4 ms·
There are multiple issues, and today's ruling only seems to have covered one of them (namely, whether the Warner/Chappell copyright covers the song, or just an
by ubernostrum 11y ago
There are multiple issues, and today's ruling only seems to have covered one of them (namely, whether the Warner/Chappell copyright covers the song, or just an arrangement of the song -- the judge ruled it was the latter, which leaves Warner/Chappell without a copyright claim to the song).
The next important step is a piece of evidence unearthed during discovery in this lawsuit: a songbook, whose fourth edition from 1922 contains the lyrics of "Happy Birthday". Since the lyrics had been published in 1922, and the melody is known to date to the 1890s, there is no way for either to currently be protected by copyright in the United States, as all copyrights dating from prior to 1923 are conclusively known to have expired.
- noobermin 11y agoOff by just a year, what a crazy coincidence.
- ubernostrum 11y agoGiven that 1922 was the fourth edition, it's likely that the lyrics were actually published earlier. It's just that you don't need to go back further, since once you reach a date earlier than 1923 you know it's public domain.
- Natsu 11y agoWell, unless they decide to retroactively extend copyright and bring works that were once open back under copyright... See also: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2611311 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2611311
- e12e 11y agoI read that in Micky Mouse's voice.
- gnaritas 11y agoIs it, or is that just the most likely year anyone would start their search for prior art?