US court: Happy Birthday - public domain, previous copyright holder must return $ 14 million in contributions

Music Record Used in Court (Happy Birthday originates from Good Morning)

The story of the copyright of the song “Happy Birthday to you” has been dragging on since 2013, when the corresponding trial was initiated by film director Jennifer Nelson. The case disputes the rights to “Happy Birthday” by Warner / Chappel. Despite the fact that the melody and the song itself have a century of history, the music publisher Warner / Chappell argued that the copyright on the work is dated 1935, now the rights to the work are from the publisher, which means you have to pay royalties.

And companies really paid royalties, and considerable ones. For several years, the amount was impressive - $ 14 million. In the year, the amount of fees was about $ 2 million. But now everything is over: Judge George King (George H. King) made the final decision - the song is in the public domain, and the previous copyright holder must return all license fees.

In September last year, the same judge ruled that the transfer of rights to which Warner refers is not valid. Before the court’s decision, Warner’s deal with the Birch Tree Group was considered legitimate. Warner bought this company, and with it the music publisher went over to “Happy Birthday”. The judge also added that the authorship of the song is generally in question - it was still believed that Patty Hill was the author.
')
Warner demanded license fees from everyone who uses the song. A famous case is when the creators of the documentary film Hoop Dreams had to pay royalties in the amount of $ 5,000 just to show a scene in the film where the family of one of the main characters in the work sings an unfortunate song.

Where is the money?

Now $ 14 million must be paid to two different groups of Warner "victims". Those who paid deductions until 2009, and those who paid later. The first group will receive up to 15% of the royalties paid, but the second will receive a full refund. As it turned out, the reason for this is the limitation period.

According to the plaintiffs, the main thing in this whole case is not money, but the fact that the song will be in the public domain, and no one can demand royalties from the performers.

Lawyer Nelson argues that in the near future he will be engaged in similar matters, other songs, to which various companies unfairly claim the rights. But while the lawyer does not wish to name names.