Who owns the song?
29/07/15 05:34
Patty and Mildred Hill were two of six children born to a Princeton-educated Presbyterian minister. Rev. Wallace Hill worked hard to make sure all of his children received university educations in an ear when many women weren’t offered such opportunities. The two sisters both became brilliant pioneers in their lives. Patty was an innovative kindergarten teacher who eventually became a professor at Teachers College at Columbia University. Mildred was an accomplished pianist, organist and composer who wrote about African American music and its influence on mainstream American musical literature.
Although individually brilliant, it was one of their collaborations that has touched the lives of most of us. In 1889 the sisters began to work together writing songs for children. Their book, “Song Stories for Kindergarten” offered songs that could be easily sung and remembered by young children that were, at the same time, of a higher musical standard than was common at the time. Patty wrote the words. Mildred wrote the melodies. Each song was field tested by Patty’s kindergarteners for the ability to be easily learned and remembered.
The song “Good Morning to All” was a 19th century version of what today might be a catchy summer pop song. The melody may have been adapted from a folk tune, but that is not clear. It was published in an 1894 in “Song Stories for Kindergarten.”
We know the song with a different set of words as “Happy Birthday to You.” Exactly how the new words ended up with the song is a bit unclear, according to George Washington University Law School professor Robert Brauneis. At one point, Patty claimed that the sisters had written both sets of words, though it isn’t clear that they ever published the words and tune together. Others claim that the children themselves came up with the words to the birthday song and sang it to the tune they had memorized as Good Morning to All.
Whatever happened, within 20 years, the girls had no control over the copyright to the song. Clayton F. Summy, publisher of the sisters’ book claimed the copyright. He sold it and it was passed to a series of increasingly large corporations.
In 1988, Warner Communications Inc. purchased the copyright to the Birthday Song as part of a $25 million deal for 50,000 songs. Today Warner/Chappell Music claims to own the song and collects more than $5,000 per day - or $2 million per year in royalties paid by singers, directors, filmmakers and advertisers.
In 1996 Warner/Chappell, through the American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers (ASCAP) threatened to sue the Girl Scouts for publicly performing the Birthday Song. That suit, which was eventually withdrawn, raised awareness among some singers of the song and several popular restaurant chains substituted alternative birthday songs to avoid the possibility of being sued. For the most part, those who perform the song publicly either pay the royalties - commonly done by makers of movies and publishers of screenplays - or risk the threat of lawsuit.
The Civil Rights documentary, “Eyes On the Prize” had a fierce legal battle because it featured footage of people singing “Happy Birthday to You” to Martin Luther King, Jr. Copyright issues have plagued documentary filmmakers for many years with the prices escalating. The standard fee charged by Warner/Chappell is $1,500 for the use of the song in a documentary film.
That may soon change.
Jennifer Nelson, a documentary filmmaker is in the process of making a film about the history of the song. And one of the things she discovered in her process is that the Warner/Chappell claim is, at best, sketchy. Eventually her research led her to sue Warner/Chappell in district court. The case was nearing completion when this month Warner/Chappell turned in 500 pages of documents it said it had “mistakenly” failed to turn in last year. Among those documents was a blurred image of the Birthday Song from a 1927 publication called “The Everyday Song Book.” That led Nelson’s lawyers to look for an earlier version of the book. Deep in the archives of the University of Pittsburgh, a 1922 copy of the book was found. This copy is clear. The song was printed with “special permission” from Clayton F. Summy Co. - but no copyright was included.
It is pretty clear that Warner/Chappell doesn’t own a clear copyright to the song, though its lawyers claim that the “special permission” does not amount ot a waiver of its copyright.
A hearing has been set for next Wednesday before Judge George H. King.
However the outcome of that and subsequent hearings, It looks like Jennifer Nelson has all of the drama for a powerful documentary. I wonder if the judge will allow her to film in the courtroom.
The legal battle is obviously important to Warner/Chappell. Big corporations don’t let go of $2 million per year lightly.
But you have to admit that if it weren’t for the big money and the serious lawyers, the entire argument is silly. Claiming to own the song that children sing at birthday parties seems like a scam, quite frankly.
I’m all in favor of artists being fairly paid for their work. I think that original works ought to have copyright protection. But the originators of this song never saw any of the money. The big bucks have all gone to corporate interests who buy and sell copyright as commodities in search of even greater profits. And the song was meant to be carried in the hearts and minds of children, not in printed books.
In the hearts and minds of children is exactly where the song lives today. Warner/Chappell may be able to collect royalties from movies and famous artists, but they won’t stop the billions of children all around the world who sing the song in all different languages from singing it not only at their birthdays, but whenever thinking about a birthday makes them feel good.
Patty and Mildred Hill knew quite a bit about music and they knew quite a bit about children. It appears that they weren’t too astute about controlling intellectual property and making profit off of ideas. But they launched a classic.
Children will be singing “Happy Birthday to You” long after Warner/Chappell is forgotten. One day the lawyers may recognize what the world already knows: the song doesn’t belong to any company. It belongs to the whole world.
Although individually brilliant, it was one of their collaborations that has touched the lives of most of us. In 1889 the sisters began to work together writing songs for children. Their book, “Song Stories for Kindergarten” offered songs that could be easily sung and remembered by young children that were, at the same time, of a higher musical standard than was common at the time. Patty wrote the words. Mildred wrote the melodies. Each song was field tested by Patty’s kindergarteners for the ability to be easily learned and remembered.
The song “Good Morning to All” was a 19th century version of what today might be a catchy summer pop song. The melody may have been adapted from a folk tune, but that is not clear. It was published in an 1894 in “Song Stories for Kindergarten.”
We know the song with a different set of words as “Happy Birthday to You.” Exactly how the new words ended up with the song is a bit unclear, according to George Washington University Law School professor Robert Brauneis. At one point, Patty claimed that the sisters had written both sets of words, though it isn’t clear that they ever published the words and tune together. Others claim that the children themselves came up with the words to the birthday song and sang it to the tune they had memorized as Good Morning to All.
Whatever happened, within 20 years, the girls had no control over the copyright to the song. Clayton F. Summy, publisher of the sisters’ book claimed the copyright. He sold it and it was passed to a series of increasingly large corporations.
In 1988, Warner Communications Inc. purchased the copyright to the Birthday Song as part of a $25 million deal for 50,000 songs. Today Warner/Chappell Music claims to own the song and collects more than $5,000 per day - or $2 million per year in royalties paid by singers, directors, filmmakers and advertisers.
In 1996 Warner/Chappell, through the American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers (ASCAP) threatened to sue the Girl Scouts for publicly performing the Birthday Song. That suit, which was eventually withdrawn, raised awareness among some singers of the song and several popular restaurant chains substituted alternative birthday songs to avoid the possibility of being sued. For the most part, those who perform the song publicly either pay the royalties - commonly done by makers of movies and publishers of screenplays - or risk the threat of lawsuit.
The Civil Rights documentary, “Eyes On the Prize” had a fierce legal battle because it featured footage of people singing “Happy Birthday to You” to Martin Luther King, Jr. Copyright issues have plagued documentary filmmakers for many years with the prices escalating. The standard fee charged by Warner/Chappell is $1,500 for the use of the song in a documentary film.
That may soon change.
Jennifer Nelson, a documentary filmmaker is in the process of making a film about the history of the song. And one of the things she discovered in her process is that the Warner/Chappell claim is, at best, sketchy. Eventually her research led her to sue Warner/Chappell in district court. The case was nearing completion when this month Warner/Chappell turned in 500 pages of documents it said it had “mistakenly” failed to turn in last year. Among those documents was a blurred image of the Birthday Song from a 1927 publication called “The Everyday Song Book.” That led Nelson’s lawyers to look for an earlier version of the book. Deep in the archives of the University of Pittsburgh, a 1922 copy of the book was found. This copy is clear. The song was printed with “special permission” from Clayton F. Summy Co. - but no copyright was included.
It is pretty clear that Warner/Chappell doesn’t own a clear copyright to the song, though its lawyers claim that the “special permission” does not amount ot a waiver of its copyright.
A hearing has been set for next Wednesday before Judge George H. King.
However the outcome of that and subsequent hearings, It looks like Jennifer Nelson has all of the drama for a powerful documentary. I wonder if the judge will allow her to film in the courtroom.
The legal battle is obviously important to Warner/Chappell. Big corporations don’t let go of $2 million per year lightly.
But you have to admit that if it weren’t for the big money and the serious lawyers, the entire argument is silly. Claiming to own the song that children sing at birthday parties seems like a scam, quite frankly.
I’m all in favor of artists being fairly paid for their work. I think that original works ought to have copyright protection. But the originators of this song never saw any of the money. The big bucks have all gone to corporate interests who buy and sell copyright as commodities in search of even greater profits. And the song was meant to be carried in the hearts and minds of children, not in printed books.
In the hearts and minds of children is exactly where the song lives today. Warner/Chappell may be able to collect royalties from movies and famous artists, but they won’t stop the billions of children all around the world who sing the song in all different languages from singing it not only at their birthdays, but whenever thinking about a birthday makes them feel good.
Patty and Mildred Hill knew quite a bit about music and they knew quite a bit about children. It appears that they weren’t too astute about controlling intellectual property and making profit off of ideas. But they launched a classic.
Children will be singing “Happy Birthday to You” long after Warner/Chappell is forgotten. One day the lawyers may recognize what the world already knows: the song doesn’t belong to any company. It belongs to the whole world.