Saturday, March 15, 2014
Stephen Colbert Creates Royalty-Free Alternative To Happy Birthday For Happy Birthday's Happy Birthday
Techdirt: For years, we've covered the insanity of Warner Music claiming to own the copyright on the song Happy Birthday -- a claim that is finally being challenged in court because Warner's claims are almost certainly bullshit, and the song should be in the public domain. The history of the copyright claim in the song is highly questionable, as the original "copyright holders" appear to have written neither the music nor the lyrics to "Happy Birthday," and what they did write was widely used decades before any copyright claim was made. Still, Warner gets somewhere around $2 million each year licensing the song (making it the most valuable song ever) and has no intention of giving up that free revenue stream.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I never actually realized Happy Birthday was a copyrighted song! I honestly can't believe Warner Music Group charges people to sing this song! At the same time, it makes sense since they were able to get a hold of the copyright/copyright the song. But, I wonder how many places, restaurants, etc... that I've been to where businesses and people have illegally sung happy birthday. One that comes to mind is when a pilot and flight crew had sung happy birthday for someone, I doubt they got a license for that. So, will/did Warner sue that major airline? I wonder...
It seems so ridiculous to me that someone could own Happy Birthday. However, I can imagine that it is a lucrative copyright. So many restaurants have birthday song gimmicks and I'm sure they get paid when it is sung in movies. I wonder if the reason that so many places change the song when they use it because they can then circumvent the fee.
This is quite hilarious! Steven Colbert definitely got his message across about how ridiculous it is for Warner to hold the copyright to Happy Birthday and like the article mentions, I don't think other versions of Happy Birthday will catch on very quickly. I'm almost positive Warner doesn't charge royalties to families or acts of kindness on airlines simply because those small cases are to numerous for them to count. What they probably do charge for is the sheet music for it and the public singing of it in media. However, it wouldn't surprise me if other companies or movies would change a few notes, add a few notes, or change keys so that they wouldn't have to pay money towards royalties.
I think that Mr. Colbert definitely is right in saying that Warner's claim on "Happy Birthday" is definitely "bullshit." I can't honestly imagine anyone really holding the rights for such a well known song that has been passed down for centuries. I agree with Carolyn in that I'm sure the Warner group doesn't charge all the everyday uses of the song because it would be nearly impossible to track it all down, but what I'm sure they do get royalties for is its use in movies and other popular forms of media.
I'm always bemused when I am reminded that Warner owns "Happy Birthday." It is, of course, a ridiculous and I am glad to hear that it is finally being contested in court. Colbert does a great job in this video highlighting the ridiculousness, though I don't think the song he proposes will catch on.
This is interesting because I remember from my early childhood watching Spongebob that whenever it was someones birthday someone would shout that its time for a public domain birthday song and then they'd sing a song other than happy birthday and I would never understand why. Now I realize!! This seems rather ridiculous that a company would hold a song for 90 years knowing that the song is so widely used and known around the world. This being said, I think that this is a brilliant idea as far as corporate gain. If a movie really wants to put Happy Birthday in their movie they will pay the money to have it. Despite this, I think it is funny that many shows are now making a joke out of this and singing a different song anyway.
Post a Comment