Lawsuit Filed to Prove Happy Birthday Is in the Public Domain (2013)

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130613/11165823451/filmmaker-finally-aims-to-get-court-to-admit-that-happy-birthday-is-public-domain.shtml

by mpweiher • 12 years ago

84 17 12 years ago

techdirt.com

kumarharsh• 12 years ago

who the was paying for this? This is ridiculous...

Karunamon• 12 years ago

The fact that Happy Birthday was copyrighted, or the fact that someone is suing to get it thrown out?

raverbashing• 12 years ago

Big companies are always in favor of Copyright violation when it benefits them.

And this is not only for getting payed for songs in the public domain, but actually releasing albums without due compensation.

coder23• 12 years ago

Mods please merge with this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8092875

wglb• 12 years ago

Requests to the moderator are more likely to be seen if you email to hn@ycombinator.com with your request.

gioele• 12 years ago

Is there such a thing as "merging" on HN? What gets merged? Just the topic or the comments as well?

Mithaldu• 12 years ago

Will a success here mean that Warner/Chapell would be liable for damages/punishment for all the past abuse?

libria• 12 years ago

Someone w/ legal chops enlighten me: Is it possible to reverse all past decisions in one fell swoop? I thought each defendant had to appeal individually.

Natsu• 12 years ago

What past decisions? I'm not sure this has been litigated before and it's a class action lawsuit.

gamblor956• 12 years ago

Yes, a higher court may issue an opinion reversing all prior decisions on the same subject. SCOTUS does this all the time.

However, such rulings only reverse the legal holdings of those prior rulings (generally meaning the "rules" developed by or applied in those prior rulings). Generally, the outcomes of the underlying cases are not automatically reversed. Defendants in criminal cases can usually appeal their outcomes even if their cases has been finalized (all appeals concluded), but defendants in civil cases usually cannot unless their cases are still proceeding through the court system (i.e., the case is still somewhere in the appeals process).

herf• 12 years ago

An amazing thing about this case is Google Book Search. 20 years ago the research in this case would have taken a team months & months to do.

Today, anyone at all can do it in 60 seconds: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Happy+Birthday+To+You%22&...

dbbolton• 12 years ago

What disturbs me somewhat about this copyright, besides its age and that is contrary to the basic underlying ideas of copyright, is the fact that the people who originally registered it did not compose the song, and the people who ostensibly did compose it did so as a derivative work (they changed the lyrics, which in a song of 7 words isn't a very substantial creative contribution). It probably never should have been copyrightable in the first place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You

bediger4000• 12 years ago

And yet millions of dollars of steady revenue derive from this copyright. It just goes to show you that Copyright Works! No, wait, it goes to show you that copyright protects incumbents, and probably doesn't really encourage innovation. It certainly doesn't increase the public domain, as currently constituted.

jahewson• 12 years ago

It's a class action lawsuit, so no need for each plaintiff to file their own case. The filing requests the return of license fees which were wrongfully collected due to the copyright being invalid. Presumably it will need to be shown that the invalid filing was deliberate, the issue being whether or not Warner believed they owned the rights in good faith.

moss• 12 years ago

This article is from a year ago and change. Have there been any recent developments? I've seen the link going around lately, but I can't tell whether it's because there's news or just because it happens to be going around again.

dctoedt• 12 years ago

Let me go way out on a limb here </sarcasm> and predict that after the usual preliminary fencing by the lawyers -- which could take months longer -- this lawsuit will settle on terms that include a payment of generous attorneys' fees to the plaintiffs' lawyers by Warner/Chappell Music.

That's because this is a class-action lawsuit (filed a year ago). The complaint was signed by a lawyer whose Web site announces that he "concentrates his practice in entertainment and consumer litigation" [1]. The other signatory law firm bills itself as "one of the most prominent class action firms in the world." [2]

Last October the judge granted Warner/Chappell Music's motion to stay some of the peripheral aspects of the lawsuit. [3]

[1] http://www.randallnewman.net/lawsuit-seeks-declaration-that-...

[2] http://www.whafh.com/modules/practice_area/index.php?action=...

[3] http://www.law360.com/articles/481852/warner-wins-stay-of-so...

dang• 12 years ago

This is a repost of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5878417.

Lawsuit Filed to Prove Happy Birthday Is in the Public Domain (2013)

Related Stories