10 ms·
Unhappy Birthday
- DigitalSea 11y agoWhat would happen if people started flooding ASCAP with these violation notices? Could we perhaps send a message over how ridiculously common it is to sing this song in public by overloading them with so much paperwork it ends up costing them more money than they receive in collecting royalties? Just a thought.
- anigbrowl 11y agoWhy nothing in there about the current lawsuit? http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/u2yv5yz8/california-central-district-court/rupa-marya-v-warner-chappell-music-inc/ http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/u2yv5yz8/california-central... This is a topic that's dear to my heart since I've written/am producting a screenplay that uses the Happy Birthday song twice, and am thus in the position of having to budget for either a performance license or legal action over a song which is almost certainly in the public domain. Edit: I see another commenter brought it up earlier today.
- jonlucc 11y agoWhy have you decided to keep that song in instead of replacing it with something else or creatively omitting it? It seems that it would be worth the effort to avoid the complication of obtaining the license.
- anigbrowl 11y agoGood question. A few reasons, in reverse priority order. First, the licensing fee is likely to be under $5000, which would be bearable (though painful) in budgetary terms. Related to that, I might consider joining the existing class action lawsuit and am not above milking that to get some extra publicity out of it. Second, it was the original inspiration for the story. Now I was already well aware of the license issue so as soon as that key story element fell into place I knew it would have some sort of price tag attached, but sometimes you just have to trust your instincts. Third and most important, it's because it's so universally well known that it works. I have one other piece of music I anticipate licensing in there, but if I had to for $$ reasons I'd explore alternatives.During early drafts I noted several good musical cues that would enhance or complement the story action, but while they'd still be my ideal creative selections that would probably unaffordable on my budget, and so I'm happy to work around those. But 'Happy Birthday' is not just an expression of my taste, it's so universally known in the English-speaking world and beyond as to be a major cultural signifier. If I were to use some alternative birthday song like 'Woot woot, it's ya birthday' or something, it would be a huge distraction from the emotional content of the scenes, and turn them into something lame, at best, or comic, at worst. I listened a few of the alternative birthday songs linked elsewhere on the page, but (unsurprisingly) I forgot all of them within 60 seconds. You only get a few key moments in a film where characters are really strongly defined as individuals - you know, the lines that you can quote from a famous movie that everyone recognizes, eg 'I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse' or 'You talking to me?' or 'There's no place like home.' You have to keep things simple because audience connection with a character is a matter of feeling rather than thought, and if you're trying to process something else to evoke the same idea, then you're not emotionally engaged with it in the moment. To some extent, I'm leveraging the strong emotional connotations that the song already has for in order to intensify the dramatic impact of the scenes where it is used. In the same vein, those scenes also involve a birthday cake as opposed to a birthday apple pie or indeed a birthday steak - cake is a cliche but cliches are useful for drawing attention to the abnormal things about the situation for dramatic effect. I want to make sure that people remember those scenes where it's used. Mind, my issue with Warner/Chappell here is that I really don't think Happy Birthday is actually eligible for copyright protection. If I was going for some other emotional situation that just had to have a particular piece of music whose copyright status wasn't in doubt then that wouldn't bother me, although there are very few pieces of music that are so iconic that they can't easily be substituted for - the only one I can think of is the Bridal Chorus from Wagner's Lohengrin, better known as 'Here comes the bride...' for use at weddings, or maybe Taps for military funerals, but even that is a specifically American thing.
- dogerat 11y agoIt's unpopular in our industry, but I personally don't believe in ownership of ideas or information. When someone can tell me who owns the number 2, I will tell you who owns our cultural heritage of songs. Remember: copyright is a legal fiction created by congress that exists solely to prop up industries. Most people don't believe in it, as evidenced by the massive sharing of information on the internet condemned by it.
- lucb1e 11y agoDuplicate from /u/sneak (who was ~2 hours earlier posting the same).
- karamazov 11y agoIt's about time someone took this seriously.
- trothamel 11y agoThere has been a lawsuit (actually several, since consolidated) about this winding its way through the courts since 2013. http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/u2yv5yz8/california-central-district-court/rupa-marya-v-warner-chappell-music-inc/ http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/u2yv5yz8/california-central...
- vesinisa 11y agoAccording to this analysis linked from the article, there are several challenges in Time Warner's copyright claim, so common sense might even one day prevail: > The claim that “Happy Birthday to You” is still under copyright has three principal weaknesses. Most significantly, there is a good argument that copyright in the song has never been renewed. [...] Second, the first authorized publication of “Happy Birthday to You,” in 1935, bore a copyright notice that was almost certainly not in the name of the owner of copyright in the song. Under the law in force at the time, publication with notice under the wrong name resulted in forfeiture of copyright protection. Third, the current putative owner of copyright in “Happy Birthday to You,” can only claim ownership if it can trace its title back to the author or authors of the song. Yet it appears that the only possible authors to whom it can trace title are Mildred and Patty Hill themselves, and there is scant evidence that either of them wrote the song. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1111624 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1111624
- astrodust 11y agoIt'll probably prevail in 2029 giving us one bonus year of "Happy Birthday" singing without royalties.
- mark-r 11y agoNot to worry, copyright terms will be extended again long before "Steamboat Willy" expires. Disney has lots of friends in Washington. Nothing copyright after 1927 will ever be in the public domain. In case you think I'm kidding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act#Support http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act#Su...
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- gnopgnip 11y agoThere wouldn't be a threat of a lawsuit, ASCAP charges $356 for a yearly license for most businesses. It is part of how artists are compensated, and we don't have a better system yet.
- tajen 11y agoThat's cheap ;) In France this is the base fee for a restaurant with less than 20 seatings in a remote village, and the price goes up to €1800 for a hundred seats in Paris, plus whatever founder time is required to understand the form (and founder's time on forms is, believe me, far from neglectible). The general fee for an event is 7% of the income, and that only gives you the right to perform the music: Even if you invite Muse, you still need to pay the 7% to SACEM. http://droit-finances.commentcamarche.net/faq/8253-tarifs-sacem-et-spre-grilles-et-baremes-2015 http://droit-finances.commentcamarche.net/faq/8253-tarifs-sa... (in French)
- joesmo 11y agoI'll just add this to the list of 10,000 other felonies I unknowingly commit every day. But seriously, most of the claims here are ridiculous and false. Not surprising considering the source. What's that anecdote about taking legal advice off the internet though? That applies to their site as well as my comment equally.
- jacob019 11y agoCriminal copyright infringement requires that the infringer acted for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain. There is a higher threshold for criminal infringement. Singing happy birthday in public would be a civil offence, not a criminal one.
- syntheticnature 11y agoI think the relevant bit, amid the satire, is that restaurants, regardless of size, whose employees are caught singing "Happy Birthday" are hit fiercely by this. Ever wonder why the employees at chains sing something else?
- developer1 11y agoTo be a little more specific, there is no risk when a group of friends sing happy birthday to someone they know in a restaurant. However, if a restaurant's staff routinely sings the song to customers, then people will come to that restaurant specifically to receive this service - which is profiting off the song.
- rorykoehler 11y agoSo when your local diner's staff sing your kid happy birthday they are breaking the law?... whoops just saw the next comment haha
- jsmthrowaway 11y agoThis is satire with a side goal of overwhelming Time Warner with complaints.
- mkagenius 11y agoAbout us part is very funny. Can't stop laughing! I bet Louie CK will agree.
- johladam 11y agoI honestly can't tell if this is supposed to be a sarcastic comment on current state of copyright and copyright enforcement in the US, or if this is actually suggesting that people contact ASCAP and Time Warner about violations. I'm quite sure that it is actually talking about the difficulty of enforcing bans on popular songs that the general public assumes are in the public domain. Maybe my Aspergers is showing...
- tnorthcutt 11y agoIt is satire: http://mako.cc/fun/ http://mako.cc/fun/
- johladam 11y agoThank you.
- dean 11y agoFrom that link: "Unhappy Birthday is satirical project commenting on the fact that the song Happy Birthday To You is under an actively enforced copyright held by Time Warner. This site gives folks the tools and information they need to report unauthorized public performances of that work wherever they may occur. If educating people and upholding the principle of copyright means risking a DoS of ASCAP's licensing enforcement infrastructure, it's a risk I'm willing to take. Please help spread the word!"
- jMyles 11y agoAfter reading your comment, I asked myself, "Oh, whoa, is difficulty detecting sarcasm a characteristic of Aspergers?" I did not know this (I know quite little about Aspergers, in fact). Can you tell me more? A cursory google search brings a bunch of trollish-seeming forum posts and one decent looking article whose database server is down: http://faaas.org/research-materials/brochures-factsheets/aspergers-syndrome-fact-sheet/ http://faaas.org/research-materials/brochures-factsheets/asp...
- noonespecial 11y agoYou can support us by buying overpriced items in the official Unhappy Birthday store. This site strikes me as a masterful troll utilizing Poe's law that might actually turn a profit! Genius.
- vcarl 11y agoI love the line, "Let's right the balance and tell ASCAP about every one of these violations!" That's where I realized it wasn't a serious enforcement piece, and something encouraging malicious compliance.
- javajosh 11y agoSomeone needs to build Shazam, but instead of just identifying songs, it identifies the people singing them (perhaps via the owner's Facebook profile?), and informs ASCAP.
- number_six 11y agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8ecm0ljl3s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8ecm0ljl3s
- sehugg 11y agoYou could always sing Steven Colbert's royalty-free birthday song: http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/3si7rs/warner-music-s--happy-birthday--copyright http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/3si7rs/warner-music-s-...
- dbbolton 11y agoOr if you feel like paying royalties to someone other than Time Warner, you could always use Master Shake's composition "The Creature Thus Be Formed": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXkT54U6ZmI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXkT54U6ZmI
- go1979 11y agoI was greeted with a "can't play this video in your country" error (in Canada). The irony ...
- JackuB 11y agoHeh, it played fine in EU. All Comedy Central stuff works here AFAIK.
- schwarze_pest 11y agoNot in Germany.
- afshin 11y agoIt does not work in the UK.
- ciupicri 11y agoNot in Romania.
- Retr0spectrum 11y agoIn the UK: http://i.imgur.com/mV895PR.png http://i.imgur.com/mV895PR.png
- nostalgiac 11y ago
- egonschiele 11y agoI've come to wish you an unhappy settlement Because you're evil And you lie And if you should die "Good riddance Time Warner" I'll cry
- esfandia 11y agoThe Smiths should sue these bastards for copyright infringement! (https://youtu.be/-VjbuM4i--A https://youtu.be/-VjbuM4i--A for those who missed OP's reference and downvoted)
- pluma 11y agoI think you can make "Good riddance Time Warner" fit to the tune... Good riddance - Time Warner Good riddance - Time Warner Good riddance - Because you're evil Good riddance - Please die
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- icebraining 11y agoA cover is just a new performance of an existing released song. It's only legal to perform if you have a license. In fact, a restaurant has been sued just last year for having a band perform "Freebird" without a license.
- resoluteteeth 11y agoIt is understandable that people find this confusing. In the US, anyone can release recordings of covers--even without the permission of the creator of the original work--by obtaining a "mechanical license" and paying a fixed royalty. However, this doesn't apply to public performances. In other words, while without the permission of the creator you can still record a cover and sell it, you can't perform that same cover that you are legally selling publicly. This doesn't really make any sense, but it has ended up this way because of how the copyrights for compositions and recordings were divided up when the recording industry came into existence.
- davnicwil 11y agoFuturama's re-work of the 'happy birthday' lyrics, seemingly because they've changed in the future, dodges this nicely: What day is today? It's X's Birthday, What a day for a birthday, let's all have some cake!
- jerf 11y agoIn theory, this is copyright law working as designed, because there's a bajillion "Not-Actually-Happy-Birthday Happy Birthday" songs, in TV shows and restaurant chains. Creativity has nominally bloomed. In practice it's a powerful demonstration of how copyright can make something that is really part of our cultural canon now something that somebody owns. We wouldn't be having this discussion if copyright terms were limited to something resembling sanity.
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoBut, its every songwriters dream that their invention become part of 'our cultural canon'. ITs catch-22. This argument goes: a successful song, that always was 'something that somebody owns' by law, become public domain the minute it becomes popular?
- eikenberry 11y ago"Jessica Hill published and copyrighted Happy Birthday in 1935. While the copyright should have expired in 1991..." 1935-1991 is a 56 year term? Why did they pick that particular length (the 1909 extension)? Seems rather arbitrary and goes against the point that the extensions are bad.
- astrodust 11y agoCopyright was originally set at lifespan of the creator plus some arbitrary amount of time that has changed over the years. There's still about a few dozen rules that apply in the US: https://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm https://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm Every country has similarly confused systems.
- josho 11y agoThank you for that link. I always wondered what the expiration was for a corporation's work--95 years from publication. Wow, that's an incredibly long time.
- michaelhoffman 11y agoCopyright in the U.S. was originally set at 14 years, renewable for another 14 years.
- pluma 11y agoConsidering how much culture seems to have accelerated (via mass media, long distance communication and so on), it would seem obvious that if 28 years was enough back then, it should be more than enough today. The only thing the current copyright length is helping with, is establishing and perpetuating monopolist corporations. It's killing innovation and cementing the status quo. Even from a market standpoint this is a bad idea -- not to mention what it looks like from a social standpoint. It's anti-capitalist and extremely un-American, really. Speaking as a "socialist" European.
- 11y ago
- ExpiredLink 11y agoI reckon this article is against freedom and democracy.
- johndevor 11y agoHow's that?
- uiberto 11y agoSatire, ya'll: http://mako.cc/fun/ http://mako.cc/fun/
- baking 11y agoHe calls it "a DoS of ASCAP's licensing enforcement infrastructure" so presumably random letters about unauthorized "performances" will rack up huge legal bills to investigate hopeless dead ends or something like that. At least to the point that the legal costs will outweigh any potential revenue.
- greggyb 11y agoYou could just sing about an Egyptian river god instead: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f2PCWYAZQc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f2PCWYAZQc
- StavrosK 11y agoIsn't the melody the part that's copyrighted? The article seems to think so, at least.
- greggyb 11y agoMelody is not copyrighted. The words are. The melody is much older. From article: >The melody for Happy Birthday was first penned by two sisters from Kentucky, Mildred J. Hill and Patty Smith Hill. The song was called Good Morning to All, but bore the recognizable melody. The tune was first published in 1893 in the book Song Stories for the Kindergarten. The melody has since passed into the public domain, and is safe to hum in public without permission.
- StavrosK 11y agoWow, reading comprehension fail on my part, thank you.
- anigbrowl 11y agoNo, the melody was originally called Good Morning to All and has been around since 1892, IIRC. The Warner/Chappell claim is based on the lyrics, which just barely meet the threshold requirements for something to be even identifiable as a work.
- lifeformed 11y agoI've always wondered about that. Does that legally work?
- greggyb 11y agoI truly don't know, but I imagine that if you were wearing birthday hats, consuming cake or some other celebratory baked good, and clearly not worshiping an Egyptian river god, there may be a problem or two convincing someone you weren't singing the copyrighted words.
- ableal 11y agoAnyone knows what's up with foreign translations? If the music is in the public domain and it is the English lyrics that are copyrighted, perhaps the Klingon - for instance - version is not subject to enforcement, due to lack of interest or known rights.
- th0br0 11y agoI find it a fun coincidence that the guy's last name, in whose name the domain is registered, is also Hill.
- fffrad 11y agoIs this why in restaurants, the staff always have a unusual shorter version that I cannot follow along?
- amelius 11y agoHere is an interesting documentary about the history of copyright, the role of Big Content, and a future vision on copyright [1] Also covers the happy birthday song. [1] Rip: a Remix Manifesto, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EnX0vACj4Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EnX0vACj4Q
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- cekanoni 11y agoI had no idea about this .. lol ?
- mxfh 11y agoThe sorry and incoherent state of copyright law in the year 2015: Richard Prince's version of Fair Use [1] and the other extreme which consists of this song and the Marvin Gaye vs. Thicke/Williams situation [2]. It's just crazy that these two extremes co-exist under the same law. How is putting in a different name of the jubilant and some variation in the performance not on the same level of appropriation and fair use compared to Prince's instagram-plus-a-comment work? [1] http://petapixel.com/2015/05/21/richard-prince-selling-other-peoples-instagram-shots-without-permission-for-100k/ http://petapixel.com/2015/05/21/richard-prince-selling-other... [2] http://qz.com/360126/a-copyright-victory-for-marvin-gayes-family-is-terrible-for-the-future-of-music/ http://qz.com/360126/a-copyright-victory-for-marvin-gayes-fa...
- couchand 11y agoThanks for linking the article about Richard Prince, I hadn't heard that story. The artnet article they link to, Richard Prince Sucks [0], is even better. "Here's what I've got by way of reflection: Prince likes images of breasts. We can trace appropriation precedents back to Warhol, and Prince as an early adopter, but who cares? Copy-paste culture is so ubiquitous now that appropriation remains relevant only to those who have piles of money invested in appropriation artists. The work on canvas looks about as good as you'd expect for a tiny, 72 DPI image, which is to say they are fuzzy and better viewed on a phone." [0]: https://news.artnet.com/art-world/richard-prince-sucks-136358 https://news.artnet.com/art-world/richard-prince-sucks-13635...
- sneak 11y agoIt's unpopular in our industry, but I personally don't believe in ownership of ideas or information. When someone can tell me who owns the number 2, I will tell you who owns our cultural heritage of songs. Remember: copyright is a legal fiction created by congress that exists solely to prop up industries. Most people don't believe in it, as evidenced by the massive sharing of information on the internet condemned by it.
- logicallee 11y agoI would find it great to know that you've spent the last ten years living without knowing one simple trick that could have made every day of your life better, but whose author didn't have any model to share it under or reason to tell you about it. Or if you went to school without school textbooks to educate you. I'd glad if copyright doesn't exist to give people a model to create stuff that makes my life and yours better. In fact, I wish the entire software industry didn't exist. Or books and literature for that matter. The whole industrial revolution - from Watt's steam engine on ("protected" by patents - ha!); man, if only it hadn't happened. What we need is fields of wheat and maybe the occasional antelope. Fuck civilization.
- emodendroket 11y agoLet's not get carried away. People still created music before copyright was invented.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- testguy34 11y ago>Most people don't believe in it Most people are quick to change their tune when it's their work that is getting copied.
- 11y ago
- bandrami 11y agoThe judge hasn't ruled yet[1], so this "grassroots" (ahem) movement may be a little premature. [1] http://www.law360.com/cases/51c4a8e9bbec94458c000001?article_sidebar=1 http://www.law360.com/cases/51c4a8e9bbec94458c000001?article...
- axus 11y agoMr. Rogers wrote another happy birthday song, smart guy
- barhum 11y agoWrite a public domain song called "Joyful day of birth to you"
- venomsnake 11y agoThe problem is not copyright, but copyright terms ... a 3-5 year term will allow such problems to not exist. And 90% of monetization is during that period anyway.
- franciscop 11y agoIANAL, but this seems completely backwards: > However, if you do it in an restaurant — and if the restaurant hasn't already worked out a deal with ASCAP — you may be engaging in copyright infringement. If the RESTAURANT sings it, with its indirect commercial advantage, then this could be true. However, if YOU sing it and you don't belong to the restaurant's payroll, how can you be getting "advantage" of it?
- olefoo 11y agoFrom the title I was hoping this was about Morrissey. I've come to wish you an unhappy birth-dayyy. because you're evil and you lie and I wish you would die. Which, I'm thinking that he should have gotten a decent life out of writing those songs and I hope Jeff Bezos pays him for all the plays I run up on Amazon [ http://amzn.to/1cXjn7f http://amzn.to/1cXjn7f ] That's the essential tension, we want to reward artists for brightening our lives and making music; but we don't see why a bunch of gentlemen in 3 piece suits who don't make music or write stories or do much of anything but attend meetings and put the hurt on the regular people should be getting mad money out of the deal based on a government controlled monopoly. The rentier class needs to be disbanded.
- matchagaucho 11y agoThe term of copyright is lifetime plus 70 years. So the "real" question is why a song written in 1893 is not in public domain?
- desdiv 11y agoIt is in public domain. >The tune was first published in 1893 in the book Song Stories for the Kindergarten. The melody has since passed into the public domain, and is safe to hum in public without permission.
- steveax 11y agoObligatory link to Everthing is a Remix: http://everythingisaremix.info http://everythingisaremix.info
- dorgo 11y agothe site is totally broken without content from third-party. not easy fixable in ublock.
- kuschku 11y agoDirect links: https://vimeo.com/14912890 https://vimeo.com/14912890 https://vimeo.com/19447662 https://vimeo.com/19447662 https://vimeo.com/25380454 https://vimeo.com/25380454 https://vimeo.com/36881035 https://vimeo.com/36881035 Additional videos: Embrace the Remix https://vimeo.com/47322970 https://vimeo.com/47322970 Case Study: the iPhone https://vimeo.com/81745843 https://vimeo.com/81745843 Rise of the Patent Troll https://vimeo.com/91363809 https://vimeo.com/91363809
- mobman 11y agothese copyright and patents are a huge hindrance to creativity. Now you cannot make a new product because somewhere someone has it copyrighted. I had at least 5-7 products in mind but could not build it , because my patent filing team says, we will end up paying huge royalties if we go on with this project. I wish i could burn all patents and copyright and recreate everything open source.
- strathmeyer 11y agoI've met people who work for the copyright office in DC. They've never heard of fair use, they think that it means when you use their content that you have to pay them fairly. They think they work for the big corporations and prevent the rest of the people from stealing things from them.
- ohitsdom 11y agoTried sending a sarcastic email, but it bounced. Here's the message: We're writing to let you know that the group you tried to contact (licensing) may not exist, or you may not have permission to post messages to the group. A few more details on why you weren't able to post: * You might have spelled or formatted the group name incorrectly. * The owner of the group may have removed this group. * You may need to join the group before receiving permission to post. * This group may not be open to posting. If you have questions related to this or any other Google Group, visit the Help Center at http://support.google.com/a/ascap.com/bin/topic.py?topic=25838 http://support.google.com/a/ascap.com/bin/topic.py?topic=258.... Thanks, ascap.com admins
- collinmanderson 11y agoThe song is soon to be owned by Charter Communications. Maybe they could include a free license for their internet or TV service customers. :)