It's settled: Now you can sing “Happy Birthday” (Thinkstock)
It's settled: Now you can sing “Happy Birthday”

Assign to Google Classroom

A settlement has been reached in a lawsuit over whether "Happy Birthday to You" is owned by a music publisher who earned millions by enforcing its copyright.  It is one of the best-known and beloved songs in the world. 
U.S. District Judge George H. King ruled in September that Warner/Chappell Music Inc. didn't own the lyrics to the song, only some musical arrangements.  The judge said the company had no right to charge for its use. Individuals are not charged for the song.  But companies that use it for commercial purposes have had to pay.
A trial was set to begin in Los Angeles. It could have finally decreed whether the lyrics sung to generations of birthday boys and girls around the globe really is in the public domain.
Also to be decided at trial was whether Warner/Chappell would have to return any of the licensing fees. Those are estimated at up to $2 million a year.  They were collected for use of the song in movies, television shows and other commercial ventures.
Judge King said all parties in the case had agreed to settle. So there will be no trial.
"It resolves all issues," said Randall Scott Newman. He is an attorney for one of the plaintiffs.
He and other lawyers declined to provide details of the settlement. The agreement is awaiting the judge's approval.
However, the previous ruling and the settlement strongly imply that the lyrics will become available for free.
Jennifer Nelson was billed $1,500 to use "Happy Birthday to You" in a documentary she is doing on the song's history. She said she is "delighted" with the outcome of the case.
"We revealed a dark side to the happy tune," she said. "It's a song that everyone's familiar with and grew up with. But nobody knew that this song was copyrighted. And you had to pay a license for that."
"The fact that it was illegally and wrongfully in the clutches of Warner/Chappell really outraged people. And now we've been able to rectify that situation. So it's really gratifying," she said.
"While we respectfully disagreed with the court's decision, we are pleased to have now resolved this matter," Warner/Chappell said in a statement.
The tune, with different lyrics, was written in 1893 by Patty Smith Hill, a Kentucky kindergarten teacher and her sister, Mildred J. Hill. They called it "Good Morning to All."
They assigned the rights to that and other songs to Clayton F. Summy. He copyrighted and published them in a book titled "Song Stories for the Kindergarten."
Over the years, the rights passed from the Clayton F. Summy Co. to Birch Tree Group and then to Warner when it bought Birch Tree in 1988.
The lawsuit was filed two years ago by musicians and filmmakers who were billed for using "Happy Birthday to You."
In his September ruling, King noted that while the tune has long been in the public domain, the lyrics to "Happy Birthday to You" have a murkier background. They were mentioned in a 1901 publication. But the full lyrics didn't appear in print until 1911.
It wasn't until 1930 that Patty Hill claimed to have written the lyrics at the same time that she co-wrote "Good Morning to All."
King ruled that Summy Co. never actually acquired the rights to the lyrics - only to piano arrangements of the melody - and thus its successor had no valid copyright.
Among other issues the settlement is expected to resolve is a contention that the copyright is owned by two charities that were beneficiaries of the Hill estate. The charities had accepted royalties from Warner/Chappell for more than 20 years.

Filed Under:  
Assigned 140 times
What made this case so complicated?
Write your answers in the comments section below

  • lilyg-2-bar
    12/16/2015 - 07:49 p.m.

    What made this case so complicated was that people didn't know whether the song was copyright or not. "A trial was set to begin in Los Angeles. It could have finally decreed whether the lyrics sung to generations of birthday boys and girls around the globe really is in the public domain." This was interesting because I had no idea that the song of happy birthday is copyrighted.

  • hblake1-par
    12/17/2015 - 11:42 a.m.

    I think that they should not have charged those people because they should be able to use it when they want

  • dianaa-for
    12/17/2015 - 02:22 p.m.

    I don't think that happy birthday was a song bought off someone else it should be a free song for movies and lots more.

  • dianaa-for
    12/17/2015 - 02:23 p.m.

    happy birthday is a nice song that someone made to celebrate someones birthday.

  • genevieveb-6-bar
    12/17/2015 - 07:27 p.m.

    The convoluted background of the song, "Happy Birthday to You", is what made this case so complicated. In the middle of the article, it is stated that,"Over the years, the rights passed from the Clayton F. Summy Co. to Birch Tree Group and then to Warner when it bought Birch Tree in 1988" (paragraph 15). As the reader can clearly see, the tune of the song has been passed to others several times. When Warner finally got their handson the music, they were greedy and complicated things even further with faking the copyright on the tune. The case was confusing because of the history of the song.

  • genevieveb-6-bar
    12/17/2015 - 07:28 p.m.

    I found this article interesting because I have always been fascinated by law and the judicial system.

  • erino-6-bar
    12/17/2015 - 11:35 p.m.

    This case was so complicated because the tune and the lyrics of the song have different origins. The tune was created long ago by a kindergarten teacher along with the song "Good Morning to All." Which was copyrighted then and eventually the copyright was given to Warner Brothers when they bought the company that had previously owned it. The lyrics, however, have an origin that isn't quite as clear. Warner Brothers claims that they own the copyright to the lyrics as well but there is no proof supporting their claim. In addition to that, there is the conflict of whether or not Warner Brothers should have to repay any of the licensing fees they had collected because of "Happy Birthday."

    I was interested by this article because I didn't know that the lyrics had most likely come from a different source than the tune.

  • taylorp-1-bar
    12/18/2015 - 10:53 a.m.

    What made this case so complicated was the copyrighting by the original "Happy Birthday" makers. On paragraph one it says, " 'Happy Birthday' is owned by a music publisher who made millions by its copyright." If the original maker hadn't stressed its copyright then people would be allowed to sing it freely and there would be no judge cases about coyprighting. I enjoyed this article because I never knew what a hassle "Happy Birthday" was.

  • annas-ver
    12/18/2015 - 01:34 p.m.

    never knew there was copyright on it, nice to know that i copyrighted something so many times

  • keilahm-jac
    12/18/2015 - 01:46 p.m.

    This case was complicated because they used the same lyrics but made some musical arrangements. It was also difficult because they musical arrangements they made were with the piano. This makes it difficult because they changed part of the song but also copyrighted it.

Take the Quiz Leave a comment