All the 'Happy Birthday' song copyright claims are invalid, federal judge rules

I am for fair and reasonable copyright laws, but I don't know anyone who thought that this song should still be under copyright, so long after the authors have diedk, even if we were sure of the author, and that there was a valid copyright in the first place.

Read the whole article at the following link for the interesting history of the song and copyright claims on it.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-happy-birthday-song-lawsuit-decision-20150922-story.html

By Christine Mai-Duc
Sept. 22, 2015

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.

•••••

Until now, Warner has asked for royalties from anyone who wanted to sing or play “Happy Birthday to You” -- with the lyrics -- as part of a profit-making enterprise. Royalties were most often collected from stage productions, television shows, movies or greeting cards. But even those who wanted to sing the song publicly as part of a business, say a restaurant owner giving out free birthday cake to patrons, technically had to pay to use the song, prompting creative renditions at chain eateries trying to avoid paying royalties.

•••••

At a March hearing in the case, records show, a Warner/Chappell representative seated in the audience told the judge that the company collects as much as "six figures" for certain single uses of the song. The song brings in about $2 million a year in royalties for Warner, according to some estimates.

The complex saga of the eight-note ditty has spanned more than 120 years, withstanding two world wars and several eras of copyright law. The song has seen the rise and fall of vinyl records, cassette tapes, CDs and now, the era of digital streaming music.

•••••

Tuesday's ruling means that the song is now considered a public work and is free for everyone to use without fear of having to pay for it, according to a statement from the plaintiffs' attorneys.

•••••