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

Tue, Feb 9th 2016 10:38am — Tim Cushing

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.

Wb-Birthday-Settlement (PDF)Wb-Birthday-Settlement (Text)

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

37 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2016 @ 11:12am

I still think the best part is on Teen Titans Go when the Titans wanted to sing Happy Birthday to Beast Boy. Robin loudly declares, "We do not have the budget for that song!" Which is notable since Warner produces Teen Titans Go. I guess Warner knew they were going to get into trouble in this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matthew (profile), 9 Feb 2016 @ 11:27am

Sing it - you know the tune...
This is long overdue
This is long overdue
Fuck Warner Music
And the *AAs too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wendy Cockcroft, 10 Feb 2016 @ 5:57am
  
  Re: Sing it - you know the tune...
  If Happy Birthday remains
  Out of public domain
  Who else will lay claim to it
  And demand that we pay?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2016 @ 12:03pm

so why not 'stick it to Warner' in the same way it would/does when the shoe is on the other foot? charge them $150,000 per infringement, multiplied by the number of years, multiplied by any number that can be pulled out of your ass, just as it would have done and arrive at an answer so outlandish, it belies comprehension? giving Warner a taste of it's own medicine could have been the best thing that could ever have happened to it. it would perhaps have made it realise exactly how ridiculous it is when suing others!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 9 Feb 2016 @ 1:01pm
  
  Re:
  Because if it's in the public domain, then what they're doing is not infringement, so those rules don't apply.
  
  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 ]
  - surfer (profile), 9 Feb 2016 @ 1:16pm
    
    copyfraud
    copyfraud; the illegal pursuant of a licensing demand that was not owned by the 'alleged' copyright holder. theft from the public domain in direct effort to feloniously support a business model, each count of licensing demands should be met with a $150,000 statutory damages for each and every license pursued during the terms of the dispute.
    
    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 ]
    - Wendy Cockcroft, 10 Feb 2016 @ 6:01am
      
      Re: copyfraud
      Well well well, our dearly beloved commenter Whatever has yet to put in an appearance to opine. Where are the other maximalist apologists?
      
      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 ]
  - nasch (profile), 9 Feb 2016 @ 5:11pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Not to mention that statutory damages are per work infringed, not per act of infringement. $150,000 would be nothing to Warner Music.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DannyB (profile), 9 Feb 2016 @ 12:48pm

What is really disgusting
It is disgusting that a song that has questionable copyright, lyrics from one, melody from another; and was published in a children's songbook, long ago, is now the subject of a squabble for millions of dollars.

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 ]
- Wendy Cockcroft, 10 Feb 2016 @ 6:03am
  
  Re: What is really disgusting
  The useful art of shaking people down and the science of convincing the public that a temporary monopoly privilege should be treated the same as physical property.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2016 @ 12:56pm

Happy Payday, Mark Rifkin, Happy Payday Mark Rifkin,Happy Payday Mark Rifkin, You sure raked it in.
And now we end up with Mark Rifkin, and his associates making a cool $4.62 million off the back of happy birthday - which will make these lawyers almost certainly the highest paid recipients from the song in it's long history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2016 @ 1:00pm
  
  Re: Happy Payday, Mark Rifkin, Happy Payday Mark Rifkin,Happy Payday Mark Rifkin, You sure raked it in.
  And if everybody who has paid to use the song in the past lines up to collect they'll be getting pennies to the dollar back. $10 million cannot pay back $50 million.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2016 @ 1:24pm
  
  Re: Happy Payday, Mark Rifkin, Happy Payday Mark Rifkin,Happy Payday Mark Rifkin, You sure raked it in.
  The main purpose of the various intellectual property laws is to enable corporations squash competition, and to make the lawyers rich.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Capt ICE Enforcer, 9 Feb 2016 @ 1:36pm

Bad Idea
Bad idea having the court say that Happy Birthday is in the public domain. I can see the lawsuits being filed over the lost revenue from the song and our government can't afford it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TechDescartes (profile), 9 Feb 2016 @ 2:06pm

Not-So-Great Expectations
Warners was expecting to have "Happy Birthday" under copyright until 2030.
Aren't copyrights supposed to last to infinity and beyond?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 9 Feb 2016 @ 2:59pm
  
  Re: Not-So-Great Expectations
  Don't worry. That date will get changed before then.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 10 Feb 2016 @ 2:43am
  
  Re: Not-So-Great Expectations
  Not so, they still like to pretend that copyright isn't effectively eternal, so they argue for 'forever minus a day', as that technically isn't forever, which means it's technically limited in it's duration.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Sigh, 20 Feb 2016 @ 11:43am
    
    Re: Re: Not-So-Great Expectations
    What's the difference between "forever LESS a day" and "forever PLUS a day"? Two whole days!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2016 @ 4:12pm

>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.

So, it's not public domain then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2016 @ 5:06pm

Mike Masnick just hates it when copyright law is enforced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2016 @ 6:11am
  
  Re:
  Have a DMCA vote.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2016 @ 8:53am
  
  Re:
  The Internet just hates tired old tropes. Surely you bootlicks are capable of rephrasing your nonsense in a fresh new format? Perhaps you could trademark it!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2016 @ 5:04pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You think you're fucking hilarious don't you Mikey? TPP got signed in, and you freetards lost. I'm looking forward to the day the police hauls in your entitled pirate ass and blows you a new asshole the size of the St Helens crater.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Feb 2016 @ 6:45am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Copyright law's best and brightest.
      
      Have another DMCA vote.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That One Other Not So Random Guy, 9 Feb 2016 @ 6:05pm

Insanity
"the Settlement will end more than 80 years of uncertainty regarding the disputed copyright"

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 ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2016 @ 8:41pm
  
  Re: Insanity
  Even in sensible countries with life + 50, if you write a song at 18 and live to 88 that song will be under copyright for 120 years.
  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 ]
  - nasch (profile), 9 Feb 2016 @ 8:58pm
    
    Re: Re: Insanity
    Even in sensible countries with life + 50,
    
    In what universe is life plus 50 years sensible?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2016 @ 11:57pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Insanity
      The universe where happy birthday's been public domain since 96. And a great many other things that are still tied up for years to come in the US. And where Walt Disney has been dead for 50 years, and where stuff he worked on alone is public domain ( +stuff he worked on with others who died before him), and any film made before 1966 is public domain.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2016 @ 12:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Insanity
        even "steam boat willy"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - nasch (profile), 10 Feb 2016 @ 6:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Insanity
        The universe where happy birthday's been public domain since 96.
        
        That isn't sensible. '46 would have been sensible, perhaps '56. But not '96, and certainly not 2016.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2016 @ 9:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Insanity
        The difference is actually 96 v 2030.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 10 Feb 2016 @ 11:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Insanity
        The difference is actually 96 v 2030.
        
        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 ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2016 @ 5:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Insanity
        Wether this case goes well or not, the difference between 96 and 2030 is the same for everything else still under copyright in the US, which is nearly everything. Whereas where I am hundreds of works a year come into the public domain.
        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 ]
    - Wendy Cockcroft, 10 Feb 2016 @ 6:05am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Insanity
      The corporate one.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2016 @ 6:58pm

So where do I turn myself in? I have violated a sacred trust between my government and a robber baron. I am no longer fit to participate in this society. Guess I should just go down to the steps of City Hall and set myself ablaze.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2016 @ 7:08pm

So they have made 50 millions ? Let's say this is the base of the calculation. the cost of a song 1$ the highest damage 150k ? The license fraud business should have damage equivalent to the profit made illegally. So 1k for licensing without certainty that you own the copyright = 1000 *150k = 150 millions in damage for the public. Then 150k * 50millions = 7.500 trillions. That should deter anyone else from profiting on the public's back for decades.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2016 @ 10:15am

That's nothing to the MAFIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]