How can "Happy Birthday" not be in the Public Domain?

[Johnny_L.A]

@Procrustus

This raises an interesting question. How much would I have to pay to put Happy Birthday in my movie? It can’t be that much? But enough to discourage it apparently.

I don’t know the specific answer to your question, but I did find this site:

According to the book “All you need to know about the music business” by Donald Passman, “The fees for synchronization licenses are really all over the board, and they vary with the usage and the importance of the song.” For example, Passman’s book mentions some fee ranges:
[ul][li]Low-end TV usage (e.g. – music is playing from a jukebox in a scene, but no one in the scene is paying any attention to the music) – free (for exposure) to $2,000 for a 5-year license. In a film, the fee would be $10,000 in perpetuity.[/li][li]A more popular song is worth more, perhaps $3,000 for TV and $25,000 for film.[/li][li]A song used as the theme song for a film might get $50,000 to $75,000.[/li][li]Commercials fetch even more money: “a song can command anywhere from $25,000 to $500,000 plus per year. The typical range for a well-known song is $75,000 to $200,000 for a one year national usage in the United States, on television and radio.”[/ul][/li]Generally you would obtain the licenses you need through some sort of clearing organization that handles licenses on a daily basis. For example, see LicenseMusicNow.com.

The site linked in the article says in their FAQs:

3. How much does it cost to use a song:
   Licensing fees depend on many things - including but not limited to the fame of the song, the fame of the performer, the way the song is used in the production, and the media the production will be presented in. In some instances we may be able to give a very rough estimate at what a particular fee may be, but the only way to know if you will receive permission and exactly what a fee will be is to start the clearance process. Please note that we are not available to provide licensing services for projects with no music budget.

[dwc1970]

Okay, so what if all we hear is the music, but not the words? Would doing this also require payment of royalties? I recall some TV commercials using the music but nobody is actually singing the words to the song.

[Kimstu]

@dwc1970

Okay, so what if all we hear is the music, but not the words? Would doing this also require payment of royalties?

No, because as discussed in posts#4 and 5 in this thread, the melody of “Happy Birthday” is now in the public domain and no longer covered by copyright.

[Arnold_Winkelried]

What if you had deaf-mute people in a movie doing a sign language version of Happy Birthday while the music was playing?

[Kimstu]

Go away, Arnold.

[postcards]

No, stay, Arnold! That’s a great follow-up question!

[FilmGeek]

@ArchiveGuy

And which costs more, “Happy Birthday”, or “Birthday” by the Beatles*?

*has that ever been used in a movie or TV show, btw? Can’t recall offhand, but that’s what we always used to sing for Bdays in high school.

It’s in 16 Candles. AMH sings it to Ringwald in the shop car.

[Klaatu]

@Arnold Winkelried

What if you had deaf-mute people in a movie doing a sign language version of Happy Birthday while the music was playing?

I will try to post a definitive cite, but apparently there are copyright exemptions for people with “perceptual disabilities”, possibly allowing just what you posted.

Googling this is rather tedious, or my google fu is lacking. I think this is actually a great question.

[KarlGauss]

@scotandrsn

Happy Birthday is under copyright protection until at least 2030.

Why do both you and Snopes use the phrasing “until at least 2030” when mentioning the duration of the copyright protection? Does it, or does it not, expire at that time? Is the “until at least” merely taking into account the possibility of an extension of the copyright? If so, on what grounds would the copyright holders petition for extension?

Thanks in advance!

[DSYoungEsq]

@KarlGauss

Why do both you and Snopes use the phrasing “until at least 2030” when mentioning the duration of the copyright protection? Does it, or does it not, expire at that time? Is the “until at least” merely taking into account the possibility of an extension of the copyright? If so, on what grounds would the copyright holders petition for extension?

Thanks in advance!

I believe that the “at least” has to do with the fact that there have been sequential extensions of the copyright duration such that past a certain point, your copyright has, so far, been without expiration. It can be anticipated that another legislated extension will occur as the current one is set to expire. :eek:

[scotandrsn]

@DSYoungEsq

I believe that the “at least” has to do with the fact that there have been sequential extensions of the copyright duration such that past a certain point, your copyright has, so far, been without expiration. It can be anticipated that another legislated extension will occur as the current one is set to expire. :eek:

That and I’d have to dig through the US Copyright Office website or elsewhere to find out specifically when, even if current law doesn’t change, the copyright will expire. The new copyright was assigned in 1934. Under then current law, its copyright protection would need to have been renewed after 28 years, which apparently it was. The renewal term for works from this period has been extended under current law to 67 years, for a total of 95. I know that copyright protection lasts through December 31st of the final year of protection, but I can’t remember if 1934 or 1935 counts as year #1. So the song will enter the public domain on January 1st of either 2030 or 2031.

IANAL, but I know the relevant letter of the law can be found somewhere in Title 17 of the US Code. I’ll be happy to dig it up for you. My fee is $150 per hour.

[skotjamb]

@scotandrsn

IANAL, but I know the relevant letter of the law can be found somewhere in Title 17 of the US Code. I’ll be happy to dig it up for you. My fee is $150 per hour.

If you are not a lawyer, what justifies your hourly fee?

even if you were a lawyer, what justifies this fee?

[Drum_God]

Somewhat tangentially related –

My dad had a friend who worked in the movie industry. He once told me a story about the theme song to the TV show MAS*H. If you’ll recall the movie of the same name, the theme song, Suicide is Painless, is performed with lyrics. The melody and lyrics were written by different people. The TV show became very popular and is still played every day on TV stations around the world. However, the theme song no longer has the lyrics. Even so, the lyricist still gets royalties from his song, even though many people don’t even know that there are words to the song.

I don’t have a cite and both my dad and his friend have passed away, so I can’t ask them. Still, it seems interesting to me and germane to the conversation.

[scotandrsn]

@skotjamb

If you are not a lawyer, what justifies your hourly fee?

even if you were a lawyer, what justifies this fee?

Just start reading Title 17, (or any other part of the law), and ask yourself: What would would make this worth the pain?

[Walloon]

@Drum God

However, the theme song no longer has the lyrics. Even so, the lyricist still gets royalties from his song, even though many people don’t even know that there are words to the song.

That’s quite common, and in fact the default method for the music publishing industry, that lyricists get the same royalty whether or not the lyrics are used in a particular performance or recording.

[Walloon]

@scotandrsn

I know that copyright protection lasts through December 31st of the final year of protection, but I can’t remember if 1934 or 1935 counts as year #1. So the song will enter the public domain on January 1st of either 2030 or 2031.

The copyright lasts 95 years from the date of publication, with the expiration date rounded up to the end of the calendar year. Thus, a work published on June 23, 1934, would be under U.S. copyright through Dec. 31, 2029, and enter the public domain on Jan. 1, 2030.

[HelloKitty]

@Walloon

That’s quite common, and in fact the default method for the music publishing industry, that lyricists get the same royalty whether or not the lyrics are used in a particular performance or recording.

Aha! I remember reading that Gene Roddenberry made up lyrics to the Star Trek original series theme. I always thought it was strange of him to do that retro-actively, but now it all makes sense, and is actually quite savvy of him, if a little underhanded.

Since this is GQ here’s the cite

[Auntbeast]

Just to satisfy anyones curiosity, the birthday song we sang at Bennigans about 15 years ago was:
Happy Happy Birthday
On your special Day
Happy Happy Birthday
That’s why we’re here to say
Happy Happy Birthday
May all your dreams come true
Happy Happy Birthday
From Bennigans to you!

(We would sing do a backwards version, we turned away from the person or the short version, where we would all get on our knees) Yes, it was a pain in the ass and everyone hated doing it.

[Northern_Piper]

Just by coincidence, I’ve seen “Happy Birthday” sung in two shows just in the past two days, and noticed it becuse of this thread.

The first was a re-run of a late West Wing, where Senator Vinick (Alda) is campaigning in Iowa and can’t get home to one of his children’s birthday. So he sings “Happy Birthday” over the cellphone as he’s going to make a speech.

The second was on “Bridget Jones” - the climactic fight scene between Colin Firth and Hugh Grant. Their fight takes them into the Greek restaurant, and then a waiter brings out a birthday cake in the shape of the Parthenon. Being well-bred English gentlemen, they hold off on their fight so as not to disrupt the moment, and join in “Happy Birthday”, then knock each other through the big window and back on the street.

[Monty]

Auntbeast,

Do you suppose the folks at Bennigan’s HQ were aware of this song?