The settlement, announced in a court filing Wednesday, comes two months after Warner was hit with a ruling that it had never owned any rights to the iconic birthday song... Since then, a charity linked to the song's original authors has intervened in the case to claim that it is the true owner of the song... The settlement involves all three sides — Warner, the plaintiffs who sued, and the charity, Association for Childhood Education International... The filmmakers who filed the case originally only wanted to recover licensing fees paid since 2009, but, citing revelations that Warner had “concealed evidence,” the plaintiffs asked in October to enlarge the class to cover any one who paid “Happy Birthday” licensing fees all the way back to 1949...Why does the Association for Childhood Education International say it owns the copyright? (Boring) answer here.
१० डिसेंबर, २०१५
"Warner/Chappell Music has settled a sprawling class action over its now-invalidated copyright for 'Happy Birthday to You'..."
What will it pay and to whom?
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१० टिप्पण्या:
Too much copyright.
The settlement Order should donate the Copyright to Planned Parenthood and make private party singing pay the holder too. Then they would lose royalty money for 80 years of birthdays every time they slaughtered child.
Happy Birthday is an excellent example of the disaster that is modern intellectual property law, which functions largely to undermine the purpose for which the constitution created it.
Just sing a different song.
Then there's the issue that there is nothing left to copyright.
Comments in the link indicate:
The music is in the public domain and the words "Dear" and "to you" are in the earlier now-in-the-public-domain version of the song.
All that remains to be copyrighted are the words "Happy Birthday" (instead of "Good Morning")
And thar's too short to copyright.
In any case the copyright would expire on January 1, 2017.
But there is the issue oif clawing back previous royalties.
This is stupid. Limit copyright to a strict 30-year term with the possibility of a single 10-year renewal. Works automatically and irrevocably entering the public domain after that point. Four decades of government-granted exclusivity is plenty of time to capitalize upon a single work.
Tyrone Slothrop said...
Just sing a different song.
Arrogant Worms - Happy Birthday
Once a year we celebrate
With stupid hats and plastic plates
The fact that you were able to make
Another trip around the sun
And the whole clan gathers round
And gifts and laughter do abound
And we let out a joyful sound
And sing that stupid song
Happy birthday
Now you're one year older
Happy birthday
Your life still isn't over
Happy birthday
You did not accomplish much
But you didn't die this year
I guess that's good enough
...etc...
Some economist once said that the optimal copyright term was about 14 years. So here's my proposal:
Free copyright for the first 14-year-term. Just like current law, except for the expiration time.
$100 to renew for an additional 14-year term, with registration required, as in the old copyright rules.
$10,000 for the next 14-year term.
$1,000,000 for the 14-year term after that.
Multiply by 100 each time. There are a lot of properties which would be worth a million dollars to keep under copyright for an additional 14 years - lots of movies and songs can generate more than $70,000 in royalties 50 years after they were written. But how many can generate $7million a year 70 years after they were published? Maybe "Gone With the Wind"? Could Disney make more than $7 million a year off "Star Wars" in 2047?
I must have heard this song sung 1000 times in my life and I am fairly sure not one dime of royalties was ever paid. These were at private birthday parties for children. Now I mostly hear it in restaurants and I'm sure they wouldn't do if they had to pay royalties. This is really a stupid issue.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा