‘Happy Birthday’ Lawyers Target Other Song Copyrights; Bloomberg Law, 6/28/16

Anandashankar Mazumdar, Bloomberg Law; ‘Happy Birthday’ Lawyers Target Other Song Copyrights:

"In April, they filed a complaint over “We Shall Overcome,” the protest song synonymous with the 1960s Civil Rights Movement.

” `We Shall Overcome’ is a profoundly important song,” Rifkin said. ” `Happy Birthday’ is possibly the world’s most famous song, but `We Shall Overcome’ is possibly the world’s most important song. It has a moving appeal to an awful lot of people, and it is a very important piece of music, and we think it’s important that it be given back to the public.”

On June 14, the lawyers filed another complaint, this time over “This Land Is Your Land,” the folk song associated with Depression-era troubadour and political activist Woody Guthrie, who wrote the lyrics to an existing melody. Guthrie’s copyright on the lyrics expired in 1973, the complaint said..."

Restoring Balance to the Copyright Act

As they take on similar cases, Rifkin said he considers the challenge of dubious copyright claims an important part of the copyright system. He and Newman, he said, are trying to hit the balance referred to by Justice Elena Kagan in an opinion in a Supreme Court case involving legal fees in copyright cases.

The purpose of the Copyright Act—”enriching the general public through access to creative works”— is served by “striking a balance between two subsidiary aims: encouraging and rewarding authors’ creations while also enabling others to build on that work,” Kagan said."

Conan Doyle Estate Told to Pay Legal Fees; New York Times, 8/5/14

Jennifer Schuessler, New York Times; Conan Doyle Estate Told to Pay Legal Fees:

"A federal court has ordered the estate of Arthur Conan Doyle to pay $30,679.93 in legal fees to the plaintiff in a successful copyright challenge, calling its practice of demanding licensing fees for use of the character Sherlock Holmes “a form of extortion” with “no legal basis.”...

The reimbursement of legal fees, the ruling noted, was necessary to level the playing field between creators and copyright holders, who capitalize on people’s willingness to pay use fees rather than take the costly risk of litigation. It cited the example of the song “Happy Birthday to You,” for which a subsidiary of Warner Music Group, in the words of a 2009 decision, “receives approximately $2 million per year” in royalties, “despite the fact that the song is most likely in the public domain.” Last year a documentary film company filed a suit arguing that the song is no longer under copyright and requesting that the millions of dollars in use fees collected over the years be returned."

Should There Be A Penalty For Falsely Claiming Copyright Over Public Domain Material?; TechDirt, 6/26/09

Mike Masnick via TechDirt; Should There Be A Penalty For Falsely Claiming Copyright Over Public Domain Material?:

"Slashdot and The Register point us to a new paper by Jason Mazzone about "copyfraud" -- or the ability of someone to claim copyright on something that is in the public domain. The issue, Mazzone points out, is that there's no penalty for falsely claiming copyright on something, so there's plenty of incentive to claim something is still covered even if it's not."

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090626/1421065375.shtml

Many happy returns for Warner Music, The Guardian, 1/6/09

Via The Guardian: Many happy returns for Warner Music:

"Despite everyone's carefree joy in singing Happy Birthday to You, this simple song puts you in legal jeopardy every time it exits your mouth. A considerable amount of money flows to the corporation that owns the copyright. But ... maybe that company doesn't own the copyright, and maybe you are in no legal peril. Professor Robert Brauneis, of George Washington University law school, took a professional, long, deep look into these questions. This Happy Birthday matter, it turns out, is a murky mess.

Brauneis published a 69-page disquisition called Copyright and the World's Most Popular Song. Before plunging into the legal history, evidence and arguments, he examined the history...

...Brauneis reckons that the copyright probably expired, for various reasons, decades ago. Nevertheless, nominal ownership passed to a succession of individuals and then companies, which did and do aggressively collect fees.

The story comes with plenty of evidentiary paperwork and audio recordings. These include: filings in four federal court cases in the 1930s and 1940s; litigation filings over the management of a trust that was created to receive royalties; unpublished papers of and about Patty and Mildred Hill; probate court records in Louisville, Kentucky, and in Chicago; and records from the US Copyright Office.

Brauneis has put more than 100 items online at http://tinyurl.com/6p3ygk for you to peruse and sing along with."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/jan/06/improbable-research-warner-music-copyright

Warner stops the music on YouTube, London Guardian, 12/22/08

Via London Guardian: Warner stops the music on YouTube:

"Content will be removed from the site along with recordings owned by Warner Music's record publishing business, Warner/Chappell Music, which controls the copyright to songs including Happy Birthday to You and Winter Wonderland. Warner Music's withdrawal also covers amateur clips that feature its artists or copyrighted songs - potentially widening the action to hundreds of thousands of additional postings."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/dec/22/warner-music-youtube