Content deleted Content added
Wording, punctuation, wikilinks. |
|||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{short description|Birthday song}}
{{About|the song|the book|Happy Birthday to You!{{!}}''Happy Birthday to You!''}}
{{Redirect|Happy Birthday (song)|other songs by that name|Happy Birthday (disambiguation)#Songs{{!}}Happy Birthday}}
{{pp|reason=Persistent [[WP:Disruptive editing|disruptive editing]]. PC has demonstrated that nothing of value is likely to be lost, except the time of the many editors who have to keep reverting|small=yes}}
Line 24:
Patty Hill was a kindergarten principal in [[Louisville, Kentucky]], developing teaching methods at the [[Little Loomhouse]];<ref>{{cite web |last= Clifft |first= Candice |year= 2007 |url= http://www.ket.org/cgi-bin/fw_louisvillelife.exe/db/ket/dmps/Programs?do=topic&topicid=LOUL030013&id=LOUL |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20090802165409/http://www.ket.org/cgi-bin/fw_louisvillelife.exe/db/ket/dmps/Programs?do=topic&topicid=LOUL030013&id=LOUL |url-status= dead |archive-date= August 2, 2009 |publisher= Kentucky Educational Television |work= Louisville Life Program |title= Little Loomhouse }}</ref> her sister Mildred was a pianist and composer.<ref>{{harvp|Brauneis|2010|p=7}}.</ref> The sisters used "Good Morning to All" as a song that young children would find easy to sing.<ref>{{harvp|Brauneis|2010|p=14}}.</ref> The combination of melody and lyrics in "Happy Birthday to You" first appeared in print in 1912.<ref>{{harvp|Brauneis|2010|pp=31–32}}.</ref> None of the early appearances of the "Happy Birthday to You" lyrics included credits or copyright notices. The Summy Company registered a copyright in 1935, crediting authors [[Preston Ware Orem]] and Mrs. R. R. Forman.<!--ref provided in text body--> In 1988, [[Warner/Chappell Music]] purchased the company owning the copyright for {{USD}}25 million, with the value of "Happy Birthday" estimated at {{USD}}5 million.<ref name=ages/><ref name="New York Times">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/26/arts/happy-birthday-and-the-money-it-makes.html|title='Happy Birthday' and the Money It Makes|date=December 26, 1989|work=The New York Times|access-date=March 7, 2013|archive-date=December 20, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171220230011/http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/26/arts/happy-birthday-and-the-money-it-makes.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Warner claimed that the United States copyright would not expire until 2030 and that unauthorized public performances of the song were illegal unless royalties were paid. In February 2010, the royalty for a single use was {{USD}}700.<ref name="Wendy_Williams">{{cite web |author-link= Wendy Williams (media personality) |first= Wendy |last= Williams |title=Transcript |work= The Wendy Williams Show |url= http://www.livedash.com/transcript/the_wendy_williams_show/7650/BETP/Friday_February_5_2010/186147/#943921726 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20111009170834/http://www.livedash.com/transcript/the_wendy_williams_show/7650/BETP/Friday_February_5_2010/186147/#943921726 |archive-date= October 9, 2011 |date=February 5, 2010 |access-date=September 17, 2014}}</ref> By one estimate, the song is the highest-earning single song in history.<ref>{{cite news |url= https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/tv-and-radio-reviews/9769510/The-Richest-Songs-in-the-World-BBC-Four-review.html |title= The Richest Songs in the World, BBC Four, Review |first= Isabel |last= Mohan |date= December 29, 2012 |work= The Telegraph |location= London |access-date= September 23, 2015 |archive-date= September 23, 2015 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20150923153743/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/tv-and-radio-reviews/9769510/The-Richest-Songs-in-the-World-BBC-Four-review.html |url-status= live }}</ref> In the European Union, the copyright for the song expired on January 1, 2017.<ref>EU countries observe the "life + 70" copyright standard.</ref>
The American copyright status of "Happy Birthday to You" began to draw more attention with the passage of the [[Copyright Term Extension Act]] in 1998. The Supreme Court upheld the Act in ''[[Eldred v. Ashcroft]]'' in 2003, and Associate Justice [[Stephen Breyer]] specifically mentioned "Happy Birthday to You" in his dissenting opinion.<ref>[https://archive.today/20120709140932/http://laws.findlaw.com/us/537/186.html 537 US 186]
==Lyrics==
Line 46:
===Traditional variations===
Among English-speakers, it is traditional at a [[Party#Birthday party|birthday party]] for the guests celebrating the birthday to sing the song "Happy Birthday to You" to the birthday person, often when presenting a [[birthday cake]]. After the song is sung, party guests sometimes add wishes like "and many more!" expressing the hope that the birthday person will enjoy a long life. In the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia
In regions of America and Canada, especially at young children's birthdays, immediately after "Happy Birthday" has been sung, it is not uncommon for the singers to segue into "How old are you now? How old are you now? How old are you now, how old are you now?"<ref>{{Cite web |title=There are lyrics to 'Happy Birthday' that you literally never knew about |url=https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/extra-happy-birthday-lyrics/ |access-date=March 30, 2023 |website=Classic FM |language=en |archive-date=March 30, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230330225954/https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/extra-happy-birthday-lyrics/ |url-status=live }}</ref> and then count up: "Are you one? Are you two? Are you ..." until they reach the right age or often, instead of counting, "and many more!" for those who are older.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Lunden |first=Joan |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=FJTPDwAAQBAJ&dq=%2522Are+you+one%2522%253F+%2522Are+you+two%2522+%2522happy+birthday%2522&pg=PT12 |title=Why Did I Come into This Room?: A Candid Conversation about Aging |date=March 10, 2020 |publisher=Simon and Schuster |isbn=978-1-948677-29-5 |page=25 |language=en |access-date=March 11, 2022 |archive-date=November 29, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231129060827/https://books.google.com/books?id=FJTPDwAAQBAJ&dq=%2522Are+you+one%2522%253F+%2522Are+you+two%2522+%2522happy+birthday%2522&pg=PT12#v=onepage&q&f=false |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Kimelman |first=Michael |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GWSCDwAAQBAJ&dq=%2522Are+you+one%2522%253F+%2522Are+you+two%2522+%2522happy+birthday%2522&pg=PT220 |title=Confessions of a Wall Street Insider: A Cautionary Tale of Rats, Feds, and Banksters |date=March 28, 2017 |publisher=Simon and Schuster |isbn=978-1-5107-1338-3 |language=en |quote=After an off-key "Happy Birthday" (and the annoying modern-Greenwich additional verses "Are you one? Are you two?") |access-date=March 11, 2022 |archive-date=November 29, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231129060825/https://books.google.com/books?id=GWSCDwAAQBAJ&dq=%2522Are+you+one%2522%253F+%2522Are+you+two%2522+%2522happy+birthday%2522&pg=PT220#v=onepage&q&f=false |url-status=live }}</ref>
Line 69:
=== 2013 lawsuit ===
On June 13, 2013, documentary filmmaker [[Jennifer Nelson (filmmaker)|Jennifer Nelson]] filed a putative [[Class action|class action suit]] in federal court for the [[United States District Court for the Southern District of New York|Southern District of New York]] against Warner/Chappell in the name of her production company Good Morning to You Productions.<ref name=Masnick/> She had paid {{US$}}1,500 to secure the rights as part of a documentary that she was making about the song and its history. Her complaint relied heavily on Brauneis's research, and sought the return of her money and all royalties collected by the company from other filmmakers since 2009.<ref name="ages" /><ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.scribd.com/doc/147645129/Happybirthday |title= Class Action Complaint: Good Morning to You Productions v. Warner/Chappell Music |via= Scribd.com |date= June 13, 2013 |access-date= September 9, 2017 |archive-date= April 30, 2019 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20190430112110/https://www.scribd.com/doc/147645129/happybirthday |url-status= live }}</ref> A week later, ''[[Rupa Marya]] v. Warner Chappell Music Inc'' was filed in the Central District of California.<ref name=Dkt>{{cite web|url=https://archive.org/details/gov.uscourts.cacd.564772|title=Case docket: Rupa Marya v. Warner Chappell Music Inc|work=archive.org|access-date=September 15, 2015}}</ref> Five weeks later, Nelson refiled the case there,<ref>Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, ''Good Morning To You Productions Corp. v. Warner/Chappell Music'', Docket No. 1:13-cv-04040 (S.D.N.Y. filed July 26, 2013).</ref> and the cases were combined.<ref>Third Amended Consolidated Complaint, ''Good Morning to You Productions Corp. v. Warner/Chappell Music'', Docket No. 2:13-cv-04460 (C.D. Cal. November 6, 2013).</ref><ref>{{cite news |last= Masnick |first= Mike |url= http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130903/17133224395/warner-music-reprising-role-evil-slayer-public-domain-fights-back-against-happy-birthday-lawsuit.shtml |title= Warner Music Reprising the Role of the Evil Slayer of the Public Domain, Fights Back Against Happy Birthday Lawsuit |work= Techdirt |date= September 3, 2013 |access-date= October 14, 2013 |archive-date= November 3, 2013 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20131103223251/http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130903/17133224395/warner-music-reprising-role-evil-slayer-public-domain-fights-back-against-happy-birthday-lawsuit.shtml |url-status= live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last= Johnson |first= Ted |url= https://variety.com/2013/biz/news/court-keeps-candles-lit-on-dispute-over-happy-birthday-copyright-1200703048/ |title= Court Keeps Candles Lit on Dispute Over 'Happy Birthday' Copyright |work= Variety |date= October 7, 2013 |access-date= December 11, 2017 |archive-date= June 28, 2017 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170628023627/http://variety.com/2013/biz/news/court-keeps-candles-lit-on-dispute-over-happy-birthday-copyright-1200703048/ |url-status= live }}</ref> In April 2014, Warner's motion to dismiss had been denied without prejudice, and discovery began under an agreed plan with respect to Claim One, declaratory judgment as to whether "Happy Birthday to You" was in the public domain. The court was expected to rule on the motion for summary judgment as to the merits issues on Claim One.<ref>Dkt. 89 (Joint Report Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan)</ref> A jury trial was requested.<ref>Amended Complaint, Dkt. 75.</ref>
Nelson's attorneys Betsy Manifold and Mark Rifkin presented new evidence on July 28, 2015, one day before a scheduled ruling, which they argued was conclusive proof that the song was in the public domain, "thus making it unnecessary for the Court to decide the scope or validity of the disputed copyrights, much less whether Patty Hill abandoned any copyright she may have had to the lyrics". They had been given access to documents previously held back from them by Warner/Chappell, which included a copy of the 15th edition of ''The Everyday Song Book'' published in 1927. The book contained "Good Morning and Happy Birthday", but the copy was blurry, obscuring a line of text below the title. Manifold and Rifkin located a clearer copy of an edition published in 1922 that also contained the "Happy Birthday" lyrics. The previously obscured line was revealed to be the credit "Special permission through courtesy of The Clayton F Summy Co." Manifold and Rifkin argued that the music and lyrics were published without a valid copyright notice as was required at the time, so "Happy Birthday" was in the public domain.<ref name=thr-newevidence>{{cite news |title= 'Happy Birthday' Lawsuit: 'Smoking Gun' Emerges in Bid to Free World's Most Popular Song |url= http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/happy-birthday-lawsuit-smoking-gun-811144 |work= [[The Hollywood Reporter]] |access-date= July 28, 2015 |archive-date= December 28, 2015 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20151228163056/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/happy-birthday-lawsuit-smoking-gun-811144 |url-status= live }}</ref>
Line 77:
On September 22, 2015, federal judge [[George H. King (judge)|George H. King]] ruled<ref name="US District Court CA">{{harvp|US District Court CA|2015}}.</ref> that the Warner/Chappell copyright claim over the lyrics was invalid.<ref name=maiduc>{{cite news |url= http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-happy-birthday-song-lawsuit-decision-20150922-story.html |title= 'Happy Birthday' Song Copyright Is Not Valid, Judge Rules |date= September 22, 2015 |first= Christine |last= Mai-Duc |newspaper= Los Angeles Times |access-date= September 22, 2015 |archive-date= September 23, 2015 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20150923014052/http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-happy-birthday-song-lawsuit-decision-20150922-story.html |url-status= live }}</ref><ref name=thr-bdaypd>{{cite news |first= Eriq |last= Gardner |date= September 22, 2015 |title= 'Happy Birthday' Copyright Ruled to Be Invalid |url= http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/happy-birthday-copyright-ruled-be-826528 |work= The Hollywood Reporter |access-date= September 23, 2015 |archive-date= September 23, 2015 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20150923142246/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/happy-birthday-copyright-ruled-be-826528 |url-status= live }}</ref> The 1935 copyright held by Warner/Chappell applied only to a specific piano arrangement of the song, not the lyrics or melody.<ref name=hunt>{{cite news |url= https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/23/us-judge-rules-happy-birthday-is-public-domain-throws-out-copyright-claim |title= Happy Birthday Ruled Public Domain as Judge Throws out Copyright Claim |work= [[The Guardian]] |location= London |first= Elle |last= Hunt |date= September 23, 2015 |access-date= September 23, 2015 |archive-date= September 23, 2015 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20150923232639/http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/23/us-judge-rules-happy-birthday-is-public-domain-throws-out-copyright-claim |url-status= live }}</ref> The court held that the question of whether the 1922 and 1927 publications were authorized, thus placing the song in the public domain, presented questions of fact that would need to be resolved at trial.<ref name="US District Court CA" /> However, Warner/Chappell had failed to prove that it actually had ever held a copyright to the lyrics, so the court was able to grant [[summary judgment]] to the plaintiffs, thus resolving the case.<ref name="US District Court CA" />
Some initial news sources characterized the decision as ruling that the song was in the public domain,<ref name=hunt/><ref name=calamur>{{cite web |url= https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/09/happy-birthday-public-domain/406867 |title= Unchained Melody |work= [[The Atlantic]] |first= Krishnadev |last= Calamur |date= September 22, 2015 |access-date= September 23, 2015 |archive-date= September 23, 2015 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20150923111033/http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/09/happy-birthday-public-domain/406867/ |url-status= live }}</ref> but the decision did not go so far, holding only that Warner/Chappell did not prove they owned the copyright.<ref name=maiduc/> However,
Before the lawsuit, Warner/Chappell had been earning $2 million a year licensing the song for commercial use,<ref name="calamur" /> with a notable example the $5,000 paid by the filmmakers of the 1994 documentary ''Hoop Dreams''<ref>{{cite interview |last= Quinn |first= Gordon |interviewer= Bob Garfield |title= Truth and Consequences |type= Transcript |url= http://www.onthemedia.org/story/132349-truth-and-consequences/transcript/ |work= On the Media |date= May 8, 2009 |access-date= December 12, 2015 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20151222122153/http://www.onthemedia.org/story/132349-truth-and-consequences/transcript/ |archive-date= December 22, 2015 |url-status= dead |df= mdy-all }}</ref> in order to safely distribute the film.<ref>{{cite web |title= 'Happy Birthday', 'Hoop Dreams', and the Fight for Fair Use |url= https://www.kartemquin.com/news/happy-birthday-hoop-dreams-and-the-fight-for-fair-use |publisher= Kartemquin Films |date= September 22, 2015 |access-date= December 12, 2015 |archive-date= December 22, 2015 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20151222093712/https://www.kartemquin.com/news/happy-birthday-hoop-dreams-and-the-fight-for-fair-use |url-status= live }}</ref> On February 8, 2016, Warner/Chappell agreed to pay a settlement of $14 million to those who had licensed the song, and would allow a final judgment declaring the song to be in the public domain, with a final hearing scheduled in March 2016.<ref name="thr-14million">{{cite news |first= Eriq |last= Gardner |date= February 9, 2016 |title= Warner Music Pays $14 Million to End 'Happy Birthday' Copyright Lawsuit |url= http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/warner-music-pays-14-million-863120 |work= The Hollywood Reporter |access-date= February 9, 2016 |archive-date= February 10, 2016 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160210075924/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/warner-music-pays-14-million-863120 |url-status= live }}</ref><ref name="cbc-settlement">{{cite news |date= February 9, 2016 |title= Happy Birthday: Warner Offers up to $14M to Settle Copyright Dispute |url= http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/happy-birthday-settlement-1.3440182 |work= CBC News |access-date= February 9, 2016 |archive-date= February 10, 2016 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160210010726/http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/happy-birthday-settlement-1.3440182 |url-status= live }}</ref> On June 28, 2016, the final settlement was officially granted and the court declared that the song was in the public domain.<ref name="settlement2016" /> The following week, Nelson's short-form documentary ''Happy Birthday: My Campaign to Liberate the People's Song'' was published online by ''[[The Guardian]]''.<ref name="techdirt-bdaydoc">{{cite web|title=Documentary About Freeing Happy Birthday From Copyfraud Comes Out The Day After Happy Birthday Officially Declared Public Domain|url=https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160701/17352234877/documentary-about-freeing-happy-birthday-copyfraud-comes-out-day-after-happy-birthday-officially-declared-public-domain.shtml|website=Techdirt|date=July 5, 2016|access-date=July 13, 2016|archive-date=July 6, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160706155705/https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160701/17352234877/documentary-about-freeing-happy-birthday-copyfraud-comes-out-day-after-happy-birthday-officially-declared-public-domain.shtml|url-status=live}}</ref>
Line 120:
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20120722163516/http://www.littleloomhouse.org/happy-birthday-song/ The Happy Birthday Song and The Little Loomhouse]
* {{YouTube|id=uxVVgBAosqg#t=16|title=Mars rover Curiosity plays "Happy Birthday" to itself}} in 2013
* {{cite web |url=http://www.library.pitt.edu/happybirthday/ |title=The Happy Birthday Song |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150926195828/http://www.library.pitt.edu/happybirthday/ |archive-date=September 26, 2015 |
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eR1Dy8giXsE Eddy Howard's version]
Line 135:
[[Category:Songs involved in royalties controversies]]
[[Category:Quotations from music]]
[[Category:
| |||