X-Git-Url: https://projects.mako.cc/source/unhappybirthday/blobdiff_plain/cba491ac864afdcc643e70ce4cd8b242286dbd12..9dc2a26235e31f8501b27a1e172b468e2dddb58e:/index.html diff --git a/index.html b/index.html index ade2399..4c25bc9 100644 --- a/index.html +++ b/index.html @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ 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?
@@ -84,6 +84,16 @@ hear. +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.