Page 1 of Warner/Chappell Happy Birthday cash cow could end

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2015/07/filmmakers-fighting-happy-birthday-copyright-find-their-smoking-gun/

Yes, the song Happy Birthday is copyrighted and Warner make $2m a year off of it.

Quote:
Plaintiff Jennifer Nelson's movie is actually called Happy Birthday, and it's about the song. She had to pay Warner/Chappell $1,500 to use the song in her movie, and that didn't sit well with the documentarian. She's seeking to get that money back and also represent a class of plaintiffs who have paid similar licensing fees to Warner/Chappell on a copyright she and her lawyers say is illegitimate.
This bit sounds very dodgy...

Quote:
Further investigation showed that the song appeared in editions stretching back to 1922, which in the plaintiffs' view "proves conclusively" that "Happy Birthday" entered the public domain no later than that year. The song was printed without a copyright notice unlike other songs in the book. Rather, it included a notice that read "Special permission through courtesy of The Clayton F. Summy Co."

The Summy company is a publisher whom Warner/Chappell has maintained never authorized any pre-1935 publishing of the "Happy Birthday" lyrics.

That important line of text published underneath the song's lyrics was "blurred almost beyond legibility" in the copy that Warner/Chappell handed over in discovery. Plaintiffs' lawyers note that it's "the only line of the entire PDF that is blurred in that manner."
I wonder if someone purposefully blurred that line.

Editor
DVD REVIEWER
MYREVIEWER.COM

My Flickr Photostream

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/judge-warners-2m-happy-birthday-copyright-is-bogus/

Quote:
From what little is known about the Second Agreement, the idea that it related to the lyrics "is not supported by any explicit description of the agreement" and is "implausible," King wrote. Warner/Chappell's argument that the lyrics could have been transferred in the Third Agreement is "circular," he concludes. The Third Agreement is in the court record and "contains no reference to the transfer of the 'Happy Birthday' lyrics."

That means Summy Co. never got the rights to the lyrics, and they're now in the public domain.

The lawsuit also has requested restitution of the millions in licensing fees paid by various companies and individuals over the years. A spokesperson for the plaintiffs told The Associated Press that issue will be resolved at a later time.

"We are looking at the court's lengthy opinion and considering our options," Warner/Chappell told AP in a statement.


Editor
DVD REVIEWER
MYREVIEWER.COM

My Flickr Photostream

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/happy-birthday-is-public-domain-former-owner-warnerchapell-to-pay-14m/

Quote:
Music publisher Warner/Chappell will no longer be allowed to collect licensing royalties on those who sing "Happy Birthday" in public and will pay back $14 million to those who have paid for licensing in the past, according to court settlement papers filed late Monday night.

Quote:
Warner/Chappell has been collecting an estimated $2 million annually from people who use the "Happy Birthday" song, mainly in creative works like movies and television shows. For makers of independent documentaries like Nelson, the several thousand dollars charged can be a significant expense. The makers of acclaimed 1990s documentary Hoop Dreams famously paid $5,000 to show a scene where the family of one of its main subjects sang the "Happy Birthday" song.

Editor
DVD REVIEWER
MYREVIEWER.COM

My Flickr Photostream

Always thought a song over 50 years old no longer was copyright, and reverted to the public domain. But....

I know people like Cliff Richard and Elton John now have songs reaching 50 years old, so some older musicians were getting worried, especially those with money making Xmas songs, that gave them a good Xmas bonus, and so there is now an extension to 70 years in the UK, as from this link below in 2011.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/sep/12/musicians-copyright-extension