Court Keeps Candles Lit on Dispute Over ‘Happy Birthday’ Copyright

'Happy Birthday' Lawsuit Challenges Warner/Chappell's Ownership

A group of filmmakers and a San Francisco musician are challenging Warner/Chappell Music’s claim to copyright ownership of what is perhaps the most popular song of all time — “Happy Birthday to You” — and on Monday a federal judge mapped out a plan of how the dispute will proceed.

At a hearing on Warner/Chappell’s effort to dismiss much of the case, U.S. District Judge George H. King instead indicated that he would seek to “bifurcate” the proceedings, first considering the question of whether the music publisher has ownership over “Happy Birthday” before going on to other legal claims, if needed, such as violation of California’s unfair competition laws and breach of contract. Still to be determined is whether the suit will be certified as a class action, as the plaintiffs claim that the publisher has collected millions over the years for a song it does not own.

The suits filed last summer contend that Warner/Chappell has been collecting license fees for the song even though it is in the public domain. The plaintiffs claim that the song “is neither copyrighted nor copyrightable,” and that the public began singing it “no later than the early 1900s.”

Attorneys for Warner/Chappell, however, say that they will submit as evidence certificates of a 1935 copyright registration for “Happy Birthday to You” that covers the lyrics and piano arrangements. One of the publisher’s attorneys, Kelly Klaus of Munger, Tolles & Olson, said at the hearing that they “think this case will end very quickly on the merits.”

The plaintiffs challenge that the song could have been copyrighted in 1935, arguing that the words were not original at the time of the registration, save for a second verse that is seldom if ever performed, said their attorney, Mark Rifkin of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz. The plaintiffs also have contended that the scope of the 1935 copyright is limited to the piano arrangements.

Another question is whether two of the plaintiffs, Robert Siegel and Major Prods., will eventually be dismissed from the case as the statute of limitations for copyright claims is three years. In 2009, Siegel paid Warner/Chappell $3,000 to use “Happy Birthday” in his movie “Big Fan,” and that same year Majar paid the publisher $5,000 to use the song in the documentary film “No Subtitles Necessary: Laszlo & Vilmos.”

The other plaintiffs licensed the song more recently. Rupa Marya paid Warner/Chappell $455 to use the song in a live album, and the makers of a documentary on the history of the song, tentatively titled “Happy Birthday,” paid $1,500 to license the song.

The work has a long, convoluted history. The plaintiffs’ suit traces “Happy Birthday” to an 1893 manuscript for sheet music that included the song, “Good Morning to All,” which was written by Mildred J. Hill and her sister, Patty Smith Hill. The lyrics to “Happy Birthday” were adapted to the melody of that song sometime in the early part of the 20th century, but the sisters did not write those words. If there ever was a copyright to the song, the plaintiffs contend, it expired long ago, not later than 1921.

Warner/Chappell acquired the company that claimed ownership of the song, Birch Tree Hill, in 1998.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 4

Marketplace

    Leave a Reply

    4 Comments

    Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

    Connecting to %s

    1. If we all sang “Happy Birfday” or “Happy Barfday to you” they really wouldn’t have a case anymore would they. It would now be a parody of the song. This is my interpretation and understanding and… unfortunatlely… It sucks I have to do this but because I understand how bullshit the legal system is…

      I am not liable to any loss, damages, lawsuits, or any other legal action. I am not a lawyer, nor do I provide any valid legal opinion, my opinion is based on hours of researching, and by using my opinion you agree to take full responsibility and that I am not culpable or implicated in any way.

    2. Elizabeth says:

      Really, is Warner/Chappell that strapped for cash that they need the rights to Happy Birthdyay?……..No one should have the rights to that song it is universal and everyone sings it…..

    3. Jim says:

      Who owns the copyright to:

      “And many moooooooooooooore….”

    More Biz News from Variety

    Loading