Filmmakers fighting "Happy Birthday" copyright find their "smoking gun"

[Recursion]

Source: Ars Technica

The "smoking gun" is a 1927 version of the "Happy Birthday" lyrics, predating Warner/Chappell's 1935 copyright by eight years. That 1927 songbook, along with other versions located through the plaintiffs' investigations, "conclusively prove that any copyright that may have existed for the song itself... expired decades ago."

If the filmmakers' lawyers are right, it could mean a quick route to victory in a lawsuit that's been both slow-moving and closely watched by copyright reform advocates. Warner/Chappell has built a licensing empire based on "Happy Birthday," which in 1996 was pulling in more than $2 million per year.

Plaintiff Jennifer Nelson's movie is actually called Happy Birthday, and it's about the song. She had to pay Warner/Chappell $1,500 to use the song in her movie, and that didn't sit well with the documentarian. She's seeking to get that money back and also represent a class of plaintiffs who have paid similar licensing fees to Warner/Chappell on a copyright she and her lawyers say is illegitimate.

The 1927 songbook referenced above was found in a batch of 500 documents provided by Warner/Chappell earlier this month. That cache included "approximately 200 pages of documents [Warner/Chappell] claim were 'mistakenly' not produced during discovery, which ended on July 11, 2014, more than one year earlier," Nelson's lawyers write.

Read more: http://arstechnica.com/apple/2015/07/filmmakers-fighting-happy-birthday-copyright-find-their-smoking-gun/

[JustAnotherGen]

1. Read it at H.R yesterday

If it's in the public domain then that's that.

[davidpdx]

2. Just a note, Warner/Chappell is part of Access Industries a private equity group

It was for a long time part of Warner Communication, Time Warner, AOL Time Warner, and then Time Warner (after the Warner/AOL breakup) but was sold off).

[Nitram]

3. It's AFT!

[mainer]

4. Documents "mistakenly not produced during discovery"?

Yeah, right. Someone's guilty of hiding documents.


"That cache included "approximately 200 pages of documents [Warner/Chappell] claim were 'mistakenly' not produced during discovery, which ended on July 11, 2014, more than one year earlier," Nelson's lawyers write."

[wolfie001]

5. I guess the justification for this is....

....lots and lots of billable hours! Disgusting. I picture in the distant future Alito somehow siding with the hedge fund.

[eggplant]

6. Ouch.

The resulting counterclaims will be interesting. It's a lot of money.

[Eric J in MN]

7. Music copyright law should be simplified and copyrights shortened

The law should just say that copyrights on a song expire 30 years after it's first published.

[They_Live]

8. As a songwwriter

I respectfully disagree.

[Eric J in MN]

9. How long should the copyright on a song last? NT

NT

[christx30]

10. I think it should be the author's

death plus 50 years.

[Moostache]

11. That is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too long IMO...

I am sick and tired of the idea of heredity rights for descendants.

The copyright protection for any work should extend no further than the lifespan of the creator, maybe I could see extending protections to the surviving dependants of a deceased copyright holder until they reach the age of majority, but no further.

I'm sick to death of the idea that "leaving something behind" is a protected right...if copyright holders are so concerned with a legacy, then my suggestion is to save their money, gather it into a big inheritance for whomever they desire and then leave it to them via that mechanism and have it appropriately taxed.

The United States is NOT a hereditary monarchy - for lands or titles or legal protections, and its laws should not be used to support the idea that intellectual property survives death and becomes the property of anyone who did not invent or create it.

Kind of makes me the crabby old man yelling at clouds, but to quote Popeye..."I yam what I yam!" LOL

[Frank Cannon]

15. Well, I completely agree with you.

So I guess we can be crabby old men together.

[Nihil]

17. It would be fairer to be "author's death OR 50 years" ...

... as that guarantees protection for the author's family in the
sad event that the author dies young.

(If the author lives longer than 50 years after the creation of the work
then that's a bonus for a healthy life and/or a creative youth! )

[Eric J in MN]

18. I agree. NT

NT

[Codeine]

12. That's way too soon.

By that measurement the first four U2 records would be public domain, which seems frankly bizarre to me.

The lifetime of the creator seems reasonable.

[Recursion]

14. Who's the "creator" of music I wrote on contract for a company?

There were about 6 of us who wrote it. The last of us to die? The company's "life"?

[Codeine]

16. For corporate copyright I think fifty or sixty years

seems reasonable; roughly the "adult" portion of a human lifespan.

If the writers hold the copyright then when the last of the six dies sounds about right to me.

What is the generally-held argument for shorter copyright vs longer?

[Eric J in MN]

19. An audio recording could have a copyright longer than the songs

...in terms of people being able to do covers without legal hassles.

[tomm2thumbs]

13. I'm guessing there will be a nice long line for refunds, or a class-action suit against Warner/Chap.

If it turns out they knew and were blurring the songbook 'no-copyright' notice purposely in the pdf (which it sounds like to me), or if they simply knew and were willing to hide the evidence to benefit their interests.

Fraud?