Posted on 09/23/2015 10:56:35 AM PDT by Impala64ssa
None of the companies that have collected royalties on the "Happy Birthday" song for the past 80 years held a valid copyright claim to one of the most popular songs in history, a federal judge in Los Angeles ruled on Tuesday.
In a stunning reversal of decades of copyright claims, the judge ruled that Warner/Chappell never had the right to charge for the use of the "Happy Birthday To You" song. Warner had been enforcing a copyright since 1988, when it bought Birch Tree Group, the successor to Clayton F. Summy Co., which claimed the original disputed copyright.
Judge George H. King ruled that a copyright filed by the Summy Co. in 1935 granted only the rights to specific piano arrangements of the music, not the actual song.
snip
Robert Brauneis, a George Washington University law professor who has extensively researched the copyright history of the song, says the ruling does not explicitly place "Happy Birthday To You" in the public domain.
"It does leave open some questions," Brauneis said Tuesday night. "If [the Hill sisters] didn't convey the rights to Summy Co., then is there someone else that might still own them?"
With Mildred Hill dead for nearly a century now, Brauneis said, "Figuring out who owned [the rights] at this point would be quite an interesting job."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Cars used some sort of copyright claim to the automobile also. It was invalidated after Ford took them to court.
“Appy Burp Day to you, appy Burp Day to you”
Now, movies can have scenes of people singing “Happy Birthday” instead of “For He’s A Jolly Good Fellow”.
Keep up the abortions.
Won’t be any more happy birthdays.
Unless muslims, but they are not happy.
Exactly.
Movies, TV shows, radio shows.
Happy Day!
women and minorities hit hardest,
Jehovas Witlesses Affected Least....
“Judge George H. King ruled that a copyright filed by the Summy Co. in 1935 granted only the rights to specific piano arrangements of the music, not the actual song.”
How novel.
A judge actually reads the copyright in question before ruling.
So, does Johnny Carson get a refund?
==
He used to look chagrined each time that song burst out at the mention of a birthday on The Tonight Show. He mentioned that each outburst resulted in a royalty payment.
That’s also why these chain restaurants all made up their own birthday songs for when the waitstaff is forced to come over to your table and sing.
I am of the opinion that no copyright or patent should last for more than 20 years.
The fact that this is even an issue or consideration points up how insane copyright law has become.
Let’s return to the original copyright law. 14 years for all registered work, renewable one time for another 14 years.
The entire Beatles catalog should be in the public domain by now.
Hippo, Birdies, Two Ewes.
Hippo
Birdie
2 ewes
Amazing how even a simple children's song can cause such a windfall for lawyers.
HA! Beat y’all to it!
But what about Mickey Mouse?
The many terrible uses he might be put to!
OH the horror!
I think (and many would agree) that copyrights should be time-limited, just like patents. Like patents, copyrights exist to allow artists to benefit from their creations, and to benefit society. It’s hard to see what benefit comes to society by continuing copyrights in perpetuity, and indeed it can be argued that there is some cost to society in doing so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.