Article and # 4 .
Posted on 02/10/2016 3:08:30 AM PST by a fool in paradise
Sing the song, blow out the candles, eat the cake and unwrap the gifts.
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." Additionally, the settlement stipulates a proposed final judgment and order that would declare the song to be in the public domain. A memorandum in support of the settlement sings the praises of the deal as "truly, an historic result." U.S. District Judge George H. King will have to sign off on it.
The revelation of the settlement terms comes after King came to the conclusion this past September that Warner and its predecessor didn't hold any valid copyright to the song and never acquired the rights to the "Happy Birthday" lyrics. At the time, the judge stopped short of declaring that the song was in the public domain, and just before a trial was set to begin in December exploring the history of a song dating back to a 19th century schoolteacher named Patty Smith Hill and her sister Mildred Hill, the sides reached an agreement.
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.
"The judicial determination that 'Happy Birthday' is in the public domain also has substantial value," states the memorandum in support of the settlement. "Because Defendants have charged for use of the Song, untold thousands of people chose not to use the Song in their own performances and artistic works or to perform the Song in public. This has limited the number of times the Song was performed and used. After the Settlement is approved, that restraint will be removed and the Song will be performed and used far more often than it has been in the past. While there is no way to make a reliable estimate of the increase that will result, there can be no dispute that the increase will be substantial."
An agreement to have a judge declare the song in the public domain is no doubt unusual and will likely command some attention by the judge on review.
But for now, the settlement provides a big final act to the class action lawsuit brought by film director Jennifer Nelson, who was making a documentary about "Happy Birthday" and was asked to pay a $1,500 license fee. She sued to hinder Warners from ever forcing film and TV producers, or others, to pay again. The plaintiffs argued that a song appearing in early 20th-century children's textbooks had to be in the public domain because of general publication, abandonment or the length of the copyright term.
By agreeing to the settlement, Warners avoids going to trial to determine whether it should be punished for collecting licensing money for many decades. The music publisher also forgoes an appeal that it teased. The defendant continues to believe that a 1935 copyright registration should have entitled it to a presumption of copyright validity and that the song isn't in the public domain, but it has agreed to a judgment that states otherwise.
The plaintiffs were represented by attorneys led by Mark Rifkin, who according to the settlement terms will be seeking a $4.62 million fee, a third of the $14 million settlement fund. The rest would go to those who have paid to license "Happy Birthday" and meet the definition of the proposed class. Those folks are estimated to have spent more than $50 million on licensing fees on "Happy Birthday" over the years.
Last week, in announcing its quarterly earnings, Warner Music Group partly blamed an operating loss on expenses related to the "Happy Birthday" settlement. A hearing on the settlement is scheduled in March.
I guess there is no such thing as a dry hole.... Blood from a turnip.....what ever....
I’m not sure which lawyers you are referring to. Both sides had lawyers. The lingering copyright claims on Happy Birthday are a disgrace.
Did you know that outside the U.S. the happy face icon is copyrighted by a company in France. The happy face was created by a company in Ohio as part of an internal employee morale program for Amica Insurance of Worcester, Massachusetts, and passed into the public domain when no one thought to register a copyright, except a company in France, a copyright not recognized in the U.S.
I find that the original version of that song the most depressing song ever. Have you ever noticed that it starts out at a 4/4 time but then slowly changes to a 2/4 time by the third line. Completely deflates a joyous occasion into a death march.
Meanwhile, if you cure cancer, you get 20 years.
Great system.
It wasn’t written by professional song-pluggers. It came from a simple childrens’ greeting for the teacher.
“Good morning to you, good morning to you...”
Big Media would not have the monopoly on messaging that it does today if it was not still collecting exclusive revenue on works long past their public domain date.
This one expired song brought in tens of millions.
Article and # 4 .
I don't know what original performance you're talking about, but the song is in 3/4 time, not 4/4 time.
Don't believe me?
The moment we started neglecting the spirit of public domain, was she free speech started to really die.
I wish every recording artist would release the song on their next album as an in-your-face to the money-grubbers who have been charging royalties and trying to stop people from singing it.
Yep, it’s a waltz.
I had no idea the Smiley is actually *big* business:
The rights to the Smiley trademark in one hundred countries are owned by the Smiley Company.[21] Its subsidiary SmileyWorld Ltd, in London, headed by Nicolas Loufrani, creates or approves all the Smiley products sold throughout the world.[citation needed] The Smiley brand and logo have significant exposure through licensees in sectors such as clothing, home decoration, perfumery, plush, stationery, publishing, and through promotional campaigns.[22] The Smiley Company is one of the 100 biggest licensing companies in the world, with a turnover of US$167 million in 2012.[23] The first Smiley shop opened in London in the Boxpark shopping centre in December 2011.[24]In 1997, Franklin Loufrani and Smiley World attempted to acquire trademark rights to the symbol (and even to the word "smiley" itself) in the United States. This brought Loufrani into conflict with Wal-Mart, which had begun prominently featuring a happy face in its "Rolling Back Prices" campaign over a year earlier. Wal-Mart responded first by trying to block Loufrani's application, then later by trying to register the smiley face itself; Loufrani in turn sued to stop Wal-Mart's application, and in 2002 the issue went to court,[25] where it would languish for seven years before a decision.
Wal-Mart began phasing out the smiley face on its vests[26] and its website[27] in 2006. Despite that, Wal-Mart sued an online parodist for alleged "trademark infringement" after he used the symbol (as well as various portmanteaus of "Wal-", such as "Walocaust"). The District Court found in favor of the parodist when in March 2008, the judge concluded that [Wal-Mart's] smiley face [logo] was not shown to be "inherently distinctive" and that it "has failed to establish that the smiley face has acquired secondary meaning or that it is otherwise a protectible trademark" under U.S. law.[28]
In June 2010, Wal-Mart and the Smiley Company founded by Loufrani settled their 10-year-old dispute in front of the Chicago federal court. The terms remain confidential.[29] (wikipedia)
They didn't build anything....produce anything...nothing you can look at, or put your hands on....and they walk away with millions of bucks from some so trivial...
Maybe I'm just old...and bitter...I guess I just don't understand the way the world works now-a-days...
:(
The pitch was the copyright laws had to be extended yet again to protect the interests of songwriters, authors, filmmakers, and cartoonists.
No one who was collecting money at this date on Happy Birthday had anything to do with its creation or family lineage to those who did. It was corporate cronyism based on theft and lies to the tune of tens of millions of dollars in revenue. A federally protected shakedown racket on bars and restaurants (ASCAP license fees and goon squads or else you had to teach your waitstaff some OTHER song than “Happy Birthday To You”).
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.