrote the lyrics to the song, that the first authorized publication of "Happy Birthday to You" bore an improper copyright notice (resulting in forfeiture of copyright protection), and that the copyright renewals filed in 1963 by Summy-Birchard covered only particular arrangements of the song and not the song itself.

          In June 2013, a film company working on a documentary about "Happy Birthday to You" filed a class action lawsuit which seeks to invalidate Warner/Chappell's claim to copyright ownership of the song and force the company to return millions of dollars they have collected over the years for wrongfully asserting copyright owership. But that case has not been fully adjudicated, and unless and until a court invalidates Warner/Chappell's assertion of copyright ownership, the song "Happy Birthday to You" remains in a copyright-protected state.

          Read more at snopes.com: Is 'Happy Birthday to You' Protected by Copyright?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9951247].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Winning34
    This definitely happens more often than you think. There have been a lot of cases of YouTube videos getting copyright strikes because someone was singing happy birthday in them.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9951304].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jacktackett
    The melody's music is debated able as well given there's enough historical evidence that the ladies who created the song based note for note on another popular song at the time, which itself was out of copyright.
    I know it's true cause I read it on the Internet! *
    Jack

    * I really did and now I'm off to find the links to validate this. Of course they're on the Internet too......
    Signature
    Let's get Tim the kidney he needs!HELP Tim
    Mega Monster WSO for KimW http://ow.ly/4JdHm


    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9951959].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by jacktackett View Post

      The melody's music is debated able as well given there's enough historical evidence that the ladies who created the song based note for note on another popular song at the time, which itself was out of copyright.
      I know it's true cause I read it on the Internet! *
      Jack

      * I really did and now I'm off to find the links to validate this. Of course they're on the Internet too......
      A LOT of songs are copied like that! HECK, they were only kindergarten teachers, and NOT music writers. But let's say that they DID write it THEMSELVES! Are we to believe that they somehow updated it everywhere decades after they died? If they didn't, the MUSIC is not copyrighted. The courts have been this for CENTURIES, and SONGS are NOT copyrighted! CHECK IT OUT! NOPE, SONGS AREN'T! MUSIC IS! LYRICS ARE! ARRANGEMENTS ARE! PERFORMANCES ARE! But SONGS AREN'T! SO, even though the lyrics are copyrighted, the MUSIC isn't, because THAT copyright expired.

      IMAGINE how complicated things would be if they ended up saying SONGS are copyrighted! HECK, they JUST HAD A CASE a couple weeks ago apparently that said a group violated a copyright because they used part of the MUSIC. The lyrics and all were different.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9954744].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author kindsvater
    Large international corporate business threatens small San Francisco cafe.

    Having lived in San Francisco I would say it is doubtful a lawsuit will be filed. Little chance of a jury awarding even token damages, but a high likelihood of major blowback, bad publicity, protests, boycotts, etc.

    .
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9952127].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author David Beroff
    Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

    When companies pull crap like this, it's hard to be sympathetic.
    While I do understand your concern, Steve, how is this any different from when someone steals and re-sells someone else's WSO?
    Signature
    Put MY voice on YOUR video: AwesomeAmericanAudio.com
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9954566].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by David Beroff View Post

      While I do understand your concern, Steve, how is this any different from when someone steals and re-sells someone else's WSO?
      APPLES AND ORANGES! This is NOT like someone stole a WSO! This is like someone waited until decades after the original author died, and copied the concept, and took parts from the sales concept to sell a product they wrote. Frankly, if copyrights lasted forever, and the general public were as free as they are, and a LICK could be determined infringement, as it apparently is, then EVERYONE would have infringed at some point by the time they were 30. For something like this, there has to be SOME sort of expiration. Isn't it enough that it is generally long after the author is dead?

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9954750].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author David Beroff
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        For something like this, there has to be SOME sort of expiration. Isn't it enough that it is generally long after the author is dead?
        Like Walt Disney?

        Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

        Someone else's WSO hasn't been ingrained into virtually every child in America.
        In other words, a highly successful ideavirus!

        Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

        BMI may have the right to enforce the copyright, but should they? There are quite a lot of things that people and companies have the right to do, yet they choose not to.
        OK; fair enough. On this, I will agree with you.
        Signature
        Put MY voice on YOUR video: AwesomeAmericanAudio.com
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9955137].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by David Beroff View Post

          YEP! GOOD EXAMPLE! Walt disney has, for a long time, taken advantage of a couple brothers that went around collecting stories, and others. FROZEN is a good example, based loosely on the ice queen by hans christian anderson.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9955173].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
      Originally Posted by David Beroff View Post

      While I do understand your concern, Steve, how is this any different from when someone steals and re-sells someone else's WSO?
      Someone else's WSO hasn't been ingrained into virtually every child in America.

      BMI may have the right to enforce the copyright, but should they? There are quite a lot of things that people and companies have the right to do, yet they choose not to.

      This is one of those times, in my opinion, that they should choose not to. That they took the greedy path lowers even more than it already was my perception of the company.
      Signature

      The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

      Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9954952].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author onSubie
        Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

        This is one of those times, in my opinion, that they should choose not to. That they took the greedy path lowers even more than it already was my perception of the company.
        And in most cases they would have a very difficult time showing damages.

        If someone recorded a version a la Marylin Monroe then royalties would likely be paid and if not, there are profits to share.

        But going after a bar because "Happy Birthday" is sung at parties is quite different. I'm sure that the bar would have no problem proving that "Happy Birthday" is neither used for explicit promotional purposes nor impacts the revenue of the bar in any measurable fashion.

        Technically any music performed or played in bars should pay a royalty (at least in Canada). But this is for paid performers and piped in music. Staff and guests spontaneously singing songs is probably not a "performance".
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9955142].message }}

Trending Topics