Warner Music Pays $14M to End 'Happy Birthday' Copyright Lawsuit(hollywoodreporter.com)
hollywoodreporter.com
Warner Music Pays $14M to End 'Happy Birthday' Copyright Lawsuit
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/warner-music-pays-14-million-863120
8 comments
So did the settlement not open Happy Birthday for everyone?
Unclear. What is clear is that Warner/Chappell don't have a valid copyright claim, but due to the history of the song/lyrics/tune other claimants could come forward and claim to own the copyright.
Happy Birthday will DEFINITELY be in the public domain in 2030, because claims of ownership seem to end in 1935, however as the Warner/Chappell claim has been debunked it might be public domain as early as 2022.
Keep in mind that "unknown owner" and "public domain" aren't the same thing. At the moment Happy Birthday isn't old enough to be public domain, there just may not be a known or established owner, so it could be "de facto public domain."
Happy Birthday will DEFINITELY be in the public domain in 2030, because claims of ownership seem to end in 1935, however as the Warner/Chappell claim has been debunked it might be public domain as early as 2022.
Keep in mind that "unknown owner" and "public domain" aren't the same thing. At the moment Happy Birthday isn't old enough to be public domain, there just may not be a known or established owner, so it could be "de facto public domain."
> Happy Birthday will DEFINITELY be in the public domain in 2030
Copyright will be extended again before that time due to a certain mouse-eared corporation.
Copyright will be extended again before that time due to a certain mouse-eared corporation.
> Happy Birthday will DEFINITELY be in the public domain in 2030
Unless the law changes between now and then.
Unless the law changes between now and then.
In concede that. And I'd love to say "that could never happen" but if they want to keep Mickey Mouse out of the public domain then they need to extend the 1928 copyright yet again...
It does as of next month. Also, the settlement proceeds (after attorney's fees) will be used to compensate the most recent licensees.
In the out of court settlement, Warner agrees to allowing a judge to declare the song to be in the public domain, however, the judge will have to agree to it.
"the settlement stipulates a proposed final judgment and order that would declare the song to be in the public domain" ... "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"
Why is Warner suddenly graciously agreeing to this, you may wonder: "By agreeing to the settlement, Warners avoids going to trial to determine whether it should be punished for collecting licensing money for many decades"
Disclaimer: IANAL
"the settlement stipulates a proposed final judgment and order that would declare the song to be in the public domain" ... "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"
Why is Warner suddenly graciously agreeing to this, you may wonder: "By agreeing to the settlement, Warners avoids going to trial to determine whether it should be punished for collecting licensing money for many decades"
Disclaimer: IANAL
[deleted]
> Last week, in announcing its quarterly earnings, Warner Music Group partly blamed an operating loss on expenses related to the "Happy Birthday" settlement.
Good for them. Well deserved!
Warner Music has clearly been wearing The Wrong Trousers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOw7AwG-2Gs
Happy Birthday dear Gromit!
Good for them. Well deserved!
Warner Music has clearly been wearing The Wrong Trousers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOw7AwG-2Gs
Happy Birthday dear Gromit!
How much do you need to spend on a single law suit to be in an "operational loss" when you're a 3 bln dollar yearly revenue company?
Included in that loss may be all future revenues that could be attributed to the 'Happy Birthday' song though, in the form of a write-off of the value of the asset.
Well if the wrote it off they actually might end up making more money on it because depending on the original asset value it can reduce their taxable income to nothing.
More than the product brings in.
>> Warners was expecting to have "Happy Birthday" under copyright until 2030.
At which time Disney would have extended copyright another 30 years.
At which time Disney would have extended copyright another 30 years.
The best discussion of the "Happy Birthday" copyright brouhaha is by the wonderful Vi Hart:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVo0Q8G8tS8
Not only is her biting commentary on the insanity in copyright law succinct and direct, her musical analysis of the differences between the original "Good Morning To All" and the modern "Happy Birthday" is very surprising.
Did you know the song modulates to 4/4 time for one measure? Even though the song is always notated as never leaving 3/4?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVo0Q8G8tS8
Not only is her biting commentary on the insanity in copyright law succinct and direct, her musical analysis of the differences between the original "Good Morning To All" and the modern "Happy Birthday" is very surprising.
Did you know the song modulates to 4/4 time for one measure? Even though the song is always notated as never leaving 3/4?
I think she's got it slightly wrong. It's not that one of the 3/4 bars gets an extra beat - it's the previous bar that loses a beat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVo0Q8G8tS8&feature=youtu.be...
Listen to the bit after she says '4' - it sounds syncopated in her counting. (Actually - 'syncopated' might not be the correct word - what I mean is that the '1' ceases to sound like the start of the phrase)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVo0Q8G8tS8&feature=youtu.be...
Listen to the bit after she says '4' - it sounds syncopated in her counting. (Actually - 'syncopated' might not be the correct word - what I mean is that the '1' ceases to sound like the start of the phrase)
It's a fermata on the second beat of that measure. Holding a note doesn't mean you're changing the time signature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermata
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermata
It's definitely a fermata.
Arguing otherwise is like saying the national anthem changes to 15/4 when singers hold "land of the freeeeeeeeeeeeee."
Arguing otherwise is like saying the national anthem changes to 15/4 when singers hold "land of the freeeeeeeeeeeeee."
It's definitely a fermata.
The fermata overrides the time signature temporarily. There is no need for a time change.
The fermata overrides the time signature temporarily. There is no need for a time change.
Vi Hart makes a good case (in my opinion) that there is a change in time signature. It's clearly an extra beat, not a "hold of indeterminate length".
Except people do hold it for different lengths of time.
Yes, there may be many people who hold it for about the same length of time, but an extra beat's worth of time is by no means universal.
It's a fermata.
Yes, there may be many people who hold it for about the same length of time, but an extra beat's worth of time is by no means universal.
It's a fermata.
It may have a fermata in addition to the extra beat. The quarter-note (3/4) timing seems very rushed compared to how the song is currently sung in modern culture.
I'm quite sure the other measures are in 3/4 time. Here's[1] a fairly typical notation (first from google image search). The previous measure would be the descending D-B-G quarter notes with the lyrics "birthday dear" (two beats for "birthday", one for "dear").
The next bar, which is notated in that image as a F-E legato slur only notates the E as a quarter note. If that was played as it is notated, the part where you say the person's name would sound very rushed. We probably started holding the E to allow time for longer names, and it just stuck.
(I find it interesting that this image doesn't even include a fermata[2] on the E; it includes the triplets on "hap-py" which is not in the original, but rushes the name.)
Also, there is a slight syncopation-like effect when she says "4" - that's the triplet effect where three notes are played in the time of two (in this case a dotted-eighth + sixteenth taking (2/3 + 1/3) of a quarter note in time). That's after the extra beat.
[1] http://abcnotation.com/getResource/downloads/image/happy-bir...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermata
The next bar, which is notated in that image as a F-E legato slur only notates the E as a quarter note. If that was played as it is notated, the part where you say the person's name would sound very rushed. We probably started holding the E to allow time for longer names, and it just stuck.
(I find it interesting that this image doesn't even include a fermata[2] on the E; it includes the triplets on "hap-py" which is not in the original, but rushes the name.)
Also, there is a slight syncopation-like effect when she says "4" - that's the triplet effect where three notes are played in the time of two (in this case a dotted-eighth + sixteenth taking (2/3 + 1/3) of a quarter note in time). That's after the extra beat.
[1] http://abcnotation.com/getResource/downloads/image/happy-bir...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermata
Income: $50m
Cost: $14m settlement, $6m lawyers (guess)
Result: $30m profit
Nice business model.
Nice business model.
You've forgotten bribes... uh, I mean, "campaign contributions", to politicians* who enable this asinine system of practically perpetual copyright.
*(google "senator disney")
*(google "senator disney")
Excellent, now we'll finally be able to legally sing a song that everybody has already been singing for almost 100 years. It's a good thing we got this in under the wire before the next Mickey Mouse extension.
Copyright is stupid.
Copyright is stupid.
Yay. Looking forward to the new versions of the song. At least it's where it belongs now.
Interesting to know that Apple is sometimes behind stuff like this https://medium.com/startup-study-group/steve-jobs-made-warne...
$14M? They got off too easy.