The words “Happy Birthday Lawsuit” don’t really seem to go together, unless, like me, you follow copyright law. Will the legal battle over the song “Happy Birthday” ever truly end?
The Background
For generations, the copyright for the song has been claimed by Warner/Chappell, the publishing arm of the Warner Music Group. We’ll just call them “Warner.” In 2013, a documentary filmmaker sued to challenge this claim.
I wrote about the case in my June 20, 2013 blog post Happy Birthday, You’ve Been Sued. The key points from that post are:
The lawsuit alleges that the melody for the song, with the original title “Good Morning to All” and lyrics along those lines, was authored prior to 1893 by sisters Mildred and Patty Hill. The Hill Sisters assigned the rights in the song, and they were passed from one party to another.
It’s not clear exactly when the famous “Happy Birthday” lyrics became attached to the song, but there’s evidence that people were singing the version we know today by about 1901. The first known publication of the words and melody together occurred in 1924. Various copyright registrations were filed from time to time for the song from the 1920s through the 1930s; the lawsuit alleges that these were all invalid because they “consisted of information that was common property and contained no original authorship, except as to the…arrangement itself.”
What’s The Update?
In September of this year, a Federal U.S. District Court judge ruled that Warners’ copyright is invalid. This is big news. You can read the ruling here.
Here’s where we stand. In 1935, the Clayton F. Summy Company (a predecessor to Summy-Birchard, Inc., which is related to Warners…it’s complicated) filed a copyright registration for a song called “Happy Birthday to You.” Those of you who know about the long, strange history of U.S. copyright term extensions will realize that a copyright registered eighty years ago may still be valid.
We know that the melody was written before 1893; so that’s not subject to copyright protection. But what about the lyrics, and the arrangement that combines melody and lyrics?
Warners were unable to produce the copy of the song that was submitted along with the 1935 copyright documents (the Copyright Office no longer has it), so they weren’t able to show that the 1935 documents actually included the lyrics. The court also found certain mistakes in the 1935 copyright registration certificate. So the registration certificate, on its own, was not held to be valid evidence of Warners’ claim.
In the end, the court determined that there was no evidence of a contract transferring the rights in the lyrics from the Hill sisters to Summy. Therefore, even if Summy’s 1935 copyright filing included a claim on the lyrics, that claim would be invalid.
The Conclusion…Sort Of
The court held that Warners and Summy-Birchard, Inc. “do not hold a valid copyright in the Happy Birthday lyrics.”
Happy Birthday to everyone, right? Well, Warners can still appeal the ruling. So the Happy Birthday lawsuit may not be over yet.
Complicating things further is the claim by the Plaintiffs in this case that Warners should return millions of dollars in “Happy Birthday” licensing fees that they’ve collected over the years. That part of the case has yet to go forward, and may take years to be resolved.
Still…it’s progress, of a kind.
