Rick writes: | On Thursday 19 December 2002 05:49 am, Karl Dallas wrote: | > There is a special problem with regard to copyrights of | > traditional music. [...] | | The funny thing is the way these things apply when filtered | through the international treaties. | | Sometime back in the 1980's (I think), Sir Paul McCartney took | advantage of some "special problems" in the British Copyright | law to claim the well-known traditional song, "Happy Birthday".
But it's not traditional. One of the more fun bits of music copyright trivia is that "Happy Birthday" is still copyrighted, and owned by Summy-Birchard Music, a subsidiary of Time-Warner. You can see a good summary of its history at: http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.htm This is a good example of the complexities of copyright law. The tune was published in 1858, so you'd expect it to be public domain. But the current lyrics were first published in 1924, by someone other than the tune's composer. The resulting lawsuit wasn't settled until 1934. US copyright law changes extended the copyright repeatedly, and now it lasts until 2030. Time-Warner will probably pay Congress for another copyright extension, so it may never become public domain. Snopes.com is one of the good "urgan legend" sites on the web. It's useful to have bookmarks on a few of these sites for checking out claims and rumors. You can find other articles on the song's history by googling for "happy birthday copyright". | He then began demanding money for performances of "his" song in | the United States, including anything where the folks might have | been considered to be paid for singing it: TV shows, radio | programs, and even when the staff of a restaurant sings it to a | customer! The real owners of the tune have stated publicly many times that they have no intention of suing anyone for singing the song. But if you use it in a commercial recording, they expect payment. They say that it brings in around $2 million each year, mostly from movies. But you can use it at parties, even if it's a paying gig, without worrying about the copyright lawyers descending and breaking up the party. The case of a restaurant requiring employees to sing the song is special. They have sued such restaurants for royalties, since this is clearly a commercial use of the song. | Now you hear everything *but* that old folk song, despite the | fact that every family in the US could claim prior art. It's | one of the best examples I know of Copyright law abuse. There are a lot of other good birthday songs. It's somewhat of a shame that this one has become so dominant at least in the English-speaking parts of the world. But it is a catchy tune, and one that you don't have to teach people. To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
