Ars Technica: There may be no song more widely sung in America than "Happy Birthday," but it isn't free to sing. Warner/Chappell music licensing, which has long claimed copyright to the words, typically dings filmmakers and TV producers a few thousand bucks for a "synchronization license" any time the song is used in video. Warner reported that by the 1990s the "Happy Birthday" licensing enterprise was pulling in upwards of $2 million annually.
4 comments:
Very exciting! It's no news that much of what we receive as Shakespearean today isn't exactly 100% pure Shakespeare, although, the implications of a co-author are tremendous; especially a female co-author, and a Jew. While much of Shakespeare's literature is considered Christian in its allusions (whether a celebration or criticism), learning that there are non-Christian undertones as well present a real consideration. Knowing a possible identity of not only the Dark Lady, but of Emilia (at least), makes Amelia Bassano Lanier a major player Shakespearean lore.
Whoops! My previous comment was for a different article (disregard!).
The "Happy Birthday" debate isn't a new one, and it's one that's been fought on many occasions, and Warner never loses out. The documentary The Corporation made a very compelling aside to this debate– which they accompanied with silent footage of children singing "Happy Birthday," because they refused to buy the license to the song. and it speaks in a larger part to a culture of owning culture, where songs like "Happy Birthday" have been sung for decades, if not centuries, but are now packaged and resold to the public. Of course, artists need to make money, and a musician couldn't sustain her/himself without the existence of copyright materials, but there's a question of scale between songs of unknown penmanship being capitalized on, and authentic work. Another cultural phenomenon, "This Land Is Your Land," was famously never restricted by Woody Guthrie, who contributed the song to American legend so that it could be sung and enjoyed, not demanded licensing for. I've sung both songs in my life quite a bit. One I could broadcast worry-free! The dichotomy between the two represents two very different approaches to the enjoyment of culture. Which is right?
Oh no, do I owe Warner/Campbell a check for 21 years of having this song sung to me and having sung it myself? This is really entertaining because its almost as if we have run out of things to argue about except the Happy Birthday song. It was really great discovering its origins and how it may or may not have been contributed into American society. But this article has shown such specificity in the defendants argument that it makes me wonder if this case has gone past due it time. It now seems a bit personal and couldve ended at just the understanding that the money is either due or isnt due. But going back to pay every single person who has used the song is a little much. Wars are going on outside of this bubble and the frustration is held in a Happy Birthday song; not so happy anymore.
I think that I've for a while that the Happy Birthday song is copyrighted, but I'd never really thought about it until now. It's seems kind of odd that such a popular and commonly used song has a copyright. It looks like Warner/Chapell Hill has been extremely profitable because of this song, which probably everybody in the world has sung at one point or another. I'm also curious as to whether or not the copyright holds in other languages as well, since in many different languages the tune is the same but with, of course, different words. It will definitely be interesting to see how the case unfolds in the coming year.
Post a Comment