TIL The Song Happy Birthday is copyrighted and owned by Warner.

[lockedout]

"Preston Ware Oren and Mrs. R.R. Forman were credited with composing Happy Birthday to You when the Summy Corporation copyrighted the song in 1935. In 1990, the song was purchased from the company by Warner Chappel for $15 million! The copyright won’t expire until 2030.

Whoa! So not only do we have to be careful of using photos and music without permission, we can’t sing the Happy Birthday song without taking the chance of being slapped with copyright infringement! Wendy Williams from the show of the same name stated that it cost her $700 to have the song performed on an episode. Some have paid up to $10,000 to include the song in a film.

Now that I think about it, I rarely hear Happy Birthday sung in movies. The lame and copyright-free song, For He’s a Jolly Good Fellow is usually substituted and now I understand why!"

10k for singing Happy Birthday seems excessive. Having to pay at all is crazy. Apparently they make over 2 million a year in copyrights.

[Reg]

It's the same reason that whenever you go to a restaurant and someone is having a birthday party, the restaurant more often than not will sing their own version of the song.

[belfpala]

You won't get sued if you sing it at home.

There's an ongoing lawsuit by a couple filmmakers to get the copyright invalidated.

- - - Updated - - -

It's the same reason that whenever you go to a restaurant and someone is having a birthday party, the restaurant more often than not will sing their own version of the song.

They can sing it in a restaurant just fine. For the same reason that I could start a, idk, Neil Diamond cover band and play Sweet Caroline in a bar.

[Reg]

They can sing it in a restaurant just fine. For the same reason that I could start a, idk, Neil Diamond cover band and play Sweet Caroline in a bar.

Not if they are making money, which they are.

EDIT: Chances are WMG wouldn't go after a restaurant for it, but in theory they could.

[Conspicuous Cultist]

To think, someone's youtube channel could be shutdown just like that.

[madmanx]

To think, someone's youtube channel could be shutdown just like that.

The owner of the intellectual property gets the advertising money....well that is the idea anyway.

[belfpala]

Not if they are making money, which they are.

EDIT: Chances are WMG wouldn't go after a restaurant for it, but in theory they could.

In theory, but I can't count on all of my fingers and toes the number of musicians I know who play cover songs without consequence.

After some research, the melody itself is from the 1890's (the original copyright on "Happy Birthday" is from 1935), and there's no evidence that the original holder of the copyright wrote any of the words. Thus the lawsuit I mentioned above.

[Dejablue]

ASCAP, BMI, etc have regional field agents that investigate restaurants, yoga instructor's studios, karate instruction studios etc. Any business that may have music. Even if you explicitly do not play copywritten music, you will be sent a bill. If you do not pay you will get flagged and they will send an agent and he will stalk your establishment until a copywritten song is played, sung or otherwise distributed aurally in your establishment, then you will get letters, bills, lawyers involved, perhaps even sued.

In most cases it is cheaper to just pay for what is essentially insurance against harassment and or getting sued. Even if you host only indie bands that play all original music, if one vocalist sings one verse from a copywritten song and an agent is there and documents it, you will end up paying more for fines, lawyer's fees, etc. than simply paying the extortion fee, er licensing fee.

If you are an artist do not sign up with any of these organizations, for many reasons outside of the scope of this topic.

You will absolutely, unquestionably, earn substantially more by creating an LLC and putting your music on iTunes, Google Play, YouTube etc. for yourself. You will literally get yearly checks for less than one dollar if you do join one of these organizations. You would earn more by putting it on Soundcloud and requesting donations.

Anyway, rant over.

[belfpala]

Anyway, rant over.

I guess I've never experienced this, as I pay for a service that provides the recorded music I play at my place (that is, royalties accounted for), and I can't control what the occasional live musicians play.

I think Radiohead said they earned more with In Rainbows, which could be purchased at name-your-own-price, than they did on all of their previous albums combined.

[Netherspark]

Not if they are making money, which they are.

EDIT: Chances are WMG wouldn't go after a restaurant for it, but in theory they could.

It only counts if the restaurant were making money from the song itself. Which they're not.

[Reg]

That only counts if they are making money from the song itself.

Not at all. Unless they have the license to play/sing the Happy Birthday song in their establishment, they can be held legally responsible for royalties. It's the reason that if you go to a restaurant and request them to sing a birthday song to your kid, they sing their own version of the song. They don't have the licensing and don't want to pay for it.

[Wildtree]

"Preston Ware Oren and Mrs. R.R. Forman were credited with composing Happy Birthday to You when the Summy Corporation copyrighted the song in 1935. In 1990, the song was purchased from the company by Warner Chappel for $15 million! The copyright won’t expire until 2030.

Whoa! So not only do we have to be careful of using photos and music without permission, we can’t sing the Happy Birthday song without taking the chance of being slapped with copyright infringement! Wendy Williams from the show of the same name stated that it cost her $700 to have the song performed on an episode. Some have paid up to $10,000 to include the song in a film.

Now that I think about it, I rarely hear Happy Birthday sung in movies. The lame and copyright-free song, For He’s a Jolly Good Fellow is usually substituted and now I understand why!"

10k for singing Happy Birthday seems excessive. Having to pay at all is crazy. Apparently they make over 2 million a year in copyrights.

Commercial use...
You need to understand the distinctions.

Partially related:
http://www.northjersey.com/arts-and-...03869?page=all

* FUTURE REALITY SHOW CONTESTANTS, LISTEN UP: THERE'S A WAY AROUND GETTING FILMED.

The Record: Are you ever guaranteed to not have the cameras on you the entire time you're filming?

Cohen: No. Always on you. The entire time. Even in the bathroom. If you know you're going to have a mental breakdown and start crying … what you can do, though, you have to sing. If you sing a song while you're crying, they can't put that on TV … a copyrighted song.

In other words..... It's just hot air, and you/we don't have to worry shit about these news. All it means is, how commercial products, Movies, TV shows etc. have to pay royalties to Warner if the song is used.
Btw. you're misjudging the two songs in that regard. For he's a jolly good fellow is rather typical English territory usage. Whereas Happy Birthday is used everywhere else too.

[Yunru]

If you sing it in your own language, they cant lawsuit you.
Because they didnt create it in all languages, only english.
In that case you created a song.

Or a parody in english with changed ritem and lyrics:


Or just make your own (not hard at all):

[Mormolyce]

It's a pretty awful "song" too.

I've always wondered why the rights don't expire.

[Wildtree]

If you sing it in your own language, they cant lawsuit you.
Because they didnt create it in all languages, only english.
In that case you created a song.

That is outright false...
They cannot, nor will they sue you for the lyrics.
They sue you for the actual song, the melody.

Else we'd never have had any infringements that ended up with one party having to pay millions to the other party for stealing their song...
Hint.......
The stolen song: Ice Ice Baby..
The Original: Under Pressure..

and a bunch more here too
http://www.fairwagelawyers.com/most-...fringment.html

- - - Updated - - -

It's a pretty awful "song" too.

I've always wondered why the rights don't expire.

This is how it works:

Copyright is determined upon when it was published and whether or not the copyright was renewed:

Published before 1923 - now in public domain

Published from 1923 to 1963 - When published with a copyright notice © or "Copyright [dates] by [author/owner]" - copyright protection lasts 28 years and could be renewed for an additional 67 years for a total of 95 years. If not renewed, now in public domain.

Published from 1923 to 1963 - When published with no notice - now in public domain

Published from 1964 to 1977 - When published with notice - copyright protection lasts 28 years for first term; automatic extension of 67 years for second term for a total of 95 years.

Created before 1/1/1978 but not published - copyright notice is irrelevant - copyright protection lasts for the life of author and 70 years or 12/31/2002, whichever is greater

Created before 1/1/1978 and published between 1/1/1978 and 12/31/2002 - notice is irrelevant - copyright protection lasts the life of author and 70 years or 12/31/2047, whichever is greater

Created 1/1/1978 or after - When work is fixed in tangible medium of expression - notice is irrelevant - copyright protection lasts for the life of author and 70 years based on the the longest living author if jointly created or if work of corporate authorship, works for hire, or anonymous and pseudonymous works, the shorter of 95 years from publication, or 120 years from creation.

[Masark]

The copyright won’t expire until 2030.

I consider it unlikely that it will expire even then.

Case in point : Today, all of Ian Flemming's novels entered the public domain in Canada.

The same will not happen in the USA until 2049 at the earliest.

[Deleted]

I consider it unlikely that it will expire even then.

Case in point : Today, all of Ian Flemming's novels entered the public domain in Canada.

The same will not happen in the USA until 2049 at the earliest.

Don't worry. The copyright extension afforded by the Mickey Mouse protection act runs out in 2047, so naturally the Disney lobbyists will ensure that the US Congress extends it yet again before that.

[Adam Jensen]

Happy Birthday to You
Happy Birthday to You
Happy Birthday Dear me
Happy Birthday to You.

From good friends and true,
From old friends and new,
May good luck go with you,
And happiness too.

Take that.

That'll be $700 please. Cash only. I'll make sure this money gets to Warner Chappel right away.

[oxymoronic]

pay the cost to be the boss - i dont see the problem here

[Deleted]

It doesn't matter for us, it's for movies and what not. Unless you are making a Hollywood movie I wouldn't worry about it.