Senators Wyden And Udall Say They've Seen No Evidence That NSA Surveillance Stopped Dozens Of Terrorist Attacks
If You've Got Nothing To Hide, You've Actually Got Plenty To Hide

Lawsuit Filed To Prove Happy Birthday Is In The Public Domain; Demands Warner Pay Back Millions Of License Fees

Copyright

from the about-time dept

Thu, Jun 13th 2013 1:30pm — Mike Masnick
Happy Birthday remains the most profitable song ever. Every year, it is the song that earns the highest royalty rates, sent to Warner/Chappell Music (which makes millions per year from "licensing" the song). However, as we've been pointing out for years, the song is almost certainly in the public domain. Robert Brauneis did some fantastic work a few years ago laying out why the song's copyright clearly expired many years ago, even as Warner/Chappell pretends otherwise. You can read all the background, but there are a large number of problems with the copyright, including that the sisters who "wrote" the song, appear to have written neither the music, nor the lyrics. At best, they may have written a similar song called "Good Morning to All" in 1893, with the same basic melody, but there's evidence to suggest the melody itself predated the sisters. But, more importantly, the owner of the copyright (already questionable) failed to properly renew it in 1962, which would further establish that it's in the public domain.

The issue, as we've noted, is that it's just not cost effective for anyone to actually stand up and challenge Warner Music, who has strong financial incentive to pretend the copyright is still valid. Well, apparently, someone is pissed off enough to try. The creatively named Good Morning to You Productions, a documentary film company planning a film about the song Happy Birthday, has now filed a lawsuit concerning the copyright of Happy Birthday and is seeking to force Warner/Chappell to return the millions of dollars it has collected over the years. That's going to make this an interesting case.
More than 120 years after the melody to which the simple lyrics of Happy Birthday to You is set was first published, defendant Warner/Chappell boldly, but wrongfully and unlawfully, insists that it owns the copyright to Happy Birthday to You, and with that copyright the exclusive right to authorize the song's reproduction, distribution, and public performances pursuant to federal copyright law. Defendant Warner/Chappell either has silenced those wishing to record or perform Happy Birthday to You or has extracted millions of dollars in unlawful licensing fees from those unwilling or unable to challenge its ownership claims.

Irrefutable documentary evidence, some dating back to 1893, shows that the copyright to Happy Birthday to You, if there ever was a valid copyright to any part of the song expired no later than 1921 and that if defendant Warner/Chappell owns any rights to Happy Birthday to You, those rights are limited to the extremely narrow right to reproduce and distribute specific piano arrangements for the song published in 1935. Significantly, no court has ever adjudicated the validity or scope of the defendant's claimed interest in Happy Birthday to You, nor in the song's melody or lyrics, which are themselves independent works.

Plaintiff GMTY, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, seeks a declaration that Happy Birthday to You is dedicated to public use and is in the public domain as well as monetary damages and restitution of all the unlawful licensing fees that defendant Warner/Chappell improperly collected from GMTY and all other Class members.
The full lawsuit, embedded below, goes through a detailed history of the song and any possible copyright claims around it. It covers the basic history of "Good Morning to You," but also notes that the "happy birthday" lyrics appeared by 1901 at the latest, citing a January 1901 edition of Inland Educator and Indiana School Journal which describes children singing a song called "happy birthday to you." They also point to a 1907 book that uses a similar structure for a song called "good-bye to you" which also notes that you can sing "happy birthday to you" using the same music. In 1911, the full "lyrics" to Happy Birthday to You were published, with a notation that it's "sung to the same tune as 'Good Morning.'" There's much more in the history basically showing that the eventual copyright that Warner/Chappell holds is almost entirely unrelated to the song Happy Birthday to You.

The detail in the filing is impressive, and I can't wait to see how Warner/Chappell replies. As the filing notes, there are a variety of copyright claims around the song, but all are invalid or expired, and the very, very narrow copyright that Warner/Chappell might hold is not on the song itself. In other words, Warner/Chappell is almost certainly guilty of massive copyfraud -- perhaps the most massive in history -- in claiming a copyright it clearly has no right to.
If and to the extent that defendant Warner/Chappell relies upon the 1893, 1896, 1899, or 1907 copyrights for the melody of Good Morning to All, those copyrights expired or were forfeited as alleged herein.

As alleged above, the 1893 and 1896 copyrights to the original and revised versions of Song Stories for the Kindergarten, which contained the song Good Morning to All were not renewed by Summy and accordingly expired in 1921 and 1924, respectively.

As alleged above, the 1899 copyright to Song Stories for the Sunday School, which contained Good Morning to All, and the 1907 copyright to Good Morning to All were not renewed by Summy Co. before its expiration in 1920 and accordingly expired in 1927 and 1935, respectively.

The 1893, 1896, 1899, and 1907 copyrights to Good Morning to All were forfeited by the republication of Good Morning to All in 1921 without proper notice of its original 1893 copyright.

The copyright to Good Morning to All expired in 1921 because the 1893 copyright to Song Stories for the Kindergarten was not properly renewed.

The piano arrangements for Happy Birthday to You published by Summy Co. 111 in 1935 (Reg. Nos. E51988 and E51990) were not eligible for federal copyright protection because those works did not contain original works of authorship, except to the extent of the piano arrangements themselves.

The 1934 and 1935 copyrights pertained only to the piano arrangements, not to the melody or lyrics of the song Happy Birthday to You.

The registration certificates for The Elementary Worker and His Work in 1912, Harvest in 1924, and Children's Praise and Worship in 1928, which did not attribute authorship of the lyrics to Happy Birthday to You to anyone, are prima facie evidence that the lyrics were not authored by the Hill Sisters.
And, now we await Warner/Chappell desperately trying to refute an awful lot of evidence that they've been engaging in millions of dollars worth of copyfraud year after year.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, happy birthday, public domain
Companies: gmty, good morning to you productions, warner/chappell

73 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

The First Word

“
Happy Lawsuit To You!
Happy Lawsuit To You!
This Song Is Public Domain,
Happy Lawsuit To You!

(To the tune of Good Morning To You)
—Cowards Anonymous
 ”

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2013 @ 1:34pm

    It be awesome to see this pursued to a judgment. Not sure how likely that is.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Subservient White Cattle, 13 Jun 2013 @ 11:09pm

      Re: White Extinction

      You are oblivious to what is happening behind the scenes. this is not left vs right, GOP vs Dems, Socialism vs liberty. This is war against White people.

      Why do hostile globalist elite defend Israel as a Jewish ethnostate with Jewish only immigration, but ravage White majority Europe/North America into a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural Gulag with dystopian non-White colonization?

      The world is 93% non-White, only 7% White. But 3rd world colonizers, Muslims, Sikhs, Hispanics, are aggressively advancing their agenda to annihilate gullible Whites, just as China annihilates Tibet.

      How long will gullible Whites cuckold for murderous anti-White elite, who confiscate our guns, infiltrate/subvert our banks/FBI/CIA, indoctrinate White kids in academia/mass media, plunder White jobs/wages, & butcher White soldiers in bankrupting wars?

      "Native" Americans invaded from East Asia. Yellow & Brown races committed 10-times more genocide, slavery, imperialism than Whites. Since Old-Testament, Whites have been victims of Jewish/Crypto-Jewish, Turkic, Muslim, N.African imperialism, slavery, genocide.

      Gullible Whites should reject subversive ideologies- libertarianism, feminism, liberalism- & reject hostile slanders of racism. Peace to all humanity, but White people must organize to advance their interests, their fertility, their homelands. Spread this message. Reading list: goo.gl/iB777 , goo.gl/htyeq , amazon.com/dp/0759672229 , amazon.com/dp/1410792617

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Coyote (profile), 13 Jun 2013 @ 11:35pm

        Re: Re: White Extinction

        What kind of drugs are you on? I would most certainly wish to purchase them from you, for a hefty sum of three fifty.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Niall (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 2:55am

        Re: Re: White Extinction

        The only cattle I see are the brain-dead idiots who espouse this utter bullcrap. Look! People with human DNA did the same as other people with human DNA!

        I think you missed the part where all humans, including those with a melanin deficiency (and in some cases, a brain deficiency) came from Africa.

        I'm also pretty sure that, at the risk of Godwinning, that certain early-to-mid-20th Century dictators were also as melanin/brain-deficient as yourself and caused massive death and destruction, and I'm pretty sure that it was the melanin/brain-deficient types who were running slavery in the Western hemisphere.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2013 @ 6:25am

        Re: Re: White Extinction

        "The world is 93% non-White, only 7% White"

        "Yellow & Brown races committed 10-times more genocide, slavery, imperialism than Whites."

        Given your population estimates vs counts of grievous acts it sounds like a white person is far more likely to commit genocide, slavery, imperialism than a non white person.

        Perhaps you should at least pull out a calculator first before you shoot holes into your own arguments. It seems to me that whites should not have guns since they clearly can't be trusted with them.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2013 @ 7:01am

        Re: Re: White Extinction

        WTF?????

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2013 @ 7:25am

      Re:

      Is there a Kickstarter campaign or anything to help fund this case through to completion?

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2013 @ 1:45pm

    i hope this is sorted out quickly and Warner/Chappell get stung in the same way as they have stung others. the other thing is, when will politicians realise that they need to move their loyalty from the bank accounts of the entertainment industries towards the people. if not, there is gonna be more shit for them to deal with!

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Greevar (profile), 13 Jun 2013 @ 7:07pm

      Re:

      That's because the politicians and the special interests are the same people. Rich people get themselves into office so they can collaborate with their rich friends in office to form legislation that is sympathetic to their own financial aspirations and business friends. Basically, rich people get into office and vote for laws that make them more money.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Nimmer, 14 Jun 2013 @ 11:41am

      Re:

      >>when will politicians realise that they need to move their loyalty from the bank accounts of the entertainment industries towards the bank accounts of the tech industry?

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2013 @ 1:52pm

    This is long past due.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Cowards Anonymous, 13 Jun 2013 @ 1:58pm

    Happy Lawsuit To You!
    Happy Lawsuit To You!
    This Song Is Public Domain,
    Happy Lawsuit To You!

    (To the tune of Good Morning To You)

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    RD, 13 Jun 2013 @ 2:02pm

    Reap what you Sow

    The copyright ShillTrolls hate it when the law isn't on their side like they thought it was. They hate it when the law is enforced, unless when it's against the general public.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2013 @ 2:07pm

    .......What a day for a Birthday, lets all eat some cake.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    anonymouse, 13 Jun 2013 @ 2:11pm

    Copyfraud

    They owe society so much they should just claim complete bankruptcy and put all their works in the public domain for the next 75 years or the life of the copyright on any work they have until the copyright runs out. Also every person that has received over the average wage has received stolen money so they should be forced to pay that money back to the people they stole it from, the average wage being 34 000 a year i believe

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 13 Jun 2013 @ 2:38pm

      Re: Copyfraud

      And extorting fees for or preventing the use of something you've no legal claim to is honest work then? Go set up a toll booth on the nearest highway and let me know how that works out for you.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Chris, 27 Jul 2014 @ 12:07am

      Re: Copyfraud

      How do you figure anything over $35,000 is stolen? That isn't how economics works, otherwise we would all be in worse shape financially than we already are. Your dictator thinking is humorous!!

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2013 @ 2:22pm

    Bravo

    Bravo Good Morning To You Productions!

    Warner / Chappell know they have been lying to the public about this for decades.

    When they lose, let's see if "the industry" cleans up their act before government steps in and introduces serious penalties for willfully misrepresenting copyright. Such penalties are long overdue.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2013 @ 3:20pm

      Re: Bravo

      Warner is a member of the RIAA. Government stepping in to stop one of the backers of the very lucrative donor RIAA is pretty low. Warner will likely force a NDA-strapped settlement through, bow down fast if they feel they will loose or force a Pyrrhus victory for Good Morning To You Productions (read: Stall untill they go bankrupt). It is also possible they will try and fight to win.

      In half the cases the primary answer from Warner is gonna be pretty irrelevant (Stall/settle). If they wanna bow down this is going to be a weak defence, trying to make their previous actions irrelevant to the current case (complete damage control). If they try to win, they will have to have some very convincing counter-arguments.

      The only argument for government taking a stance is if Warner fights and loose the case.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2013 @ 2:01am

        Re: Re: Bravo

        It is unlikely that Good Morning To You Productions would want to settle. Of course stalling will definitely be the case.

        Once Warner / Chappell has lost the case, more cases will follow.

        It is a slow change, one that takes so much time... but it is an irreversible one. In 5 to 10 years the public will have won.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2014 @ 6:33am

          Re: Re: Re: Bravo

          By the public, you mean tech lobbyists.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2014 @ 6:39pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Bravo

            The interests of tech and the public interest are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The public benefits a lot from tech. Everyone, except parasite middlemen that contribute nothing, are generally harmed by excessive IP laws.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Chosen Reject (profile), 13 Jun 2013 @ 2:23pm

    I've been thinking about doing the same thing with Steamboat Willie. Unfortunately, I don't have the money. I wonder where the GMTY people are getting their funds. Wherever they're getting it, I hope it doesn't run out. That will probably be Warner/Chappell's biggest tactic.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2014 @ 6:42am

      Re:

      Perhaps a corporate entity who would benefit from the weakening of copyright law. Gee, I do wonder who that may be.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Applesauce, 13 Jun 2013 @ 2:32pm

    Warner's next move...

    A modest contribution to certain members of Congress to correct this oversight. Simply extend the copyright retroactively (it's been done before). We obviously need to protect the artist's creativity!!!

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2013 @ 2:33pm

    Gee Whiz! Prenda is so yesterday. Onwards to the second feature.... Yet, another good reason to continue eating popcorn.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2013 @ 3:18pm

      Re:

      And to think - the pro-extortion people said so-called "piracy" would lead to a reduction in popcorn sales.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      DannyB (profile), 13 Jun 2013 @ 3:41pm

      Re:

      Dear Time Warner,

      Did you know that Prenda is available to represent you? And at low, low rates!

      Prenda Law, like Time Warner, firmly believes in intellectual property and that the world owes copyright owners and their progeny a living forever, and ever, and ever. Amen.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2013 @ 3:16pm

    If only there was a provision/punishment/penalty for "willful public domain infringement."

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DannyB (profile), 13 Jun 2013 @ 3:39pm

    Dear Judge

    Time Warner respectfully submits to the court that Time Warner is not the correct party to be the defendant in this lawsuit.

    Clearly this is all Google's fault.

    First, Time Warner believes that the sisters did have copyright in 1983, but Google is failing to find it.

    Second, Time Warner believes that the copyright was renewed in 1962, but again Google is failing to find it.

    Third, Google was negligent in not having a large prominently labeled magic button entitled "Help Time Warner know which copyrights it owns".

    Time Warner firmly believes in intellectual property, that it should own all of it, that nothing belongs in the public domain because that diminishes value, and that intellectual property of all kinds should last forever.

    It is quite telling that pirate Google believes none of these things.

    Respectfully Submitted,
    Time Warner

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    The Real Michael, 13 Jun 2013 @ 3:49pm

    Warner/Chappell have no right to own the song Happy Birthday. They didn't compose it, therefore it's not theirs to take.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    S. T. Stone, 13 Jun 2013 @ 3:57pm

    Huh. None of the usual trolls showed up this time around.

    It's a birthday miracle.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Grover (profile), 13 Jun 2013 @ 4:58pm

    Mike. . .

    This...this is beautifully written. I've had a mental orgasm, one that I shall never forget. I can only hope that these slimey aholeios bite the big one! Karma, thy name will always be upon our lips!

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2014 @ 6:28am

      Re: Mike. . .

      Personally, I wonder who is funding this nonsense. Cause it most likely is not the film makers. Probably the same party funding that other strident, whiny anti-copyright blog.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 13 Jun 2013 @ 6:42pm

    My best guess is the first 'counter argument' from Warner is going to be a nice hefty check, a nicely binding NDA, and hoping that the ones bringing the lawsuit can be bought off, because if that doesn't work things could get rather unpleasant for Warner here.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2013 @ 7:08pm

    Official Warner/Chappell Response:

    We've got more lawyers
    We've got more lawyers
    We can spend money forever
    Fuck off and die

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2013 @ 9:39pm

    Happy Birthday to the ground mother fucker.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    George Bates, 14 Jun 2013 @ 6:33am

    Whether or not they win the case isn't going to affect anyone here .... Why does it matter so much. Record companies do a huge amount if good for the recording industry and with music pirating of nowadays, some of the profits from that one song might be helping keep then afloat. I say why make such a fuss about it.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Anonymous Howard (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 7:27am

      Re:

      Let me get this straight:
      - You think it's not a big deal if a record company scam millions per year in shady, extortion like deals
      - You think it's ok to abuse the copyright system
      - You think record companies do a huge amount of good (to who?), and deserve all the help they can get to stay afloat
      - You think we actually need record companies (if they can't persist, then no, the marked do not need them.)
      - You think music piracy is their main plight

      I have only one question: WTF?

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2014 @ 6:40am

        Re: Re:

        Get your facts straight - this is an action against a MUSIC PUBLISHER, not a RECORD COMPANY. Typical comment on this blog.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      @ShaunDreclin, 19 Jun 2013 @ 5:43pm

      Response to: George Bates on Jun 14th, 2013 @ 6:33am

      Record companies barely pay the artists 1% of what they earn. They take advantage of talented people and protect their own interests with bribes and lawyers. People make much more money publishing their own music now.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Janet, 14 Jun 2013 @ 7:57am

    HAPPY BIRTHDAY

    That is the most rediculous thing I've ever heard of!!!!!!
    Absolutely!!!!!!!

    So SAD and So BAD !!!!!!!!!

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2013 @ 5:55pm

    Time to buy a law revision

    Geez, looks like the execs at Warner Brothers are going to have to buy a law change and possible a court or two!

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Marshall Scott Veach, 15 Jun 2013 @ 6:36am

    I am far from an expert in this field, but won't Warners just dot he same thing Disney does--? Spend enough money to make a law that carves out happy birthday as a special case and then apply it retroactively?

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Joren De Wachter, 15 Jun 2013 @ 7:32am

    TEDx presentation on IP

    This is my TEDx presentation on IP - it uses "happy birthday" to make a point that many people would agree with.

    http://youtu.be/E5BOBs3Nmbw

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    The Libertarian, 3 Sep 2013 @ 11:39am

    re: ShanDreclin and this

    True, unless you happen to be one of the chosen slaves. :(

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DaveHowe (profile), 25 Jul 2014 @ 1:45am

    I am just assuming...

    This is a snowball thing. There is now so much money riding on it (particuarly disgorgement of illegally obtained fees) TW can't afford to *not* fight any attempt to invalidate the copyright - and given that, there is no additional cost (to them) of continuing to demand fees;

    I suspect also that executives are either fooling themselves that they can somehow just declare HB to be public domain, tell the court the issue is moot (as it is now public domain) and walk away, should they be faced with a lawsuit like this one
    -or-
    Have a golden parachute deal where they can walk away with a big payoff and move to another equally abusive copyright maximalist, because after all, its the *company* that did this, not them, right?

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ehud Gavron (profile), 26 Jul 2014 @ 7:18pm

    All suites dismissed

    This was dismissed (WOP) by Good Morning To You Productions.

    Is there some reason anyone thinks that Warner can be beat?

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      mouse, 28 Jul 2014 @ 10:05am

      Re: All suites dismissed

      no according to wikipedia... they say the petition to dismiss was dismissed

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    The Chocolate Chips, 27 Jul 2014 @ 9:03am

    One of the more ridiculous

    abuses of copyright law ever ... I'm pleased these guys are going after Warner. if there's any justice Warner will lose big.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property, 27 Jul 2014 @ 11:00am

    It's fine as long as the judges don't invent a copyright

    I bet they invent some nonsensical state common law copyright or similar, like they did with that classical music compilation some time ago.

    I sure hope they win, though.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2014 @ 12:26pm

    Now if only they could suffer absurd statutory damages from it. Fine them a billion for every wrongful license seeking or lawsuit of their own they filed. Good for the goose is good for the gander, eh?

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Vesa, 27 Jul 2014 @ 12:27pm

    Happy birthday...

    https://soundcloud.com/psygfault/happy-birthday

    A short electronic cover of Happy Birthday. Just my way of showing support to those fighting against copyright maximalism and corporate appropriation of public domain works. And also to stick it to Warner...

    I'd like to also encourage everyone with any musical talent to create their own cover versions of Happy Birthday and publish them... the more the better!

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ehud Gavron (profile), 28 Jul 2014 @ 10:31am

    I looked on PACER. Dismissed.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    submandave, 28 Jul 2014 @ 12:46pm

    Payback

    IMHO they owe millions in punitive damages as well for forcing us to have to put up with all the even more lame "Happy Birthday" variations they forced TGIF, O'Charlie's, Appleby's, etc. to create just to avoid what were fraudulent copyright violation threats.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ehud Gavron (profile), 28 Jul 2014 @ 5:16pm

    ECF/PACER details

    So there's only one party whose name starts with "Good morning" - Good Morning To You Productions Corp.
    https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iquery.pl?60049520507146-L_1_0-1
    https://ecf.nysd.uscourts .gov/cgi-bin/iquery.pl?778665026570375-L_1_1-0-4300355-pty

    There are two cases in which this party participated:
    1:13-cv-04040-LLS Good Morning To You Productions Corp. v. Warner/Chappell Music, Inc. filed 06/13/13 closed 07/26/13
    and
    1:14-mc-00179-P1 Good Morning To You Productions Corp. et al v. Warner/Chappell Music, Inc. et al filed 06/06/14 closed 07/16/14

    On the former, the docket report at https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?107084870436263-L_1_0-1 shows
    07/26/2013 3[RECAP] NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff(s) and or their counsel(s), hereby give notice that the above-captioned action is voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice against the defendant(s) Warner/Chappell Music, Inc.. Document filed by Good Morning To You Productions Corp.. (Rifkin, Mark) (Entered: 07/26/2013)

    On the latter the docket report at https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?677990991319645-L_1_0-1 shows 07/16/2014 14 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge P. Kevin Castel from Mark C. Rifkin dated 7/15/2014 re: plaintiffs hereby withdraw their motion and notify the Court that neither party intends to appear in Part 1 for the hearing scheduled in this matter for tomorrow, 7/16/2014, at 2:00 p.m. ENDORSEMENT: The motion is withdrawn and the order to show cause terminated. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel, Part I, on 7/15/2014) (tn) (Entered: 07/16/2014)

    For your convenience I have ensured that everything I viewed was uploaded to RECAP. So you can view it free.

    To repeat what I said twice before - there is no case anymore. It's been dismissed.

    Best regards,

    Ehud
    Tucson AZ US

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2014 @ 6:36am

      Re: ECF/PACER details

      Actually, this dismissal may only apply to the motion to compel ASCAP to produce documents. I think that the beast lives.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Ehud Gavron (profile), 29 Jul 2014 @ 7:32am

        Re: Re: ECF/PACER details

        "Actually, this dismissal may only apply... I think that the beast lives."

        Actually you're dead wrong.

        E

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Dave Xanatos, 29 Jul 2014 @ 8:54am

      Re: ECF/PACER details

      My understanding is that it was dismissed in favor of (joined with?) Rupa Marya v. Warner Chappell Music Inc. That case looks active, but I don't have a PACER subscription to directly view information on it.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ehud Gavron (profile), 29 Jul 2014 @ 9:35am

    Rupa Marya?

    It's not in the Southern District of New York.

    Looking for Warner Chappel, there are:
    2 Warner Chappel Music (neither involved with anything like Rupa Marya)
    3 Warner Chappel Music, Inc. (one without the comma) (none involved...)
    1 Warner Chappel Publishing Co (also not involved...)

    If someone can tell me which court or a docket number I can dig it up :)

    E

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Dave Xanatos, 29 Jul 2014 @ 11:04am

      Re: Rupa Marya?

      California central
      2:13-cv-04460
      The Honorable George H King, presiding.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Austin (profile), 29 Jul 2014 @ 10:23am

    Two things

    1) Unless you sing REALLY slowly, this is WAY under 30 seconds, so isn't it exempt under fair use?

    2) Couldn't you just sing "Happy Birthday Mr. President" to everyone? Aside from a pretty clear case for the parody exception, you also get to call all your friends and loved ones "Mr. President" which HAS to be an upgrade from whatever their normal title is. Bonus points if it's girlfriend-to-boyfriend an you use a sultry voice.

    Just saying. I mean I'm all for this to all the poor people who paid Warner can get their money back, but it's not like there aren't a myriad of creative ways to get around this copyright in particular.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ehud Gavron (profile), 29 Jul 2014 @ 11:28am

    The lawsuit

    thanks. Here's the original filing from RECAP:
    http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cacd.564772/gov.uscourts.cacd.564772.1.0.pdf

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]


Senators Wyden And Udall Say They've Seen No Evidence That NSA Surveillance Stopped Dozens Of Terrorist Attacks
If You've Got Nothing To Hide, You've Actually Got Plenty To Hide
Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

Friday

19:39 Important Announcement: Techdirt Is Migrating To A New Platform (0)
More arrow

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.