DVD-quality lessons (including tabs/sheet music) available for immediate viewing on any device.
Take your playing to the next level with the help of a local or online banjo teacher.
Weekly newsletter includes free lessons, favorite member content, banjo news and more.
|
Please note this is an archived topic, so it is locked and unable to be replied to. You may, however, start a new topic and refer to this topic with a link: http://www.banjohangout.org/archive/264823
One Dog - Posted - 06/14/2013: 19:29:52
Filmmakers and TV producers have long been harassed by Warner/Chappell Music, a subsidiary of Time Warner that enforces the copyright on "Happy Birthday," probably the most popular song in the world. If that song pops up in any TV show or movie, the creators are sure to get a hefty bill. The makers of the critically acclaimed 1994 documentary Hoop Dreams had to pay $5,000 for a scene of one of the protagonists' families singing the song. By 1996, Warner/Chappell was pulling in more than $2 million per year from licensing.
Now there's a new documentary about the song, and of course, the filmmakers had to pay the fee for a "synchronization license"—it was $1,500.
But it sure didn't sit well with them. Yesterday, Good Morning To You, the company that made the documentary, filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to prove once and for all that the copyright on "Happy Birthday" is long dead. The lyrics are extremely similar to an 1893 song called "Good Morning to All," published in a book called Song Stories for the Kindergarten. The lawsuit contains numerous other early examples that predate the official claimed "Happy Birthday" copyright registration date of 1935.
The idea that the "Happy Birthday" copyright is bogus isn't new. A heavily researched 2010 legal paper out of George Washington University found that the song "is almost certainly no longer under copyright, due to a lack of evidence about who wrote the words; defective copyright notice; and a failure to file a proper renewal application." In his dissent in Eldred v. Ashcroft, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer cited the song when he denounced endless copyright extensions, noting that it is based on an 1893 melody.
The lawsuit seeks class-action status; the filmmakers are hoping that everyone who has paid illegitimate license fees for singing "Happy Birthday" from June 13, 2009 until present will get a check from Time Warner.
“Before I began my filmmaking career, I never thought the song was owned by anyone," Jennifer Nelson, the filmmaker who made the movie, told The New York Times. "I thought it belonged to everyone.” Nelson is featured in this morning's edition of the NYT, holding a 1924 songbook called "Harvest Hymns," which includes the Happy Birthday song.
Advocates for copyright reform have resented the Happy Birthday copyright for some time now and are looking forward to its being challenged. "This is gonna be great," writes Cory Doctorow at BoingBoing. The full lawsuit is available at Techdirt.
One Dog - Posted - 06/14/2013: 19:34:09
it's about time someone challenge these people. Maybe this will get the ball Rollin on other songs.
Noah Cline - Posted - 06/14/2013: 21:05:56
Didn't Stephen Foster write this tune?
As for the other tunes, I know there was a big stink about Virginia's state song "Carry Me Back to Old Virginia" because of the lyrics and racial issues and some people wanted it changed. I believe there was something with Maryland's state song as well, similar to Virginia's.
Edited by - Noah Cline on 06/14/2013 21:07:49
Noah Cline - Posted - 06/14/2013: 21:16:21
Also, just now thinking about it, concerning what I posted above, the lyrics wanted to be changed as well, an example being "the old plantation" changed to "child's station." How stupid we've gotten. I look at it as, it was a time period that took place when there different thoughts on race, and over time, it has changed, but if people don't like it, they don't have to read or listen to it. Just my two cents.
MrNatch3L - Posted - 06/15/2013: 08:09:35
Good luck to 'em. What flabbergasted me was learning that Carl Fischer somehow managed to snag a U.S. copyright on Waltzing Matilda as an original composition, despite historical documentation that it was written in 1895 and first published as sheet music in 1903. They charged the Aussie Olympic organizers for public performance royalties when the song was performed at the 1996 Olympic Games. I can understand the Aussies finding it easier and cheaper to just cough up, but can't imagine that copyright holding up if challenged. I guess it won't be... I read that it is now expired.
Klondike Waldo - Posted - 06/15/2013: 18:49:28
quote:
Originally posted by MrNatch3L
Good luck to 'em. What flabbergasted me was learning that Carl Fischer somehow managed to snag a U.S. copyright on Waltzing Matilda as an original composition, despite historical documentation that it was written in 1895 and first published as sheet music in 1903*. They charged the Aussie Olympic organizers for public performance royalties when the song was performed at the 1996 Olympic Games. I can understand the Aussies finding it easier and cheaper to just cough up, but can't imagine that copyright holding up if challenged. I guess it won't be... I read that it is now expired.
*... by Banjo Sweeney, no less
oldwoodchuckb - Posted - 06/15/2013: 22:38:31
Bout time!
Personally I'm tired of protecting the rights of corporations that had nothing to do with the "intellectual Property" they claim to own. I believve that copyright should be for the original author only, and remain non-transferable. It should die with die with the author too. There is no reason for anyone to be collecting royalties on songs, stories, what-ever, that they didn't write, themselves.
dmiller - Posted - 06/15/2013: 22:50:02
quote:
Originally posted by Noah Cline
Also, just now thinking about it, concerning what I posted above, the lyrics wanted to be changed as well, an example being "the old plantation" changed to "child's station." How stupid we've gotten. I look at it as, it was a time period that took place when there different thoughts on race, and over time, it has changed, but if people don't like it, they don't have to read or listen to it. Just my two cents.
I've got to agree about this "political correctness" when it comes to tunes that have been out there for years. I used to pick with an old time band here in town, and Colored Aristocracy was a tune they loved and played at each of our gigs. Problem (to me) was, they had their heads so far up their (insert expletive here), that they re-named it Rainbow Aristocracy and couldn't call it by it's proper name.
If the Carolina Chocolate Drops can pick it and call it by it's given name, I fail to see the problem with others doing so also. (rant over)
(edited to add the video - - -)
Edited by - dmiller on 06/15/2013 22:52:34
Paul R - Posted - 06/16/2013: 07:30:52
I suppose $2m annually = a cash cow they'll think is worth defending. It's time the cow dried up. I hope the plaintiffs have a good legal team. It seems it's more about the bucks you can spend on lawyers than the principle involved.
jbanjoist - Posted - 06/16/2013: 09:26:29
It's a dang shame that a song so old and honored, that is used to honor people on their birthdays, is USED for nothing more than taking money from people that sing it for a few seconds.
A lot of this copywriting business goes back to that old saying about the love of money.