Happy Birthday To You? That's $10,000, please
-
So, how many people knew that the song "Happy Birthday To You" is copyrighted[^] and owned by Time-Warner? They charge $10,000 US for a public performance of the song, and they have sent people around to restaurants in the US to make sure they get paid if it's sung. That's why, at least in the US, when the food service team brings out a birthday cake for a customer, they sing some other song, one that is copyright-free. Does anyone else think copyright has gone a bit to far in the US?
David Veeneman www.veeneman.com
-
So, how many people knew that the song "Happy Birthday To You" is copyrighted[^] and owned by Time-Warner? They charge $10,000 US for a public performance of the song, and they have sent people around to restaurants in the US to make sure they get paid if it's sung. That's why, at least in the US, when the food service team brings out a birthday cake for a customer, they sing some other song, one that is copyright-free. Does anyone else think copyright has gone a bit to far in the US?
David Veeneman www.veeneman.com
-
So, how many people knew that the song "Happy Birthday To You" is copyrighted[^] and owned by Time-Warner? They charge $10,000 US for a public performance of the song, and they have sent people around to restaurants in the US to make sure they get paid if it's sung. That's why, at least in the US, when the food service team brings out a birthday cake for a customer, they sing some other song, one that is copyright-free. Does anyone else think copyright has gone a bit to far in the US?
David Veeneman www.veeneman.com
-
So, how many people knew that the song "Happy Birthday To You" is copyrighted[^] and owned by Time-Warner? They charge $10,000 US for a public performance of the song, and they have sent people around to restaurants in the US to make sure they get paid if it's sung. That's why, at least in the US, when the food service team brings out a birthday cake for a customer, they sing some other song, one that is copyright-free. Does anyone else think copyright has gone a bit to far in the US?
David Veeneman www.veeneman.com
-
So, how many people knew that the song "Happy Birthday To You" is copyrighted[^] and owned by Time-Warner? They charge $10,000 US for a public performance of the song, and they have sent people around to restaurants in the US to make sure they get paid if it's sung. That's why, at least in the US, when the food service team brings out a birthday cake for a customer, they sing some other song, one that is copyright-free. Does anyone else think copyright has gone a bit to far in the US?
David Veeneman www.veeneman.com
That is just ridiculous. Is it illegal to sing pop songs too? Am I going to get fined for humming the latest tune from McFly (Not that I would)
Simon
-
So, how many people knew that the song "Happy Birthday To You" is copyrighted[^] and owned by Time-Warner? They charge $10,000 US for a public performance of the song, and they have sent people around to restaurants in the US to make sure they get paid if it's sung. That's why, at least in the US, when the food service team brings out a birthday cake for a customer, they sing some other song, one that is copyright-free. Does anyone else think copyright has gone a bit to far in the US?
David Veeneman www.veeneman.com
That's is absolutely crazy that they're allowed to do that! Just because people download music, they have to try and make the money back by going after people for copyright! Idiots.
-
what is worse is that you patent genes... i mean get over yourselves americans arent god!!!
It's not just America that is guilty of this stuff, Europe as a whole isn't doing too good. I only hope software patents don't get passed there
-
So, how many people knew that the song "Happy Birthday To You" is copyrighted[^] and owned by Time-Warner? They charge $10,000 US for a public performance of the song, and they have sent people around to restaurants in the US to make sure they get paid if it's sung. That's why, at least in the US, when the food service team brings out a birthday cake for a customer, they sing some other song, one that is copyright-free. Does anyone else think copyright has gone a bit to far in the US?
David Veeneman www.veeneman.com
Yes, I did know this. First off, any creative work authored now is automatically copyrighted. You don't have to register it, although doing so will give proof of the copyright. Unfortunately the US has seen repeated extensions to the copyright term, as companies such as Disney fear that their copyrights will run out on their characters. It now stands at 95 years. "Happy Birthday" seems dubious. The copyright was first registered in 1935 but the song was clearly in existence before that. At the time, though, copyrights only existed if you registered them. That said, the copyright is accessible through the Harry Fox Agency[^] mechanical license, where recording artists who expect to sell relatively few copies can buy licences quite easily (see for example Jonathan Coulton discussing his covers of 'I Will' and 'Baby Got Back'[^]). I don't know if this applies to public performances - Coulton certainly performs his covers at shows. (Actually he sang[^] 'Happy Birthday' to someone at PAX - could be in trouble there...) The term is definitely too long, and the royalty excessive for something that's likely to be such a small part of any production. The copyright owner is allowed to charge whatever they want, though.
DoEvents: Generating unexpected recursion since 1991
-
Yes, I did know this. First off, any creative work authored now is automatically copyrighted. You don't have to register it, although doing so will give proof of the copyright. Unfortunately the US has seen repeated extensions to the copyright term, as companies such as Disney fear that their copyrights will run out on their characters. It now stands at 95 years. "Happy Birthday" seems dubious. The copyright was first registered in 1935 but the song was clearly in existence before that. At the time, though, copyrights only existed if you registered them. That said, the copyright is accessible through the Harry Fox Agency[^] mechanical license, where recording artists who expect to sell relatively few copies can buy licences quite easily (see for example Jonathan Coulton discussing his covers of 'I Will' and 'Baby Got Back'[^]). I don't know if this applies to public performances - Coulton certainly performs his covers at shows. (Actually he sang[^] 'Happy Birthday' to someone at PAX - could be in trouble there...) The term is definitely too long, and the royalty excessive for something that's likely to be such a small part of any production. The copyright owner is allowed to charge whatever they want, though.
DoEvents: Generating unexpected recursion since 1991
Actually, I don't think that's quite correct. It is true that works don't have to be registered to be protected by copyright, but I believe that copyright must still be claimed by the author on the face of the work. The usual form is either "Copyright 2008 by John Doe", or "© 2008 by John Doe" on the first page, the title page, or a copyright page for the work. The operative condition is that the claim must give fair notice to a user that the author claims copyright protection. If the notice is present on the first publication of the work, removal by a subsequent user in a subsequent publication will not defeat protection, even if someone later uses the work without realizing it was copyrighted.
David Veeneman www.veeneman.com
-
So, how many people knew that the song "Happy Birthday To You" is copyrighted[^] and owned by Time-Warner? They charge $10,000 US for a public performance of the song, and they have sent people around to restaurants in the US to make sure they get paid if it's sung. That's why, at least in the US, when the food service team brings out a birthday cake for a customer, they sing some other song, one that is copyright-free. Does anyone else think copyright has gone a bit to far in the US?
David Veeneman www.veeneman.com
This sounds like an urban legend to me. Even if the songs in copyright-ed there is provision in the copyright law that allows using the copyright-ed material under the so called "fair use" condition. For example, lets say you are teaching a class. You are allowed to copy a few pages out of a text book and distribute it to your students. Thats fair use. Copying the whole book is not. I would imagine that performing the song for non commercial purposes (for example singing on someone's birthday ) will be covered under the fair use provision.
-
So, how many people knew that the song "Happy Birthday To You" is copyrighted[^] and owned by Time-Warner? They charge $10,000 US for a public performance of the song, and they have sent people around to restaurants in the US to make sure they get paid if it's sung. That's why, at least in the US, when the food service team brings out a birthday cake for a customer, they sing some other song, one that is copyright-free. Does anyone else think copyright has gone a bit to far in the US?
David Veeneman www.veeneman.com
David Veeneman wrote:
So, how many people knew that the song "Happy Birthday To You" is copyrighted[^]...
I knew that much. As far as "how many," I don't think you could possibly find out.
David Veeneman wrote:
Does anyone else think copyright has gone a bit to far in the US?
Indeed there are some very odd things that get copyrighted.
"Love people and use things, not love things and use people." - Unknown
"The brick walls are there for a reason...to stop the people who don't want it badly enough." - Randy Pausch
-
This sounds like an urban legend to me. Even if the songs in copyright-ed there is provision in the copyright law that allows using the copyright-ed material under the so called "fair use" condition. For example, lets say you are teaching a class. You are allowed to copy a few pages out of a text book and distribute it to your students. Thats fair use. Copying the whole book is not. I would imagine that performing the song for non commercial purposes (for example singing on someone's birthday ) will be covered under the fair use provision.
VentsyV wrote:
I would imagine that performing the song for non commercial purposes (for example singing on someone's birthday ) will be covered under the fair use provision.
True. It cannot be sung for profit without paying extremely high royalties.
"Love people and use things, not love things and use people." - Unknown
"The brick walls are there for a reason...to stop the people who don't want it badly enough." - Randy Pausch
-
This sounds like an urban legend to me. Even if the songs in copyright-ed there is provision in the copyright law that allows using the copyright-ed material under the so called "fair use" condition. For example, lets say you are teaching a class. You are allowed to copy a few pages out of a text book and distribute it to your students. Thats fair use. Copying the whole book is not. I would imagine that performing the song for non commercial purposes (for example singing on someone's birthday ) will be covered under the fair use provision.
Nope—this one’s not an urban legend (but the video about popping corn with a cell phone is). Fair use is pretty much as you described it, but it’s pretty limited—mainly to education. And if you sing ‘Happy Birthday’ to your Mom at home, don’t bother with the check. But if you sing it in public, prepare for a visit from the copyright trolls. Back in the ‘90s, they even went after the Girl Scouts overstheir campfire songs. Wikipedia article[^]
David Veeneman www.veeneman.com
-
So, how many people knew that the song "Happy Birthday To You" is copyrighted[^] and owned by Time-Warner? They charge $10,000 US for a public performance of the song, and they have sent people around to restaurants in the US to make sure they get paid if it's sung. That's why, at least in the US, when the food service team brings out a birthday cake for a customer, they sing some other song, one that is copyright-free. Does anyone else think copyright has gone a bit to far in the US?
David Veeneman www.veeneman.com
I believe the free version is as follows: Happy BDay to you, Happy BDay to you, Happy BDay, Happy BDay, Happy BDay to you I don't think there is anything wrong with the song being copyrighted. However, I don't think you should be able to charge non-performers to sing it. (Of course if singing on key were a requirement for an artist they would finally stop playing Rascal Flats ... I hate that band and they get too much airtime and don't even sing country)
Need a C# Consultant? I'm available.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know. -- Ernest Hemingway -
I believe the free version is as follows: Happy BDay to you, Happy BDay to you, Happy BDay, Happy BDay, Happy BDay to you I don't think there is anything wrong with the song being copyrighted. However, I don't think you should be able to charge non-performers to sing it. (Of course if singing on key were a requirement for an artist they would finally stop playing Rascal Flats ... I hate that band and they get too much airtime and don't even sing country)
Need a C# Consultant? I'm available.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know. -- Ernest HemingwayAnd in some films, they only sing a part of it, to try to beat the royalty requirment. And hey, give me Willie Nelson any day. I lived in Nashville for seven years, just a few blocks from Music Row! Willie used to come play at the Exit Inn when he was in town. Of course, that was before 'Red Headed Stranger'...
David Veeneman www.veeneman.com
-
Actually, I don't think that's quite correct. It is true that works don't have to be registered to be protected by copyright, but I believe that copyright must still be claimed by the author on the face of the work. The usual form is either "Copyright 2008 by John Doe", or "© 2008 by John Doe" on the first page, the title page, or a copyright page for the work. The operative condition is that the claim must give fair notice to a user that the author claims copyright protection. If the notice is present on the first publication of the work, removal by a subsequent user in a subsequent publication will not defeat protection, even if someone later uses the work without realizing it was copyrighted.
David Veeneman www.veeneman.com
David Veeneman wrote:
but I believe that copyright must still be claimed by the author on the face of the work.
That's not always the case, at least up here in Canada. See the section 'Indicating copyright'[^] Obviously it may differ in other countries. Cheers, Drew.
-
So, how many people knew that the song "Happy Birthday To You" is copyrighted[^] and owned by Time-Warner? They charge $10,000 US for a public performance of the song, and they have sent people around to restaurants in the US to make sure they get paid if it's sung. That's why, at least in the US, when the food service team brings out a birthday cake for a customer, they sing some other song, one that is copyright-free. Does anyone else think copyright has gone a bit to far in the US?
David Veeneman www.veeneman.com
David Veeneman wrote:
Does anyone else think copyright has gone a bit to far in the US?
Yes, that's going too far.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
-
VentsyV wrote:
I would imagine that performing the song for non commercial purposes (for example singing on someone's birthday ) will be covered under the fair use provision.
True. It cannot be sung for profit without paying extremely high royalties.
"Love people and use things, not love things and use people." - Unknown
"The brick walls are there for a reason...to stop the people who don't want it badly enough." - Randy Pausch
DavidCrow wrote:
It cannot be sung for profit
Question, restaurants are not necessarily singing it for profit, or are they?
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
-
This sounds like an urban legend to me. Even if the songs in copyright-ed there is provision in the copyright law that allows using the copyright-ed material under the so called "fair use" condition. For example, lets say you are teaching a class. You are allowed to copy a few pages out of a text book and distribute it to your students. Thats fair use. Copying the whole book is not. I would imagine that performing the song for non commercial purposes (for example singing on someone's birthday ) will be covered under the fair use provision.
If the recording and movie industries had their way, there would be no such thing as "fair use". X| Fair use has taken a pretty good stomping from the DMCA in the U.S. I agree that people should be able to hold the rights to their works, and profit from them, but the DMCA goes a little far. It has come to be applied to all kinds of things that it was never intended to apply to, and is far too easy to abuse.
WE ARE DYSLEXIC OF BORG. Refutance is systile. Your a$$ will be laminated. There are 10 kinds of people in the world: People who know binary and people who don't.