Judge Says Warner Chappell Doesn't Hold The Copyright On Happy Birthday (But Not That It's Public Domain)

from the well,-that's-a-pickle-then dept

Boom. And we thought the ridiculous monkey selfie story would be the big copyright story of the week, and yet not even 24 hours later, Judge George King in the central district of California ruled that Warner Chappell "does not have a valid copyright" in the song Happy Birthday. This is a case we've been following for some time -- actually since before the lawsuit was filed (in 2013) back to some research in 2008 showing that Happy Birthday was almost certainly in the public domain -- and that music publishing giant Warner Chappell was likely fraudulently making somewhere around $2 million a year claiming royalties on the song.

A couple months ago, the plaintiffs dropped something of a bombshell in the case, with more evidence that the song was definitively in the public domain. Warner tried to tap dance around this, and believe it or not, the judge actually rejected the evidence as conclusive. But it still determined, through other means, that Warner/Chappell's copyright claim is a load of bunk. One thing is important though: it did not declare the song to be in the public domain. It just said that Warner/Chappell does not have a valid copyright on it -- which technically means that the song is an orphan work. Conceivably, if the Copyright Office gets its way that might mean you'd still need to tell the Copyright Office every time you intended to use the work (this is ridiculous, but we'll discuss that below).

If you've followed the case for any amount of time, you'd know that it shows what a complete mess copyright law can be and this ruling is no exception in driving home that point. The court first notes the distinction between the melody (which was first created sometime around 1893) and the lyrics which likely came about a decade or so later, but the copyright on Happy Birthday wasn't filed until 1935. This was (sort of) okay at the time, due to the mix of common law copyright and federal copyright laws (it wasn't until the 1976 Act that the US -- mostly -- tossed out common law copyright).
The distinction between the music and the lyrics as copyrightable elements is critical in this case because both Parties agree that the Happy Birthday melody was borrowed from Good Morning and entered the public domain a long time ago. The Parties disagree only about the status of the Happy Birthday lyrics. Defendants contend, in brief, that the Hill sisters authored the lyrics to Happy Birthday around the turn of the last century, held onto the common law rights for several decades, and then transferred them to Summy Co., which published and registered them for a federal copyright in 1935. Plaintiffs challenge nearly every aspect of this narrative. They argue that the lyrics may have been written by someone else, the common law copyrights in the lyrics were lost due to general publication or abandonment before the lyrics were published, and the rights were never transferred to Summy Co
And then... the whole thing is just a mess, because no one's quite sure what was actually registered or even who gave what rights to whom. There are a whole lot of open questions.
The registration application for E51990 stated that it was an “Application for Copyright for Republished Musical Composition with New Copyright Matter.” ... In other words, E51990 was a derivative work.... The title of the musical composition was listed as “Happy Birthday to You.” ... The author of the new copyright material was “Preston Ware Orem, employed for hire by Clayton F. Summy Co.” (Id.) In one blank space, the application prompted the claimant to “[s]tate exactly on what new matter copyright is claimed . . . .” (Id.) For E51990, the response read: “Arrangement as easy piano solo, with text.” (Id.)

Defendants contend that this registration entitles them to a presumption of validity. We disagree. Even assuming that the lyrics were printed in the deposit copy for E51990, it is unclear whether those lyrics were being registered, and therefore it is unclear whether the Copyright Office determined the validity of Summy Co.’s alleged interest in the lyrics in 1935. The “new matter” that the registration purported to cover was a piano arrangement—a derivative version of another melody. Defendants argue that since the arrangement was registered “with text,” that meant that the Happy Birthday lyrics were part of the new matter being registered alongside the arrangement. But the registration clearly listed “Preston Ware Orem” as the author of the new matter. To our knowledge, no one has ever contended that Orem wrote the Happy Birthday lyrics. Defendants even admit in their pleadings that Orem did not do so.... Therefore, the registration is flawed in any event. If, as Defendants assert, the new matter being registered included the lyrics, then, contrary to the registration certificate, Mr. Orem could not have been the author of the new matter. Conversely, if Mr. Orem were the author of the new matter, then the lyrics could not have been a part of the registration.
In short, the copyright registration itself was faulty, which turns out to be something of a problem, especially under the 1909 Copyright Act, where you had to be pretty careful in your registration or a work would automatically go into the public domain. But the court's not done yet. Instead it takes a step back and asks who the hell wrote the damn song in the first place? The court notes that it's inconclusive. Patty Hill (one of the two sisters who is credited with creating the melody) claimed to have done so, but only 40 years later, which strikes the court as odd. But there's not enough evidence either way to make a final call. The court notes that determining who actually wrote the lyrics is one point that would need to go to trial, and it won't give a summary judgment on that.

Then it looks at whether or not (assuming Patty Hill did write the lyrics) Hill gave up her rights by publishing the lyrics prior to that copyright registration in 1935. The key point here is the "bombshell" revealed earlier this summer of a 1922 publication of the lyrics, supposedly with the approval of Summy Co., which the plaintiffs claim is proof of an authorized publication without a copyright notice or registration, thus thrusting the work into the public domain. The court, though, says this is not enough.
It is undisputed that, in 1922, Summy Co. did not have any rights to the Happy Birthday lyrics; Defendants claim that the rights to the lyrics were given to Summy Co., at the earliest, in 1934 and 1935. It is also not clear if Summy Co. gave the publisher of The Everyday Song Book permission to publish the Happy Birthday lyrics specifically or just permission to publish Good Morning, of which Summy Co. had been printing and selling copies on the Hill sisters’ behalf at that time. Since the publication of The Everyday Song Book would not be sufficient to entitle Plaintiffs to a directed verdict, Plaintiffs cannot satisfy their initial burden....
So, apparently the bombshell wasn't considered such a bombshell by the court.

Next question: if Patty Hill wrote the song and did not publish it before getting the copyright, did she later abandon the copyright? Here, the court kind of throws its hands in the air, saying that it's not at all clear what even constitutes abandonment under the 1909 Act. A similar debate over whether there was joint ownership of the copyright between Patty and her sister Mildred also is a dead end for the court.

Then we get to the question of whether or not Patty Hill and Jessica Hill (another of Patty and Mildred's sisters) actually transferred any rights they may have held to Summy Co. There was a lawsuit between the Hills and Summy Co back in 1942 over whether or not Summy went beyond its rights in licensing the song, but the actual agreement between the two parties has been lost to history. However, what is in that lawsuit suggests that... the Hills only transferred the melodies to Summy and not the lyrics (remember above the important difference between the two?).
First, and most importantly, an inference that the Second Agreement had something to do with the Happy Birthday lyrics is not supported by any explicit description of the agreement in either the Amended Complaint or the Answer. Both the Hill Foundation and Summy Co. described the agreement as transferring rights in “piano arrangements.”... Obviously, pianos do not sing. Thus, it is not logical to infer that rights to “piano arrangements” would include rights to any lyrics or words as well.
This turns out to be the key in all of this. The court is saying that while the Hills may have transferred the music over to Summy -- it did not transfer the lyrics. And, remember, that's what this copyright case is about. Warner Chappell's tap dancing does not impress the court. The court notes that the only way the 1940s lawsuit makes sense is if the Hills did not license the lyrics to Summy, but just the music.
... an inference that the Second Agreement covered the lyrics is unreasonable because it would be inconsistent with the underlying legal theory behind the lawsuit. If the Second Agreement had covered the Happy Birthday lyrics, that would have meant that in 1934 and 1935 Jessica explicitly granted Summy Co. the right to license the lyrics to others for public performance.... If that were the case, there would have been no reason for the Hill Foundation to accuse Summy Co. of “secretly” entering into deals behind the Hill sisters’ backs with movie and play producers, granting them permission to publically perform Happy Birthday. Moreover, there would have been no reason for Summy Co. not to point out in its Answer that it had acquired the public performance rights to the lyrics from Jessica under the Second Agreement, since that fact would have given the company a strong defense to the accusation that what they were doing was somehow a "secret" or was otherwise unlawful.
Then there's the fact that, to settle the 1942 lawsuit the Hills and Summy entered into a new agreement. Warner again claims this proves that the copyright on the lyrics belonged to Summy, but the court says no way:
This argument fails as well. Unlike the First and Second Agreement, we have a copy of the Third Agreement in the record. The Third Agreement was entered into in 1944 to resolve the Hill-Summy lawsuit.... Nowhere in the agreement is there any discussion of the Happy Birthday lyrics; nor is there any suggestion that the Hill sisters transferred their common law rights in the Happy Birthday lyrics to Summy Co.
And thus, the grand finale:
Defendants ask us to find that the Hill sisters eventually gave Summy Co. the rights in the lyrics to exploit and protect, but this assertion has no support in the record. The Hill sisters gave Summy Co. the rights to the melody, and the rights to piano arrangements based on the melody, but never any rights to the lyrics. Defendants’ speculation that the pleadings in the Hill-Summy lawsuit somehow show that the Second Agreement involved a transfer of rights in the lyrics is implausible and unreasonable. Defendants’ suggestion that the Third Agreement effected such a transfer is circular and fares no better. As far as the record is concerned, even if the Hill sisters still held common law rights by the time of the Second or Third Agreement, they did not give those rights to Summy Co.

In light of the foregoing, Defendants’ Motion is DENIED and Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED as set forth above. Because Summy Co. never acquired the rights to the Happy Birthday lyrics, Defendants, as Summy Co.’s purported successors-in-interest, do not own a valid copyright in the Happy Birthday lyrics.
Note that this technically does not say that the song is in the public domain -- just that the Hills never gave the copyright to Summy and thus Sumnmy's (and now Warner/Chappell's) claim on the copyright is invalid. However, the likelihood of finding someone else with a legitimate claim to the copyright is basically nil. But, technically, this makes it an orphan work because there is at least the potential that someone could magically show up with evidence that someone else has the copyright on the lyrics. This is incredibly unlikely, so all of the people claiming that the song is now in the public domain are probably right effectively. However, technically it could very much be argued that Happy Birthday is now an orphan work, and that this highlights the insanity of orphan works in our system. Also, it's entirely possible that if the issue ever did go to trial, a court would declare the work in the public domain. But, until then...

Of course, there will be an inevitable appeal, so this is hardly over yet. But the idea that Happy Birthday is locked up by a copyright held by Warner/Chappell is likely gone like that last slice of birthday cake. It's possible that an appeals court will overturn -- but there are so many other reasons why Warner's claim is questionable that even then it's hard to see how Warner/Chappell comes out of this with a valid copyright.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Violynne (profile), 23 Sep 2015 @ 6:14am

    No matter the outcome of this case, in 7 years, it'll all be moot because you can bet Mickey Mouse is going to take a giant shit on copyright extensions since, you know, he's terrified of the public domain.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 24 Sep 2015 @ 9:58am

      Re:

      it'll all be moot because you can bet Mickey Mouse is going to take a giant shit on copyright extensions since, you know, he's terrified of the public domain.

      Rodents do tend to poop when they're scared...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 23 Sep 2015 @ 6:47am

    So we have 2015 judges having to deal with 1909 laws. I'll risk a prediction: we'll have 2050 judges having to deal with 1909 laws. Because copyright.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 7:03am

      Re:

      And we'll have 19,090 judges having to deal with 1909 laws. Because copyright.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Roger Strong (profile), 23 Sep 2015 @ 9:47am

      Re:

      Sarah Palin has published three books, had a couple TV specials, and an online news network, the Sarah Palin Channel. Plus countless speeches and whatnot.

      I'll risk a prediction: we'll have 2050 judges having to deal with "Sarah Palin's intellectual property" and thoughts of suicide.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 7:04am

    28 Years

    This is another good reason why copyright should be limited to the original terms of 28 years.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 7:15am

      Re: 28 Years

      Or less. 10 years maximum.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Violynne (profile), 23 Sep 2015 @ 7:17am

      Re: 28 Years

      The original term was 14 years. 7 for original registration + 7 extended.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        cpt kangarooski, 23 Sep 2015 @ 11:33am

        Re: Re: 28 Years

        That is not correct. The term length for works published after the passage of the Statute of Anne was 14+14, likewise for the 1790 Copyright Act.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 1:39pm

        Re: Re: 28 Years

        May 31, 1790
        First copyright law enacted under the new U.S. Constitution. Term of 14 years with privilege of renewal for term of 14 years. Books, maps, and charts protected. Copyright registration made in the U.S. District Court where the author or proprietor resided. (http://copyright.gov/circs/circ1a.html)

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 7:06am

    Producing more works

    One of the defendants effectively said that the work should never go out of copyright so that they can produce more works. Well, they have it backwards.

    By forcing works into the public domain, the intent, when copyright law was created, was to force the authors to create new works to ensure a continuing income stream, not to milk a work forever.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ThatFatMan (profile), 23 Sep 2015 @ 7:07am

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    MAFIAA, 23 Sep 2015 @ 7:14am

    Oops! We forgot to bribe George King.

    (or)

    Oops! We could not bribe George King.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    John85851 (profile), 23 Sep 2015 @ 7:45am

    Any refunds?

    If Warner/ Chappell doesn't own the copyright, can the court order them to issue refunds to everyone they charged for licenses to play the song?
    Doesn't this drive home the fact that the $2 million they collect each year is fraudulent?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Baron von Robber, 23 Sep 2015 @ 7:56am

      Re: Any refunds?

      plus inflation. They've been doing this for years.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Michael, 23 Sep 2015 @ 9:21am

      Re: Any refunds?

      A court can order a party to a suit to do pretty much anything that does not break a criminal law, but it will probably not happen here.

      It is possible that you will see suits from people that have paid for the licensing - and possibly a class action suit since there are probably quite a few. I think the issue will be one of harm - particularly if there is no specific determination that the work is in the public domain, the only possible party harmed is the copyright holder as their work was misrepresented.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 11:12am

        Re: Re: Any refunds?

        "the only possible party harmed is the copyright holder as their work was misrepresented."

        So if the floor is wet at the store and my neighbor falls down but is perfectly fine and doesn't sue or care but I sue because the floor was wet and I want damages for my neighbor falling is the store not harmed by the fact that I misrepresented my neighbor? Now the store must fight a lawsuit and pay me money for the fact that my neighbor got hurt yet they weren't harmed? What about when the store pays me the money and later finds out I was only pretending to be my neighbor and that the person who actually fell, my neighbor, doesn't care. The store wasn't harmed? I shouldn't be required to return the money? No, what I would have committed in this example is essentially fraud. The store was harmed.

        What about if someone pretends to be the police and uses that as an excuse to search your house. What about when you later find out that this person wasn't the police? Is it only the police that are harmed? No, the person that was being deceived was also harmed.

        If someone with no standing to sue threatened someone else with a lawsuit and benefited from that threat the person on the receiving end was harmed.

        But only in the copy protection world are the ones that are on the receiving end of a misrepresentation not harmed.

        Only in the minds of the brain dead IP extremists who only want to harm the public interest and reduce the competition of accessible works by ensuring that those that file bogus takedown requests and lawsuits go unpunished when caught and take little risk while anyone that wants to use content or make content available take a huge risk of facing bogus lawsuits and having to respond and fight them at a huge expense. Those that are on the receiving end of a misrepresentation are the ones that must be punished for the fraud committed by IP extremists and they are burdened with all the risk.

        "particularly if there is no specific determination that the work is in the public domain"

        What does that have to do with anything? Someone with no standing to sue asked for money and the person who gave the money was harmed. They gave money to the wrong person. The person that committed the deception should not only return the money they should be required to pay those they took money from punitive damages.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Nop (profile), 23 Sep 2015 @ 3:40pm

        Re: Re: Any refunds?

        "the only possible party harmed is the copyright holder as their work was misrepresented."

        Don't be ridiculous. The people who had money fraudulently extorted from them with threats of legal action have obviously been harmed.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 4:03pm

          Re: Re: Re: Any refunds?

          "The people who had money fraudulently extorted from them with threats of legal action have obviously been harmed."

          In any other situation that's true. Only in IP extremist la la land is this not true.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 1:35pm

      Re: Any refunds?

      They can for the last three years.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Blackfiredragon13 (profile), 23 Sep 2015 @ 7:48am

    I'll take that as a win

    Because assuming I read everything correctly(unlikely given I haven't sleep in some time) Warner can't shake people down anymore for singing it and wishing someone a happy birthday.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 9:34am

      Re: I'll take that as a win

      Partly true, nothing stops them from trying, and using the threat of ligation to come to a settlement for less than the cost of fighting them. This is the standard copyright troll troll business model.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 7:57am

    Mike Masnick just hates it when copyright law is enforced.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Blue Meme, 23 Sep 2015 @ 8:04am

    how do you copyright this?

    I can see how the tune could be copyrighted, but the lyrics?

    Happy Birthday to you
    Happy Birthday to you
    Happy Birthday dear _____
    Happy Birthday to you.

    If sampling gets people busted, am I guilty of copyright infringement if I wish someone a "happy birthday"?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 8:18am

      Re: how do you copyright this?

      "I can see how the tune could be copyrighted, but the lyrics?"

      I don't know, why are some lyrics sites DMCAing lyrics??? Seriously, its a fucking chore to find lyrics these days if you're not using a popular app or something.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 12:12pm

        Re: Re: how do you copyright this?

        "sweat of the brow"
        Copyright is unconcerned with the 'quality' of a work.
        "DMCAing lyrics???" But they're printed inside the booklet when you buy the album stoopid.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      IAmNotYourLawyer (profile), 24 Sep 2015 @ 5:33am

      Re: how do you copyright this?

      The lyrics and musical score are considered distinct in copyright. Lyrics are essentially just the same as any other textual work like a poem, article, or book. The difference between lyrics and poetry can be rather thin.

      The musical score/composition has its own copyright. So the musical melody for Happy Birthday/Good Morning To You is a separate legal object. That's what the copyright suit over Blurred Lines (Robin Thicke) is about- whether the musical composition from the Marvin Gaye song was copied.

      And this is all different than the copyright interest in an actual audio recording.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    jupiterkansas (profile), 23 Sep 2015 @ 8:13am

    And the bottom line is... copyright law is a twisted pretzel of a joke that needs a serious overhaul.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Doubletwist (profile), 23 Sep 2015 @ 8:28am

    What if?

    So if I have this right, the lyrics and melody for "Good Morning to All" are in the public domain.

    Although they have failed to prove that they still have the rights, in theory having changed 2 words of the song from "Good Morning" to "Happy Birthday" was theoretically enough to qualify for a separate copyright on the lyrics as if it were a different song.

    So in theory, even if its found that WarnerChappel does hold copyright on "Happy Birthday to You", anyone could provide new lyrics that fit within this melody. Say perhaps:

    "Day of Birth Joy to you"

    And copyright it?

    Or perhaps release it as the most permissive Creative Commons license? And then any company could freely use the melody with those lyrics?

    Seems to me all these restaurants that tried to come up with their own stupid songs were doing things the hard way.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Ninja (profile), 23 Sep 2015 @ 11:01am

      Re: What if?

      "Day of Birth Joy to you"

      Thou shall not speaketh English of olden.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Richard (profile), 24 Sep 2015 @ 6:45am

      Re: What if?

      in theory having changed 2 words of the song from "Good Morning" to "Happy Birthday" was theoretically enough to qualify for a separate copyright on the lyrics as if it were a different song.


      Especially as the two changed words are also the song's title and titles are not copyrightable.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 9:05am

    To the tune of Happy Birthday and many more

    Copyright law sucks a$$
    Copyright laws complex
    Copyright law needs reform
    Copyright law sucks a$$

    Write congress right now

    Copyright (C) 2015 Immortal Entity All rights reserved.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 9:05am

    I can't wait to see how old man Blue blames this on Google.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Bamboo Harvester (profile), 23 Sep 2015 @ 9:23am

    And on our next episode...

    ...Comcast claims it holds the patent rights on chairs...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 9:27am

    "...but the actual agreement between the two parties has been lost to history."

    If copyright lasts longer than the documentation to track its ownership and transfer, then we have a problem.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Capt ICE Enforcer, 23 Sep 2015 @ 10:06am

    Easy fix

    Easy fix, let's go straight to the source and ask them. They will surely clarify. Oh wait, they are all dead. Sure am glad dead people have more rights than those living . After all, I would hate to upset them for all the hard work they continue to do.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Dave Xanatos, 23 Sep 2015 @ 10:30am

    Orphened work

    So now... Happy Birthday is not in the public domain AND there is no way to license its use? Does this mean lawyers are going to argue against including it at all?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 10:43am

      Re: Orphened work

      From the Warner point of view the possibles rank in the order:
      1) They own the copyright and can make money.
      2) It is orphaned and is removed from the market, and nobody can use it to make money.
      3) Anybody can use the work and make money, which is money that they 'lose' because it is not paid to them.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 10:33am

    sounds like warner is about to get hit by quite a few lawsuits over their extortion.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Colin (profile), 23 Sep 2015 @ 11:42am

    If the following is true:
    Conceivably, if the Copyright Office gets its way that might mean you'd still need to tell the Copyright Office every time you intended to use the work

    What exactly is the process you go through to tell the Copyright office that you want to use the work? Would it be possible for people to application bomb the office with enough requests that it can't get any other work done?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 3:10pm

    SCO all over again?

    There's no doubt that the cost of licensing "Happy Birthday" just went way, way, down, but ....

    ... can Warner legally continue to demand money from its many *other* 'Happy Birthday' licensees during the expected appeals process, or must all requests for payment immediately end until the possible reversal on appeal? That would seem only logical, but it seems logic and legality seldom coincide. Just consider SCO.

    SCO continued to shake down hundreds of companies, and squeezed many settlements out of them, during its years-long roller-coaster of numerous lawsuits and appeals, until finally losing all its copyright claims.

    It would indeed make for great spectator sport if Warner should choose to go the SCO route, and wages a scorched-earth battle to the bitter end.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      cpt kangarooski, 23 Sep 2015 @ 10:37pm

      Re: SCO all over again?

      No, the cost of licensing just shot through the roof. Not the licensing fee necessarily, but the transactional costs of finding the rights holder so as to get a valid license will be significant. And if it's not absolutely clear that a license is valid, licensees have to budget for paying damages.

      What this case has caused -- at least for now -- is to shutdown licensed use of the song.

      But don't misunderstand me as supporting Warner here. Their licenses weren't worth the paper they were printed on, and they were essentially stealing money that should've gone, if to anyone, to the real rights holder. Continuing that, just to provide faux-certainty on the parts of licensees would not be acceptable. And of course let's not forget that since the licenses are invalid, all of Warner's licensees are now infringers, if there's a valid copyright. So they will not only need to go after Warner to recover their license fees, but also to have any damages they suffer from potential infringement suits indemnified. (Remember, infringement is a strict liability offense; it doesn't matter how careful the licensees were, if there is a valid copyright in this case)

      It's all going to be quite a headache unless a rights holder is found or the song turns out to conclusively be in the public domain.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 4:51pm

    Lyrics published in 1919

    Published in 1919

    See

    Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.), 06 Oct. 1919. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Lib. of Congress.

    Page 12, column 2

    The newspaper published the exact words of the song.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      IAmNotYourLawyer (profile), 24 Sep 2015 @ 10:29am

      Re: Lyrics published in 1919

      That's insufficient. It needed to have been published with the authorization of the copyright holder.

      The case described numerous publications, but, as it wasn't clear that they were authorized, the judge considered that insufficient evidence for divesting the copyright.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Michael, 23 Sep 2015 @ 6:00pm

    I may not be a legal expert

    I may not be a legal expert but I think if the copyright is no longer valid, then it should be public domain with absolutely no exceptions

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      MrTroy (profile), 23 Sep 2015 @ 6:34pm

      Re: I may not be a legal expert

      That would be true, but the court didn't rule that the copyright is no longer valid; they ruled that Warner Chappel "do not own a valid copyright in the Happy Birthday lyrics."

      They made no ruling on who (if anyone) does own a valid copyright in the lyrics. I mean, it's ridiculous to believe that anyone does, but that (as discussed in the article) is the fundamental issue with orphan works in copyright. If it's possible, however unlikely, that someone holds the copyright... then using a work without a (unobtainable, because orphan) license is an invitation to a lawsuit.

      See also "the copyright hole".

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Jim Chao, 24 Sep 2015 @ 7:46am

    Hope springs eternal

    I have not seen the ad, but I do have a question. Given that many political ads do contain obvious and verifiable lies, are they not subject to litigation. I have no legal background or understanding, but would hope that lying might have legal consequences. Would someone like to help me with my obvious ignorance on this matter? I was hoping Trump, in all his glory (ha ha), might be doing we beleaguered, ad-nauseated peasants a favor. Hope is a wonderful thing but perhaps law is something else

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer
Anonymous number for texting and calling from Hushed. $25 lifetime membership, use code TECHDIRT25
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.