Oh no, you're thinking, yet another cookie pop-up. Well, sorry, it's the law. We measure how many people read us, and ensure you see relevant ads, by storing cookies on your device. If you're cool with that, hit “Accept all Cookies”. For more info and to customize your settings, hit “Customize Settings”.

Review and manage your consent

Here's an overview of our use of cookies, similar technologies and how to manage them. You can also change your choices at any time, by hitting the “Your Consent Options” link on the site's footer.

Manage Cookie Preferences
  • These cookies are strictly necessary so that you can navigate the site as normal and use all features. Without these cookies we cannot provide you with the service that you expect.

  • These cookies are used to make advertising messages more relevant to you. They perform functions like preventing the same ad from continuously reappearing, ensuring that ads are properly displayed for advertisers, and in some cases selecting advertisements that are based on your interests.

  • These cookies collect information in aggregate form to help us understand how our websites are being used. They allow us to count visits and traffic sources so that we can measure and improve the performance of our sites. If people say no to these cookies, we do not know how many people have visited and we cannot monitor performance.

See also our Cookie policy and Privacy policy.

This article is more than 1 year old

Happy birthday to you, the ruling was true, no charge for this headline, 'coz the copyright's screwed

Warner – boo hoo

Good news: you can now sing Happy Birthday without fear of someone demanding you get your checkbook out.

A US judge has overturned a copyright claim to Happy Birthday, declaring the seminal number is not owned by a group that includes Warner/Chappell Music, which has been collecting royalties for the song's performances.

The ruling on Tuesday [PDF] clears the way for the use of Happy Birthday without a hefty royalties claim. Of course, someone else could come forward to claim they truly own the rights to the ditty, but that's extremely unlikely.

Judge George King of the California Central District Court sided with a group of plaintiffs who argued that Warner and co did not own the copyright on the lyrics of Happy Birthday.

The case focused on the words to the Happy Birthday song. In the 1890s, three women known as the Hill sisters wrote the music and lyrics for a song called Good Morning (To All), and sold the rights to the melody to the publisher of a children's songbook. The copyright of Good Morning expired in 1949.

Somewhere along the line, the melody to Good Morning was paired with new lyrics to become the Happy Birthday (To You) song that we all know today and sing at parties. In 1935, the people who owned Good Morning claimed copyright over the Happy Birthday song because the two sounded so similar.

Eventually, the rights to Happy Birthday made their way into the hands of Warner/Chappell, which demanded fees for its performances. The copyright ownership hinged on whether or not the Hill sisters had come up with the birthday song's words and paired it with their original melody – if not, then the lyrics shouldn't be the property of Warner/Chappell and co.

According to Judge King, the origins of the birthday celebration lyrics are not clear, and therefore can't definitively be credited to the Hills and Summy Company, the business that purchased Good Morning.

"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 judge wrote.

"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."

The ruling doesn't put Happy Birthday in the public domain, but it does negate the claim of ownership from Warner/Chappell. While people singing the song in their homes had nothing to worry about, performances of the song in productions and broadcasts or by restaurant staff were subject to copyright claims (hence the propensity for "original" birthday songs at many chain eateries).

According to The Los Angeles Times, filmmakers have been charged sums ranging from $1,500 to $5,000 to show the song being performed. ®

 

Similar topics

TIP US OFF

Send us news


Other stories you might like