The future of “Happy Birthday” might be a present to us all, because of its past.

Happy Birthday lawsuitAs a rule—specifically Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 8(a)(2)a pleading that states a claim for relief must contain… a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Moreover, each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct. In other words, when drafting a federal complaint—say, for relief related to copyright law—get to the point, and quickly. You don’t have to go into excruciating detail when you set forth the facts that underlie your claim; indeed, some judges will be glad if you don’t.

[NB:  Sound familiar?  See the previous LOC post on a very related topic. This is a complete coincidence; Matthew and I do not coordinate posts and in fact barely speak since he forgot my birthday last year. No excuse, either—it was in the public domain. –RDC]

But sometimes setting forth the facts in extremely excruciating detail can have a powerful psychological effect. And if you’re going to provide the court—and, in turn, the public—with a comprehensive recitation of facts that start way back in 1893, a terrific way to marshal those facts is to produce a documentary movie, in the course of which you seek to use a song that everyone in the world knows, only to be told that you have to pay to license it for use in your movie, which advice prompts you to sue for declaratory judgment by way of a putative class action on behalf of yourself and all others similarly situated.

Sing to me on March 12.

Sing to me on March 12.

Unless you’ve been off-planet this past week, you know that I’m referring to the lawsuit filed on June 13 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by Good Morning To You Productions Corp. seeking a declaration that defendant Warner/Chappell Music, Inc., despite what it claims, does not hold the copyright to the most popular song of the 20th century (according to a 1999 press release by ASCAP, which was released a year early, it would seem): Happy Birthday to You. And the reason why Warner/Chappell does not own the copyright—and have the prerogative to license its use—is because…

…well, no, you really should read the complaint. It’s a good story, told in just under 100 simple, concise, direct paragraphs. The gist of it is that the song as we know it came together in pieces, each of which entered the public domain long ago.

Accordingly, Warner/Chappell has been demanding and collecting fees to license something it doesn’t own. Because we own it. You and I and everyone we know.

email

Tags: , , ,

6 Responses to “The future of “Happy Birthday” might be a present to us all, because of its past.”

  1. June 24, 2013 at 10:52 am #

    I swear, some people are looking for any way to make a buck!

  2. June 24, 2013 at 11:34 am #

    Aren’t we all, though, Noah?

    But if you’re referring to Warner/Chappell’s practice, know that we’re talking about more than just a buck. They’ve pulled in literally bazillions in licensing fees. Maybe even gajillions.

  3. June 27, 2013 at 10:57 am #

    True true. We are all out to make a buck. There should just be some limits on how far someone should go in exploiting copyright laws in order to do so. I guess I’m angry at the “Happy Birthday” people for the same reasons I’m angry that “The Wonder Years” will never be available in it’s original form on DVD because of the music licensing battle that’s been raging for about 20 years around that show. I think the musicians are just shooting themselves in the foot in this case due to the fact that in order to satisfy their royalty payments (to which they have every right) they severely limit the exposure levels of their music to those who would love to be able to watch the show. Now, it’s almost too late in terms of people who actually would buy or even know of that show to be interested in the first place. Just a tragedy. In order to get a small amount of money, they lost all possibility for people to enjoy their music and to get ANY money.

    It’s why John Carpenter did all of his own music in his movies on that cheesy keyboard. Anyway, yeah, i think that the gajillions of dollars paid to Warner/Chappell could have been better spent in other areas of our economy, rather than to fill their coffers paying for the privilege to sing a song that no one ever sings well in the first place.

  4. June 27, 2013 at 11:04 am #

    Well said, Noah. Well said.

  5. June 27, 2013 at 12:02 pm #

    haha, thanks. Apparently I’m very passionate about music copyright law.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. “Happy Birthday”: Second verse, same as the first. | LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION® - November 13, 2013

    […] I wasn’t looking, the lead plaintiff in the class action to have the song “Happy Birthday to You” declared to be in the public domain (1) in late July, voluntarily dismissed the action brought in […]

Leave a Reply