NationStates Jolt Archive

Singing this little song can cost you money.

Warner Music bought the rights on this song. They earn $1,000,000 each year for the rights.

So be careful when you sing this evergreen in your house.

Source?

Source

Seconded.

Source?

Local newspapers.

But google around and you'll find things like:

"In 1990, Warner Chappell purchased the company owning the copyright for US$15 million, with the value of "Happy Birthday" estimated at US$5 million.[7] Based on the 1935 copyright registration, Warner claims that U.S. copyright won't expire until 2030, and that unauthorized public performances of the song are technically illegal unless royalties are paid to it.

In European Union (EU) countries the copyright in the song will expire December 31, 2016"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You

http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp

As long as I don't use it for commercial use than I will be safe.

http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp

As long as I don't use it for commercial use than I will be safe.

Exactly... So nothing at all to worry about. And the OP is wrong.

As long as I don't use it for commercial use than I will be safe.

Eh no. As long as you are using it in your own house, then you're safe.

Non-commercial websites that use the tune or if you sing it in a classroom or while at a big meeting then technically you should pay Warner.

Anyone who dare to sing it now? :)

I will always dare to sing.

Bring it on Warner.

I will always dare to sing.

Bring it on Warner.

The lawyers are preparing the invoice. :)

You are safe as long as you don't "broadcast" it, or otherwise replicate it in a way such that others see/hear/touch/smell/taste/otherwise sense it.
So if you sing happy birthday in your own home so loudly that your neighbours or people on the street can hear it, you technically owe a fee to Warner's.
And yes, if you neighbours play a CD loudly that it bothers you, they are broadcasting and technically owe whoever holds the copyright license to the music, so you can sic the RIAA on them for a good laugh (just make sure they don't raid your computer for all the MP3s on it while they're in the neighbourhood).

The lawyers are preparing the invoice. :)

Well that's why I want them to come after me.

They would spend more on lawyers than they could ever get from me.

Well that's why I want them to come after me.

They would spend more on lawyers than they could ever get from me.

You'll be charged (at least) twice the amount spend on the lawyers. That's how the system works. :)

You are safe as long as you don't "broadcast" it, or otherwise replicate it in a way such that others see/hear/touch/smell/taste/otherwise sense it.
So if you sing happy birthday in your own home so loudly that your neighbours or people on the street can hear it, you technically owe a fee to Warner's.
And yes, if you neighbours play a CD loudly that it bothers you, they are broadcasting and technically owe whoever holds the copyright license to the music, so you can sic the RIAA on them for a good laugh (just make sure they don't raid your computer for all the MP3s on it while they're in the neighbourhood).


So a teenager having some problems with his dad could ring the RIAA at his birthday? :)

:upyours: Warner Brother's.

I will always dare to sing.

Bring it on Warner.

*watches as Blouman is figuratively raped by Time Warner's lawyers*

Time for some copyright violation. Suck on this DRM.

EDIT: Here we go, let's try that again, this time with a link... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeypOvsY91Q)

I think this would qualify as a "dick move".

Singing it for a public, paid performance.
Singing it privately -- love to see them enforce it.

Singing it for a public, paid performance.
Singing it privately -- love to see them enforce it.

If the RIAA is involved, they'll try.

Wow, how hasn't it passed in to the public domain?

wait...does this mean that we legally can't sing it to patrons in a restaurant? Because that would be spectacular.

:upyours: Warner Brother's.

Why? The copyright already existed, they just purchased it...and it isn't like they've sued anyone specifically for this song...

*watches as Blouman is figuratively raped by Time Warner's lawyers*

You'll be charged (at least) twice the amount spend on the lawyers. That's how the system works. :)

See the thing is that twice the amount they will spend on lawyers and being a large multinational corporation will involve at least a team of 10 all charging a very high premium for their time. I may never earn that amount of money so the whole thing would be useless, sure they may win but they may never recoup the amount of money they spent on winning.

As I say "bring it on Warner"

Singing it for a public, paid performance.
Singing it privately -- love to see them enforce it.

Well, there goes birthday parties in commercial places like restaurants.

Well, there goes birthday parties in commercial places like restaurants.

Finally...

Finally...

Until the protest movement takes it up, forcing Warner to spend millions on lawsuits against broke people.

Until the protest movement takes it up, forcing Warner to spend millions on lawsuits against broke people.

Yay for Apathy!

I was wondering why television shows always had these godawful knockoffs of the song instead of the real deal.

Finally...

ugh...tell me about it. No, I don't want to sing to the little fucker who just threw his shredded napkin on the ground, colored on the table with the crayons, and got pizza dough everywhere, all the while ordering a kids meal, killing my per-person sales and my tip for the table. Oh, and making enemies with all the coworkers I grabbed to come sing with me.

ugh...tell me about it. No, I don't want to sing to the little fucker who just threw his shredded napkin on the ground, colored on the table with the crayons, and got pizza dough everywhere, all the while ordering a kids meal, killing my per-person sales and my tip for the table. Oh, and making enemies with all the coworkers I grabbed to come sing with me.

Hey, it's no better for the other people who are eating at the restaurant. Last thing I want to hear while trying to enjoy a nice dinner with m'lady is "HAPPY HAPPY BIRTHDAY, HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU..." Its hard enough for me to hear in a restaurant with all the noise, and now I have to strain to hear over that crap?

Hey, it's no better for the other people who are eating at the restaurant. Last thing I want to hear while trying to enjoy a nice dinner with m'lady is "HAPPY HAPPY BIRTHDAY, HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU..." Its hard enough for me to hear in a restaurant with all the noise, and now I have to strain to hear over that crap?
I suggest taking a close look at the faces of the singers. Check out how many pained smiles and "oh my GOD I'm going to fucking kill you" looks there are.

I suggest taking a close look at the faces of the singers. Check out how many pained smiles and "oh my GOD I'm going to fucking kill you" looks there are.

Hopefully this will forever abolish this horrible practice.

That's not the point Wilgrove and you know it. Enough with the tangents! It's a serious issue! US (and World Copyright laws are one sick puppy!). I hear that some American has copyrighted "Waltzing Matilda!" It's a folk song! Like Happy Birthday is now. Some slimy opportunist has capitalised on other people's creations. Those other people are now dead and these talentless Capitalists are screwing money out of people because of a legal connivance.

If the US is to maintain credibility, it should exempt folk songs and lots of other public domain items from being able to be copywritten.
Otherwise, I'll stick my hand up for all sorts of copyright piracy - the law must be fair and reasonable.

That's not the point Wilgrove and you know it. Enough with the tangents!

*shrugs* Happy Birthday is a popular song, and someone saw that they could make a lot of money from it, I just wish I'd thought of it first. heh

That's not the point Wilgrove and you know it. Enough with the tangents! It's a serious issue! US (and World Copyright laws are one sick puppy!). I hear that some American has copyrighted "Waltzing Matilda!" It's a folk song! Like Happy Birthday is now. Some slimy opportunist has capitalised on other people's creations. Those other people are now dead and these talentless Capitalists are screwing money out of people because of a legal connivance.

If the US is to maintain credibility, it should exempt folk songs and lots of other public domain items from being able to be copywritten.
Otherwise, I'll stick my hand up for all sorts of copyright piracy - the law must be fair and reasonable.

No. Happy Birthday has always been a copywritten song. It never came out of copyright. The only thing that has changed is who owns the copyright. Same as how Michael Jackson owns the rights to many Beatles songs.

Happy Birthday has never been public domain. It will move into the public domain in another 22 years.

How do they plan to enforce this? My family certainly hasn't been paying royalties, and we sing it 10 times every year.

Sarkhaan, Callisdrun has put his finger on how to deal with a bad law - ignore it.

In these situations, people who have no connection with creating the cultural item are getting rich from it.

If someone could lasso the Sun and claim to own it, what would you say?

If someone could lasso the Sun and claim to own it, what would you say?

Oh yea, well...your sun is in my solar system!

Wilgrove, I notice a slight tendency of yours to egomania - that's enough of me talking about me - now what do YOU think of me?

Why not say OUR Sun?
(In fact, it's its own Sun - we belong to it!)

That's not the point Wilgrove and you know it. Enough with the tangents! It's a serious issue! US (and World Copyright laws are one sick puppy!). I hear that some American has copyrighted "Waltzing Matilda!" It's a folk song! Like Happy Birthday is now. Some slimy opportunist has capitalised on other people's creations. Those other people are now dead and these talentless Capitalists are screwing money out of people because of a legal connivance.

If the US is to maintain credibility, it should exempt folk songs and lots of other public domain items from being able to be copywritten.
Otherwise, I'll stick my hand up for all sorts of copyright piracy - the law must be fair and reasonable.

Waltzing Matilda? Really?

Well let's see those bastards try and stop me from singing it or even it being taught and sung at school concerts.

Wilgrove, I notice a slight tendency of yours to egomania - that's enough of me talking about me - now what do YOU think of me?

Why not say OUR Sun?
(In fact, it's its own Sun - we belong to it!)

No we belong to the earth, the sun belongs to Helios :p

My curiosity is piqued. The snopes.com article linked by Sdaeriji seems pretty clear...

Does this mean that everyone who warbles "Happy Birthday to You" to family members at birthday parties is engaging in copyright infringement if they fail to obtain permission from or pay royalties to the song's publisher? No. Royalties are due, of course, for commercial uses of the song, such as playing or singing it for profit, using it in movies, television programs, and stage shows, or incorporating it into musical products such as watches and greeting cards; as well, royalties are due for public performance, defined by copyright law as performances which occur "at a place open to the public, or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered." So, crooning "Happy Birthday to You" to family members and friends at home is fine, but performing a copyrighted work in a public setting such as a restaurant or a sports arena technically requires a license from ASCAP or the Harry Fox Agency (although such infringements are rarely prosecuted).

My question, then, is where does this leave performances of cover versions by bands during concerts? What of tribute bands? What of people who whistle a recognisable tune -- heard by those around them -- as they stroll along the street? These all appear to be technical breaches of the same nature as singing "Happy Birthday to You" in a public place.

Like so much else under the banner heading of copyright it just looks grasping, anachronistic and unenforceable, to me.

there ARE other "happy birthday" songs: beattles "say its your birthday", which of course belongs to somebody too, but i'm pretty sure its not time-warner. then there's "the vulga birthday":

doom distruction and dispair
people dying everywhere
happy birthday, ugh
happy birthday, ugh

my the cities in your wake
burn like candles on your cake
happy birthday, ugh
happy birthday, ugh

now you've reached the age you are
your demise can not be far
happy birthday, ugh
happy birthday, ugh

and many more equally cheerful verses

i'm pretty sure that one either belongs to some filker in nesfa, or the s.c.a., or is public domain.

perhapse we could all sing certain portions of that one for time-warner's birthday

there ARE other "happy birthday" songs: beattles "say its your birthday", which of course belongs to somebody too, but i'm pretty sure its not time-warner. then there's "the vulga birthday":

doom distruction and dispair
people dying everywhere
happy birthday, ugh
happy birthday, ugh

my the cities in your wake
burn like candles on your cake
happy birthday, ugh
happy birthday, ugh

now you've reached the age you are
your demise can not be far
happy birthday, ugh
happy birthday, ugh

and many more equally cheerful verses

i'm pretty sure that one either belongs to some filker in nesfa, or the s.c.a., or is public domain.

perhapse we could all sing certain portions of that one for time-warner's birthday

I've heard something similar to this, but with stomping instead of ugh-ing.

Raid the city, smash the keep
Burn the women, keep the sheep!

I've heard something similar to this, but with stomping instead of ugh-ing.

Raid the city, smash the keep
Burn the women, keep the sheep!
obviously that's the one.
i'll have to try and remember that verse too!
(and i think there's a couple more i don't remember either, or maybe it was just that one)

How do they plan to enforce this? My family certainly hasn't been paying royalties, and we sing it 10 times every year.
That isn't what they are saying. Personal use of the song (IE, you singing it to your cousin) is not banned any more than me typing or singing "You can stand under my umbrella ella ella" is. Copyright is against uses that result in profit: greeting card companies using the melody, or its use in film or amusement park attractions (Horizons at EPCOT used to use it, and paid for it). It is the exact reason that most restaraunts have their own songs...because those are public and/or profit making uses. Not you singing to your cousin.
Sarkhaan, Callisdrun has put his finger on how to deal with a bad law - ignore it.Yes. Ignore an aspect of the law which DOESN'T EXIST.
About as effective as me ignoring speed limit laws on the autobahn.

In these situations, people who have no connection with creating the cultural item are getting rich from it.And your point is? Does it matter who gets the money?

If someone could lasso the Sun and claim to own it, what would you say?
That those are not comparable situations? Same as someone copyrighting the numbers 1 and 0 or the letter E.

This song has never been in the public domain. There have always been royalties paid on its use.

About as effective as me ignoring speed limit laws on the autobahn.
I seriously suggest you don't try this. You will be ticketed.

I seriously suggest you don't try this. You will be ticketed.

I thought there was none?

I thought there was none?You thought wrong. The autobahn doesn't have uniform speed limits, just like every other highway system.

You thought wrong. The autobahn doesn't have uniform speed limits, just like every other highway system.

hm...Strange. I thought the German one had a suggested max of about 130kph, but no firm limit. Interesting.

hm...Strange. I thought the German one had a suggested max of about 130kph, but no firm limit. Interesting.Not everywhere. Curves and certain congestion areas most assuredly have speed limits. Likewise, the suggested speed is only valid for when you're driving. If you manage to get into an accident at that speed, the accident will legally be at least partly your fault.

Not everywhere. Curves and certain congestion areas most assuredly have speed limits. Likewise, the suggested speed is only valid for when you're driving. If you manage to get into an accident at that speed, the accident will legally be at least partly your fault.

haha...when I read "the suggested speed is only valid for when you're driving", a flood of snarky comments came to mind.

So basically, in most areas (non-curves, non-busy areas) you can more or less do what you want, so long as you don't get into an accident?

haha...when I read "the suggested speed is only valid for when you're driving", a flood of snarky comments came to mind.

So basically, in most areas (non-curves, non-busy areas) you can more or less do what you want, so long as you don't get into an accident?Speed-wise yeah. Unless there's a conditional speed limit during traffic congestions or bad weather conditions.

Speed-wise yeah. Unless there's a conditional speed limit during traffic congestions or bad weather conditions.

I'll keep that in mind next time I find myself driving in Germany. :)