Warner To Pay $14 Million In 'Happy Birthday' Settlement; Plaintiffs Ask For Declaration That Song Is In Public Domain
from the finally-put-all-this-litigious-BS-to-rest dept
A large settlement is on the way in the "Happy Birthday" lawsuit. Eriq Gardner of the The Hollywood Reporter has the news:
According to a court filing on Monday, music publisher Warner/Chappell will pay $14 million to end a lawsuit challenging its hold on the English language's most popular song, "Happy Birthday to You."This is indeed a large payoff, one that indicates Warner/Chappell is not willing to test the merits of its case in front of a jury. The merits of the case, of course, are pretty much some random assertions with little documentation to back them up, but assertions that have, nonetheless, allowed Warner to obtain an estimated $50 million in licensing fees over the years. The $14 million Warner will pay is roughly in line with what it expected to make during the remaining years of the copyright term.
Warners was expecting to have "Happy Birthday" under copyright until 2030. An IP valuation expert retained by the plaintiffs estimated that the song was to reap between $14 million to $16.5 million in the next 15 years.$4.62 million will be headed to the plaintiffs' attorneys with the rest being split among qualifying members of the class. But what's far more interesting is what the plaintiffs have asked the judge to approve.
The Settlement includes an express agreement by Defendants and the Intervenors to forego collecting any more fees for use of the Song, saving the Settlement Class millions of dollars. In addition, if approved by the Court, by declaring the Song to be in the public domain, the Settlement will end more than 80 years of uncertainty regarding the disputed copyright.As it stands now, the ownership of the song is still up in the air. Warner doesn't own it but no definitive declaration has been made as to who holds the rights. Lots of people made the assumption that Warner's lack of ownership = public domain, but that's not what the court has determined to this point. If the court pursues this -- and the information compiled to this point points to this conclusion -- we could see "Happy Birthday" finally remanded to the public domain.
If the court decides this isn't going to be part of the agreement, the song will still reside in legal limbo. All anyone will know for sure is that Warner won't be coming after them for using the song. But the heirs of Patty and Jessica Hill -- the sisters who wrote the lyrics -- might. The charity run by the heirs has already entered a motion to intervene, claiming if Warner doesn't own, then it does. If the judge declares the song to belong to the public domain, that's $14-16 million the heirs won't be collecting. It might go the plaintiffs' way, considering the judge's decision suggested the Hill's abandoned the copyright years ago (and may not have actually written the lyrics, either). There's a substantial amount of money at stake here and it's highly unlikely the Hills' heirs will let it go without a fight -- even if it's nowhere near certain they have any claim to the copyright at all.
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: class action, copyright, happy birthday, public domain, settlement
Companies: good morning to you, warner/chappell
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sing it - you know the tune...
This is long overdue
Fuck Warner Music
And the *AAs too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sing it - you know the tune...
Out of public domain
Who else will lay claim to it
And demand that we pay?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And giving them a taste of their own medicine only justifies the law and the outrageous fines. It won't make them want to change it. That's how they want the law even if it bites them from time to time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
copyfraud
evidence the work was elevated to the public domain in 1927 @ ~ $20 million / yr profit, using real facts and not hollywood accounting numbers, I would say Warner Bros is on the hook for $1.78 billion, with a 'B' towards a pool fund where everyone who licensed the song since 1927 can demand from.
live by copyright, be bankrupted by copyfraud. they should just double the fine, because copyfraud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: copyfraud
This case has done more to cement the Pirate Party's (and associates) contention that copyright terms are far too long and should ideally be about ten years long, if that.
If the abolitionist faction gains momentum the pro-copyright maximalists might be willing to be reasonable but until they feel the fire at their feet, I doubt it.
That said, this is a step in the right direction. It's just a shame the plaintiffs are willing to settle. This really does need to get in front of a jury.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is really disgusting
More money than was probably conceivable to whoever first wrote either the lyrics or melody.
Moreover, the original authors may not have been particularly greedy.
But look what Copyright does. Promoting the useful arts and sciences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is really disgusting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Happy Payday, Mark Rifkin, Happy Payday Mark Rifkin,Happy Payday Mark Rifkin, You sure raked it in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Happy Payday, Mark Rifkin, Happy Payday Mark Rifkin,Happy Payday Mark Rifkin, You sure raked it in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Happy Payday, Mark Rifkin, Happy Payday Mark Rifkin,Happy Payday Mark Rifkin, You sure raked it in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad Idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not-So-Great Expectations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not-So-Great Expectations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not-So-Great Expectations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not-So-Great Expectations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, it's not public domain then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Have another DMCA vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Insanity
Read that out loud. Only proof anyone needs to know how insane copyright is.
Copyright as it is now is not to encourage people to create. It's for corporations to make sure they have a cash cow forever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Insanity
Under Life + 50 happy Birthday went into the public domain in those countries in 1996. Given it was published in 1912 that's 84 years right there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Insanity
In what universe is life plus 50 years sensible?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Insanity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Insanity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Insanity
That isn't sensible. '46 would have been sensible, perhaps '56. But not '96, and certainly not 2016.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Insanity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Insanity
Not if this case goes well. But either way that's only the difference between insane and even more insane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Insanity
Granted the TPP will eventually increase the term to 70 years, but it won't be taking anything out of the public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Insanity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]