Music

The Happy Birthday song may be released from copyright soon

by Richard Howard

Although it seems like it should be a traditional of sorts, the folk song “Happy Birthday to You” (otherwise known as “Good Morning to You”) has been the copyrighted property of a publishing company (initially The Summy Company which was later purchased by Warner/Chappell Music) since 1935. While the song’s true authors have often been disputed, its copyright status persevered, resulting in a ton of revenue for the publishing company (about $2m a year) and hilarious off-brand versions of the song by thrifty TV productions. Happy worthday to glue!

However, in the process of making a documentary about the song, director Jennifer Nelson smelled a rat. She discovered a 2010 paper written by George Washington University Law School professor Robert Brauneis arguing that defective copyright notice, failure to file proper renewal applications as well as a lack of evidence of authorship rendered the copyright void. When Warner Chappell charged Nelson $1,500 to use the song in her documentary, she told them to get bent and filed suit last year for the right to use it with no licensing fee.

Dubbed by some as the most significant copyright trial of all time, the suit filed by Nelson and her Good Morning To You production company also demands Warner/Chappell return millions of dollars collected in licensing fees over the years. Up until three weeks ago, both sides seemed to have pretty compelling evidence. That is, until the plaintiffs received additional documents Warner claims were “held back mistakenly.” One of these documents contained a printed reproduction of the song from 1927 with a suspiciously blurry subheading. On acquiring a cleaner version, Nelson’s lawyers found it to be a line granting permission of “Good Morning and Birthday Song” without any copyright notice. As a result of the era’s copyright laws, Nelson and her lawyers argue, that put the song in public domain.

Though they’re looking mad suspect right now (somehow that was the only blurry line on the document), Warner/Chapell is unsurprisingly exhibiting doe-eyed innocence. They say that, at most, the document shows that The Everyday Songbook that published the 1927 song transcript may have violated the copyright held by the Hill sisters who are said to have penned the tune. Insisting there in no evidence the Hill sisters were aware of the book or authorized it, they further claim that if it had fallen into the public domain they would not even have had to secure a license from the Hills (which they did).

We won’t have to wait too long to see how this plays out – the oral judgement is scheduled for today. If the plaintiffs do win this case, prepare for an excessive usage of the song in completely irrelevant situations. Struggling indie directors that shelled out thousands for the song will now start Bentley funds with their class-action lawsuit winnings.