Unfortunately, a series of recent legal rulings have forced us to suspend our campaign. In 2015, Time Warner's copyright claim to âHappy Birthdayâ was declared invalid. In 2016, a settlement was announced that calls for a judge to officially declare that the song is in the public domain.
+ +This is horrible news for the future of music. It is horrible news for anybody who cares that creators, their heirs, etc., are fairly remunerated when their work is performed. What incentive will there be for anybody to pen the next âHappy Birthdayâ knowing that less than a century after their deaths â their estates and the large multinational companies that buy their estates â might not be able to reap the financial rewards from their hard work and creativity?
+ +We are currently planning a campaign to push for a retroactive extension of copyright law to place âHappy Birthday,â and other works, back into the private domain where they belong! We believe this is a winnable fight. After all, copyright has been retroactively extended before! Stay tuned! In the meantime, we'll keep this page here for historical purposes.
+ +ââCopyrighteousâ Benjamin Mako Hill (2016-02-11)
+ +Did you know Happy Birthday is copyrighted and the copyright is currently owned and actively enforced by Time Warner?
@@ -30,7 +42,7 @@ currently owned and actively enforced by Time Warner? ...or among a substantial number of people who are not family or friendsDid you know an unauthorized public performance is a form of +
Did you know an unauthorized public performance is often a form of copyright infringement?
Update: This +article by law professor Robert Brauneis has raised some important +questions about the history of Happy Birthday. That said, copyright in +the song continues to be enforced and Warner Brothers continues to +collect more than $2 million each year in royalties. Until we hear a +judge rule on Brauneis's suggestions, we'll continue to give Warner and +the market the benefit of the doubt.
+ +This means that if you sing Happy Birthday to your family at -home, you're probably not committing copyright infringment. However, if you -do it in an restaurant — and if the restaurant hasn't already worked -out a deal with ASCAP — you may be engaging in copyright -infringement.
+Additionally, United States Code Title 17, §110(4) states that +singing the song among a group of people "without any direct or indirect +commercial advantage" will not constitute infringement either. But keep +in mind: "indirect commercial advantage" is very broad. Courts have +found that restaurants, camps, and other venues benefit indirectly from +performances of songs like Happy Birthday. Unless the song has been +licensed in these situations, it's infringement.
+ + +This means that if you sing Happy Birthday to your +family at home, you're probably not committing copyright infringment. +However, if you do it in an restaurant — and if the restaurant +hasn't already worked out a deal with ASCAP — you may be engaging +in copyright infringement.