You are browsing the archive for copyright.

Avatar of admin

by admin

Jason Robert Brown vs. SheetMusic Trader

July 4, 2010 in Articles

Adam Savage of Mythbusters tweeted this blog entry of a exchange between composer/artist Jason Robert Brown and someone who was trading his music.

Very interesting discussion

Avatar of admin

by admin

Exposing the Happy Birthday story

June 29, 2003 in Articles

J. Byron writes Exposing the Happy Birthday story:
An editorial by J. Byron, May 2003, rev. June 2003

In this article, I attempt to answer three questions: 1 - What is that song Good Morning to All, and how does it relate to Happy Birthday to You? 2 - Is the melody to Happy Birthday to You public domain? 3 - Are the lyrics to Happy Birthday to You also public domain? There are many references to Happy Birthday on the Web. Most warn you of the copyright claim on it, and that the current owners rabidly defend it. Many of these "editorials" do not tell you about the song Good Morning to All - and the few that do, don't tell you about its undeniable legal status. Is this deliberate, or just ignorance of the facts? I don't know. Two such examples are an article at Attaché Magazine and the commonly cited article at snopes.com. In addition, some articles may unintentionally present inaccurate information. An article posted at lawyers.com incorrectly states that Good Morning to All was written in 1895 but unpublished. That assertion is untrue, and makes an important legal difference.

Interesting take on copyright and other issues……

There is a 1935 copyright registration for Happy Birthday, but the melody Good Morning to All was formally published in 1893 as part of a collection, registered in October 1893, and is public domain by U. S. statute. (you just can't use the "Happy Birthday" lyrics in public without paying) However, one site listed in this editorial claims possession of some early publications that nullify the copyright to even the lyrics.

Good Morning to All [a.k.a. the birthday melody] included in:
Song Stories for the Kindergarten, pub. 1893
Song Stories for the Kindergarten, revised ed., pub. 1896
[and apparently other pre-1923 editions]
Words: Patty Hill (-1946) Music: Mildred Hill (-1916)

Good morning to you,
Good morning to you,
Good morning, dear children,
Good morning to all.

The song Good Morning to All - from which Happy Birthday was allegedly derived - is free to use (words and music) by U. S. federal statute. (Published before 1923, and furthermore published before 1909) Take a look at Lolly Gasaway's PD chart, or Cornell University's expanded chart. That version of the birthday melody may suffice for some people - instrumentalists in particular. Also note that titles cannot be protected by copyright, and no unique or proper names are involved. Naming an instrumental CD track Good Morning to All a.k.a. Happy Birthday to You should be legal. (The law of other countries might affect the song's status outside the U. S.)

Allegedly, after the publication of Good Morning to All in the Hill's songbook Song Stories for the Kindergarten, Robert Coleman, and others, published the "birthday" lyrics with the Good Morning to All melody. In the 1930's, the "Happy Birthday" lyrics combined with the Hill's published melody showed up on stage and in singing telegrams. The Hill family allegedly won a 1934 lawsuit for infringement. In 1935 the Hill family registered the "Happy Birthday" copyright mentioned endlessly on the Web. (Which does not affect today's public domain status of Good Morning to All.) Two sources for Good Morning to All sheet music are PD Info (a small studio, that also sells sheet music reprints) and NetStoreUSA which offers Good Morning to All as part of a songbook. In addition, Google or Altavista might list other sources, or local music dealers might be able to order a copy. Mainely A Cappella currently boasts an mp3 sample of Good Morning to All as part of their On the Good Ship Lollipop CD. (There is also a very simple midi example on PD Info's "G" page.)

Is the melody to Good Morning to All the same as the Happy Birthday melody in a legal sense? Except for the splitting of the first note in the melody Good Morning to All to accommodate the two syllables in the word hap-py, musically Happy Birthday and Good Morning to All are identical. Precedence (regarding works derived from public domain material, and cases comparing two similar musical works) seems to suggest that the melody as used in "Happy Birthday" would not merit additional legal protection for one split note. (As separated from the lyrics themselves.) A contact I made via the Web, claimed that someone at Warner-Chappell acknowledged this much to him by phone. It would be the reader's own responsibility to verify that.

Strip away the public domain material from the Happy Birthday melody and what do you have? One note - actually half a note. (Mail in your copyright registration for the note f# for example, and see what you get back ;-) Does the split note transform the piece in some substantially creative way? Not in my view. The split note is a natural consequence of the lyric change, and that split note is not original in that there are many lyrics that would result in the same splits. It is my view that you cannot copyright the metric structure of a lyric (especially within a single measure) anymore than you can copyright a common chord progression. (Set both versions of the melody in tremelo and they look identical.) If in doubt, just use a dotted eighth note/sixteenth note pair, rather than two eighth notes. The Classical Archives has a midi of Happy Birthday, with variations, on their Encores page. Search for more midi examples using MusicRobot.

As asserted in this article, many people are unaware that the public domain status in the U. S. of the melody from Good Morning to All is not in question. Many of those who do know about the public domain status of Good Morning to All nevertheless believe that splitting the first note of the melody as was done for Happy Birthday would merit protection and attract Warner's attention. My limited understanding of the law suggests otherwise, and if my Web contact was correct, the copyright owner acknowledges the melody to Happy Birthday as public domain.

Whether or not changing the words "Good Morning" to "Happy Birthday" should be protected by copyright is a different matter. Although I could be uninformed, I do not know of any case brought by Warner in regard to Happy Birthday to You. They have however used cease and desist letters. An interesting case involving Warner, not related to Happy Birthday is Sanga Music v. EMI Blackwood Music. However, adding an original 8-line verse to a pre-existing song is more substantial than changing 2 words of a song! Of course, anyone is free to write their own lyrics to the music of Good Morning to All. Here is one example written by myself:

Mer-ry Christ-mas to You!
Mer-ry Christ-mas to You!
Mer-ry Christ-mas Dear Fri-ends,
Mer-ry Christ-mas to All.

Searching further, I found Katzmarek Publishing, a music publisher specializing in public domain music who claims that he and others have publications of "Happy Birthday" - with the lyrics, that are not covered by the 1935 copyright. (Of course there is no public comment by Warner on this.) Mr. Katzmarek told me via email that he believes Warner knows that their copyright on Happy Birthday to You could get ruled invalid in a court of law, and therefore the documentation he sells acts as sort of a legal shield.

He states on his Web page: "Happy Birthday Document (proving that it is public domain.) A 1935 copyright is invalid according to us, double your money back if we are wrong. (Many people have been ripped off by this dilemma)"

The Katzmarek reprints indicate that the words "Good Morning" were not substituted with the words "Happy Birthday" by the authors of Good Morning to All, they were substituted by other people. (Additional alternative substitutions were also published.) As I previously stated, except for the splitting of the first note in the melody Good Morning to All to accommodate the two syllables in the word hap-py, musically Happy Birthday and Good Morning to All are identical.

Starting in the 1920's, Robert Coleman published the "Happy Birthday" variant in compilations of his own. One such example that includes Happy Birthday to You is: The American Hymnal, Robert H. Coleman, 1933. A second example NOT by Coleman is: Children's Praise and Worship, Gospel Trumpet Company, 1928. [Children's Praise And Worship ed Andrew Byers, Bessie L Byrum & Anna E Koglin, registered 7Apr28, #A1068883, renewed 7Dec55, #R160405, Gospel Trumpet Co (PWH)] Several of Coleman's publications are archived at Bob Jones University and Southwestern Baptist. In addition, the Library of Congress might also have his publications archived.

It is Mr. Katzmarek's belief that because the "Happy Birthday" variant was published in these songbooks without copyright notice (and no author was stated) that it [any original authorship] became public domain upon publication under the 1909 copyright law. The 1909 Copyright Act required that a proper copyright notice be affixed to any published copies, and also required registration of the material. (Reportedly, some legal experts and producers agree, but Warner [the copyright holder] apparently disagrees.) It is curious that Warner doesn't challenge Katzmarek regarding his claims. A more recent case often cited is Bell v. Combined Registry Co., 536 F.2d 164 (7th Cir. 5/14/1976), cert. denied 429 U.S. 1001, 97 S.Ct. 530, 50 L.Ed.2d. 612 (December 6, 1976) although it deals with different issues than presented in the Happy Birthday situation.

An interesting earlier songbook noted by Mr. Katzmarek is: [the] Golden Book of Favorite Songs, Chicago, 1915. It includes the song Good Morning to All printed with the alternate title: "Happy Birthday to You" - however the "Happy Birthday" lyrics are not actually printed along the staff. (There could be even earlier publications of the lyrics in some library.)

In the 1930's, the "Happy Birthday" lyrics combined with the Hill's published melody showed up on stage and in singing telegrams. The Hill family allegedly won the 1934 lawsuit resulting in the 1935 copyright mentioned endlessly on the Web: "Happy Birthday to You was copyrighted in 1935 and renewed in 1963. The song was apparently written in 1893, but first copyrighted in 1935 after a lawsuit (reported in the New York Times of August 15, 1934, p.19 col. 6)" The federal statutes and one court's 1934 opinion seem to present a conflict in determining whether or not Happy Birthday to You is public domain:

The original music to Happy Birthday to You was published as Good Morning to All in 1893 and is securely public domain. The Hill sisters are credited with authoring Good Morning to All. However, according to The Book of World Famous Music by James Fuld, the 1858 song Happy Greetings to All is very similar to the Hill's song. Also in 1858, a similar tune Good Night to You All was published. Therefore, Good Morning to All might not have been a completely original song even in 1893 - which would be consistent with folk music. Other [unknown] people adapted the Happy Birthday lyrics to the song, a few publishers included it in their compilations (songbooks) and others started using it in plays and singing telegrams, while Good Morning to All was still under copyright protection. The song became popular. The Hill family sued for infringement and won. The next year, a copyright registration was filed for the Happy Birthday version of the song. That copyright is now owned by Warner-Chappell/Summy-Birchard. However, just because a copyright is registered doesn't mean it's valid. A copyright registration is only prima facia evidence. Just because someone threatens to sue doesn't mean they would win. One lower court's 1934 ruling couldn't be binding on the whole country, much less the world.

Under the U. S. law of 1909, the effective date of copyright is the date of first publication. The U. S. Copyright Office states: "The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. [The Hills did not create the Happy Birthday to You version.] Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright." There is proof that the song was published as Happy Birthday to You at least by 1915, which is prior to the public domain mark at 1923. Good Morning to All was not public domain in 1915, but it is now. Also, according to the 1909 Copyright Act, publication without notice forfeited the copyright for the publications in the 1920's. A copyright registration dated 20 years after publication is not valid under the 1909 Copyright Act. That would seem to indicate that the whole song is now in the public domain.

In summary and in answer to my three questions asked in this article, Good Morning to All is public domain and free to use, even for commercial use. The Happy Birthday to You melody is probably the same as the Good Morning to All melody in a legal sense. Happy Birthday to You (with the lyrics) might be public domain.

My own comments do not constitute legal advice in any way. I am not a lawyer. This is the result of my own personal study. I accept no liability resulting from the use or misuse of my article. This is not an endorsement of any link(s) in this editorial. For more information on what material is public domain in the United States, refer to Lolly Gasaway's PD chart. Read the copyright basics at the U. S. Copyright Office's Website, and freely access recent case law at Findlaw.com. The Nolo book The Public Domain is an informative resource, written by an attorney. Before using any tune commercially, it is best to check with a lawyer, or research group such as Public Domain Report or Music Reports, which may or may not agree with the opinions in this article.

Avatar of admin

by admin

Save Our Sounds/Tattletale CD Players

December 15, 2002 in Articles

The History Channel has a program on December 26th about Saving Our Recorded History. The Library of Congress has thousands of recordings that are endanger of being lost these include:

"Lead Belly's last sessions recorded in 1949; radio broadcasts from the bombing of Pearl Harbor; and one of the most precious American recordings - Woody Guthrie's 1944 acetate disk of his song This Land is Your Land, complete with extra verses it was thought he had never recorded."

Wonder what early Jazz tresures exist and are endanger of being lost? There is also a Website dedicated to this.

And, via a Slashdot.org article:

"A company by the name of Bandlink is providing technology to record companies that allows a cd played in a personal computer to contact their server and relate statistics such as what track you're listening to and when you're listening to them. This information is then compiled into customizable reports that allow the record company to develop user profiles."

Great, like we need more of this…..

Avatar of admin

by admin

Satin Doll Copyright Suit

October 14, 2002 in Articles

Did Ellington and Strayhorn get along? Well, the heirs of their estates are certainly are NOT. Seems that the rights to “Satin Doll” are at stake.

"Third-party plaintiffs, Famous Music Corporation and Mercer Ellington (collectively "the Ellington Estate"), filed a third-party complaint against third-party defendant, Gregory A. Morris, executor of the Billy Strayhorn estate ("the Strayhorn Estate") claiming copyright ownership of and entitlement to royalties from particular versions of the jazz classic, Satin Doll. This Court has ancillary jurisdiction over the third-party claim by virtue of the fact that federal jurisdiction exists over the original action, predicated under the federal copyright laws. Settlement has been reached on many of the other claims in this litigation, including those claims raised by Tempo Music, Inc. ("Tempo"), the plaintiff in the original action, against defendants/ third-party plaintiffs, Famous and Mercer Ellington. n1 What remains in dispute is whether Billy Strayhorn's estate has an interest in the harmony and revised melody of Satin Doll when used or performed without the lyrics. n2"

I wonder what these two guys would say if they were still alive? Would they be fighting in court? Would they even care about it?

Avatar of admin

by admin

Cage Tries to Copyright Silence

June 29, 2002 in News

Sometimes, reality is too funny. Here is an article saying that John Cage‘s representatives are trying to copyright silence. Oh my gosh.

What is next, the John Coltrane foundation going after players for using Coltrane’s licks? What is the deal?

In another related story, the Music Industry has been convicted of price fixing. Naw. You don’t say. The FTC has more information.

Avatar of admin

by admin

Music/Law/Copyright….The whole Shebang

April 18, 2002 in Articles

This website comprises hundreds of documents (texts, scores, audio and video files) associated with music copyright infringement cases in the United States from 1845 forward. All of these documents have been collected, edited, digitized, organized, analyzed, and commented upon by staff at Columbia Law Library and the Columbia Center for New Media Teaching and Learning.

Under the discussion section, there a write-up entitled “Notation Software and Determination of Melodic Similarity”. For all those music majors out there who are thinking about law school, this is definitely an alternative career waiting for you where you don’t have to throw away all the music.

Avatar of admin

by admin

Internet Radio and Retroactive Royalties

March 17, 2002 in Articles

Will this be the death blow to internet radio? The American Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (“CARP”) is proposing to lawmakers that internet radio stations pay royalties retroactive to 1998; royalties of .14¢ per song per listener for Internet-only webcasters, .07¢ per song per listener for broadcast radio simulcasts, and .02¢ per song per listener for non-commercial radio simulcasts.

Most stations are operating on zero financing. Do the math; .02¢ x 12 songs per hour and 100 listeners.

To fight this a website Saveinternetradio.org has been set up for people to support internet radio stations.

Avatar of admin

by admin

Death Of Streaming Music?

February 22, 2002 in Articles

This article tells of a settlement in royalty rates.

"The Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel said AM and FM radio stations should pay 0.07 cent per song, with Internet-only Webcasters paying 0.14 cent per song. The rates, retroactive to 1998, also charge a 9 percent "ephemeral license fee."

Why the higher rate for internet music? I don’t understand the thinking.

Avatar of admin

by admin

DownSlam

October 29, 2001 in Articles

Anonymous Coward writes “I read about DownSlam here some months ago. Just wanted to let you know they are now accepting music uploads for their new disribution model. If this catches on it could really put the screws to the recording industry. After all, they have been screwing us for a long time now and well, fair is fair….”

There are a couple of these, such as Fairtunes. Not really a “new” distribution model. Actually, makes me kind of wonder why one needs a label anyways. If you are going to distribute on the net, just get a page up, and something like PayPal and off you go.

Avatar of admin

by admin

EFF’s Open Audio License

September 8, 2001 in Articles

The EFF is staging a public concert in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park to promote its “Open Audio License” (OAL), a music license based loosely on the GPL.

There is also an interesting critique that discusses the intended and unintended effects of the EFF’s license, and suggests alternatives that might be more beneficial (and more palatable) to musicians, composers, and performers.

Slashdot.org also has a discussion on this as well.

Avatar of admin

by admin

Napster .NAP and Subscription Services

July 17, 2001 in Articles

Napster is pretty much dead, but they are planning to launch a subscription based service this summer. They will supposedly be dropping MP3 and using a “new digital encoding technology” by PlayMedia Systems to share the files.

Now, I’m all for a subscription service. I’d pay for access to ANY SONG or ALBUM in the world, but I’d like to make sure it’s a GOOD quality copy. What this basically amounts to is Napster still using the same business model, but changing the format from MP3, which everyone can use, to .NAP, which Napster controls. Their taking a page out of the evil empire.

Why can’t the RIAA stop sueing everyone and just launch a subscription service that will ensure high quality, on demand songs, and a very low cost. Follow what Costco does. Sell things cheap, make a very little profit, but sell a TON of the stuff.

Avatar of admin

by admin

Two Music Industry Notes

June 13, 2001 in Articles

The first one deals with ASCAP “enshrining” some jazz greats, including Johnny Hodges.

The second is a suit by the RIAA in response to a suit brought by the Digital Media Association. The original DMA suit was seeking clarification of Webradio licensing. I guess they have their answer now……

Why can’t we all just play fairly and get along?

Avatar of admin

by admin

CDDB and the Battle over it

May 30, 2001 in Articles

CNET.Com ocassionally has a good article. Here is one such article. It details the War over the Internet CD Database (CDDB). Basically, it was a free thing that people on the internet contributed their CD info if it was not in the Database. The creators were bought out, and obtain a copyright and decided that it wanted to use (or abuse) the copyright, and started suing people.

The big issue is does this company really own the data? Thousands of people on the internet contributed information on CDs that are not in the database (I know I put in a few), and this company decides it “owns” the info. What is the world coming to? Perhaps I need to copyright breathing……..yeah……..thats it………

Avatar of admin

by admin

Music Released “OpenMusicRegistry”

May 15, 2001 in Articles

Here is an article I found on Newsforge.com.


A couple of music lovers think the Electronic Freedom Foundation's Open Audio license is such a good idea they want to provide a place for musicians to list their pieces released on the new Open Source-inspired music license.


Stuart Whitmore, founder of the fledgling OpenMusicRegistry.org is planning a formal launch of the site later this month. Whitmore and site music consultant Scott Wedel hope their site will become a directory of artists who have chosen to release songs under the new Open Audio License.

Under the new audio license, released by the EFF April 21, artists retain their copyrights but allow the public to "freely access, copy, distribute, modify, create derivative works from, and publicly perform the work ..." People who use the work agree to attribute the original author.

Whitmore sees the potential for OpenMusicRegistry.org to be a resource where listeners can check out unsigned artists, businesses can find royalty-free "on-hold" music, managers can find background music for multimedia presentations, and artists can sample each others' work. There are probably more uses the founders haven't thought of yet, says Whitmore, a Web developer by day.

The site's artists page lists several potential benefits for artists: "Maximizing exposure of your work; finding other artists for collaboration projects; demonstrating to your 'significant other,' parent(s), teacher, etc. that you actually do something with your equipment and education; receiving an invitation to perform at the White House."

Under "potential benefits you'll gain from not adding your work," the site as a blank space.

"I thought if there was some central location where musicians could go to post their work, it'd be a useful tool," says Whitmore, who describes himself as more of a music fan than a musician.

The site won't be a place for musicians to actually upload their songs, Whitmore says, because there are other places that specialize in that service. Instead, he hopes OpenMusicRegistry will be a substantial list of music released under the Open Audio license, with links to the music. Right now, the site isn't much more than a list -- Whitmore wants to keep it simple for the launch -- but he plans to add more features as users request them. One example is a search function where users could search for the type of music or the length of a piece, such as a classical piece four minutes long.

So far, OpenMusicRegistry.org has only its own music consultant, Scott Wedel, participating as an artist, but the site has received no publicity. Whitmore says he's unsure how well the Open Artist license has been received, and officials at the EFF weren't available to provide numbers. Whitmore says he doesn't yet have goals for numbers of users and artists, other than "as many as possible."

Whitmore has used Linux since the early '90s, and he sees OpenMusicRegistry has a way to give back to the community. "[Open Source] has been something I've been interested in for awhile, but I haven't been able to contribute much to the community," he says. "Maybe this is a way to do that."

Avatar of admin

by admin

ASCAP Going After Daycamps

May 2, 2001 in Articles

I found this and frankly, I find it real disturbing. The American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers is threatening to SUE day camps and other organizations for using songs like “God Bless America” unless they license the songs.

This is really too much. I cannot believe that they can justify charging the Girl Scouts or Boy Scouts or any camp or kids group for sings a song? What is wrong with the ASCAP? Are they protecting the rights or they trying to make money every way they can? I think the latter. This is a terrible development.

Stop SOPA