Documentary About Freeing Happy Birthday From Copyfraud Comes Out The Day After Happy Birthday Officially Declared Public Domain

from the happy-birthday dept

Tue, Jul 5th 2016 2:06pm — Mike Masnick

You may recall that last fall, a judge ruled that Warner/Chappell did not hold the copyright on the song "Happy Birthday," as the company had alleged for decades (and which it used to take in approximately $2 million in licenses per year). Of course, while many in the press immediately claimed the song was in the public domain, we noted that was not what the court actually said, and the song had actually become something of an orphan work, and theoretically, someone else could claim the copyright. Indeed, the heirs of Mildred and Patty Hill (who are often cited as the creators of the song) stepped up to claim the copyright. In December, all the parties agreed to settle the case with Warner agreeing to pay $14 million to go to some of the people who had falsely licensed the song. But, part of the settlement agreement was a stipulation that the song, finally, officially be declared in the public domain.

Last Thursday, the judge, George King, granted the settlement and officially declared Happy Birthday in the public domain:

If you can't read that, it says:

The Court hereby declares that, as of the Final Settlement Date, the Song entitled Happy Birthday to You! will be in the public domain.

So now, after all this, it's finally officially in the public domain.

And, right on cue, Jenn Nelson, the filmmaker who started to make a documentary about the song and eventually decided to challenge the copyright status on it, has put out a great 15-minute documentary about the fight to free Happy Birthday from the bogus copyright claims of Warner/Chappell. Watch it here:

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: warner/chappell

19 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anomalous Cowherd, 5 Jul 2016 @ 2:19pm

The irony is that it's an annoying song that I'd rather never hear again, but now it will become more and more popular than it already was because you'll hear it at restaurants instead of every restaurant's custom birthday song.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 5 Jul 2016 @ 2:23pm

But do you really want to take the risk?
Litigation is expensive and time consuming.

Anyone can sue you claiming to own some rights, even if they actually do not.(1)(2)

Any former copyright owner could claim some rights, even if they do not have any actual rights. They could claim some kind of "moral rights", etc.(3)

Any insane copyright owner (4) could sue, because that's just what they do.

It might just be safer never to use Happy Birthday To You.

Notes:
1. see collection societies who claim licensing fees for songs they do not even own.
2. see copyright owners who claim to own someone's nature recording even though they actually do not.
3. see where Google properly secured the rights and licensed a song to use in an ad, paid handsomely to use it, and then was sued by the singer of the song, over some 'moral right'
4. I might be being redundant?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 5 Jul 2016 @ 2:36pm

One song down. How many more to go?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Scote, 5 Jul 2016 @ 2:43pm

Happy, and a bit disappointed
Jenn Nelson's accomplishment in freeing this song from fraudulent rent seeking by Warner music is awesome. The film though, was a bit of a let down. It was fine, and it distilled the issue down to just a few very digestible points, but it left so much interesting stuff out, like the last minute find in Warner's own discovery materials that really proved that Warner was full of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 2:54pm

Re:
All of them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
profsteven (profile), 5 Jul 2016 @ 3:05pm

new day!
Happy happy birthday day!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2016 @ 6:01pm

Copyfraud is a great word!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pixelation, 5 Jul 2016 @ 9:07pm

Oh well...
Singing Happy Birthday just got boring. I much preferred when it was a copyright violation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Manok, 6 Jul 2016 @ 4:35am

Damn, 7 billion pirates less every year...

That said, 'can now be used by anyone around the world'... nope, most countries have their own bday song.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Padpaw (profile), 6 Jul 2016 @ 6:04am

Re: But do you really want to take the risk?
so better to stand down than stand up for your rights then?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 6 Jul 2016 @ 6:51am

Re: Re: But do you really want to take the risk?
This message brought to you by the MPAA and RIAA.

Don't take any chances.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 6 Jul 2016 @ 6:52am

Re:
> One song down. How many more to go?

FTFY . . .

One song downloaded. How many more to go?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Christopher Grotke, 6 Jul 2016 @ 7:20am

Worked for me - new content for the world
I took advantage of this and used a sound recording I made in the 1980's to create a new animated cartoon for the occasion. Without this case and expected result, I wouldn't have started.

(I started drawing when this case was first announced here at TechDirt, and finished this spring. A celebration of drawn animation and copyright law!)

Aliens’ Happy Birthday Message
https://vimeo.com/160542770
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2016 @ 9:54am

Re: Re: Re: But do you really want to take the risk?
No chances at all... be a lil bitch... its the ONLY way!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2016 @ 10:27am

Re: But do you really want to take the risk?
Fuck all of them and their asshole lawyers (even if said lawyers are in fact, not assholes) if they want to go to court and sue people over this.

It is in the public domain, its is fucking staying there, and they cannot do a fucking thing about it short of burning down the judicial system.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Seegras (profile), 8 Jul 2016 @ 9:26am

Re:
Ah, no. The German version use the same melody, the lyrics are "Zum Geburtstag viel Glück, zum Geburtstag viel Glück, zum Geburtstag liebe ... Zum Geburtstag viel Glück!".

That's so close to the English lyrics I wouldn't even give a copyright on it, because it's not original enough. And I've also heard it in French and Italian. Same there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Seegras (profile), 8 Jul 2016 @ 9:29am

Re:
Yes, that's precisely what is happening. There are still thousands of songs whose copyright is claimed fraudulently by people (or more likely: companies).

Books too, just do a google book search for an author that died before 1900.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2017 @ 5:35am

"which it used to take in approximately $2 million in licenses per year"

This begs the question: Will they be forced to give that money back?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vidiot (profile), 14 Sep 2017 @ 6:24am

Re:
As the documentary notes, Warner was required to set aside a $14 million fund to compensate those who paid fees since 1949.
[ link to this | view in thread ]