Frank Nordberg writes:
|
| It's not as simple as that. Some composer sat down for months - maybe
| years - working had to create that tune, and it's only fair that he or
| she should get some compensation for the work ;)
Heh, heh. Actually, the original composer and lyricist were two
school teachers who never made any significant money from it. They
made their living as teachers of young children, and published a book
of tunes for the children. They also lost money fighting a copyright
battle with someone else who published the tune as his and tried to
prevent them from publishing it in their children's song book. It did
make enough money to start the Birch Tree Group, a small operation
which went on to publish other music for children.
| Seriously, there really are people out there trying to make a living
| from the music they compose. And the only way to achieve that, is by
| having people pay for it.
|
| If the composers didn't get payed, they wouldn't have time to make
| music. They'd be busy making a living instead.
In this case, the original composers are long dead, as are their
children. The tune has passed into the hands of the corporate music
interests. It's hardly a case of a starving artist being justly
rewarded. It's more a case of big business collecting money from
small-time musicians who are unaware that the tune isn't public
domain. Though I haven't read of anyone being sued over singing the
song at a birthday party. It's more like they collect royalties when
people use the song in a movie.
| Of course, the real issue is that Happy Birthday is to small a ditty to
| be copyrighted, whereas - say Gershwin's "Rhapsody in blue" - isn't. But
| where do we draw the line?
Drawing such line is what makes a lot of income for a lot of lawyers.
Very little of that money ever ends up in the hands of any artists.
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
