| Revision as of 05:50, 17 February 2003 view sourceTUF-KAT (talk | contribs)48,707 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:57, 12 April 2003 view source 68.128.170.245 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| Happy Birthday is now among the top three most popular songs in the English | Happy Birthday is now among the top three most popular songs in the English | ||
| language, along with "]" and "]". | language, along with "]" and "]". | ||
| 4-12-03 by anonymous: | |||
| The information I have been able to find on the Web indicates that many people are unaware that the earlier song “Good Morning to All” even exists. Furthermore, those who are aware of it (including at least one practicing lawyer) seem to be under the false impression that it was not published formally, or not even published at all. That is clearly wrong. This may be propaganda released by the owners of “Happy Birthday” and picked up by others and spread on the Web without verifying the claims. Although the record of “Good Morning to All” would not be online, the Copyright Office should have a physical record of it for you to verify. | |||
| Note that the word “happy” has two syllables, but “good” has only one. Thus, in the song “Happy Birthday” that note was split in two. I once read somewhere that the owners of “Happy Birthday” claim that this one-note difference creates a derivative work subject to protection. I am not familiar with any case law on it, but that claim seems bogus. | |||
| “How much do I have to change in my own work to make a new claim of copyright? You may make a new claim in your work if the changes are substantial and creative — something more than just editorial changes or minor changes. This would qualify as a new derivative work. For instance, simply making spelling corrections throughout a work does not warrant a new registration — adding an additional chapter would. See Circular 14 for further information.” - http://www.copyright.gov/faq.html | |||
| In this case, the new lyrics, or the combination of them (by Robert Coleman) with the Hill sister’s pre-existing melody, are the creative changes mentioned above. | |||
| Even so, “Good Morning to All” CANNOT be a derivative work of “Happy Birthday to You” - “Happy Birthday” IS a derivative of “Good Morning” however. | |||
| http://www.pdinfo.com/rp/R002152.htm | |||
| http://members.aol.com/katzmarek/pdmusic.htm | |||
| The commercial value of this song to many people would include the lyrics, so this doesn’t help everybody. | |||
| This is not legal advice, nor am I affiliated with the links provided. | |||
Revision as of 14:57, 12 April 2003
The song Happy Birthday was written by American sisters Patty and Mildred Hill in 1893 when they were school teachers in Louisville, Kentucky. The verse was originally intended as a classroom greeting entitled Good Morning To All. The lyrics were copyrighted in 1935, 11 years before Patty's death, and the ownership has swapped hands in multi-million dollar deals ever since; the copyright is currently owned by Warner Communications who bought the rights in 1985 and is scheduled to expire in 2021.
Happy Birthday is now among the top three most popular songs in the English language, along with "Auld Lang Syne" and "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow".
4-12-03 by anonymous:
The information I have been able to find on the Web indicates that many people are unaware that the earlier song “Good Morning to All” even exists. Furthermore, those who are aware of it (including at least one practicing lawyer) seem to be under the false impression that it was not published formally, or not even published at all. That is clearly wrong. This may be propaganda released by the owners of “Happy Birthday” and picked up by others and spread on the Web without verifying the claims. Although the record of “Good Morning to All” would not be online, the Copyright Office should have a physical record of it for you to verify.
Note that the word “happy” has two syllables, but “good” has only one. Thus, in the song “Happy Birthday” that note was split in two. I once read somewhere that the owners of “Happy Birthday” claim that this one-note difference creates a derivative work subject to protection. I am not familiar with any case law on it, but that claim seems bogus.
“How much do I have to change in my own work to make a new claim of copyright? You may make a new claim in your work if the changes are substantial and creative — something more than just editorial changes or minor changes. This would qualify as a new derivative work. For instance, simply making spelling corrections throughout a work does not warrant a new registration — adding an additional chapter would. See Circular 14 for further information.” - http://www.copyright.gov/faq.html
In this case, the new lyrics, or the combination of them (by Robert Coleman) with the Hill sister’s pre-existing melody, are the creative changes mentioned above.
Even so, “Good Morning to All” CANNOT be a derivative work of “Happy Birthday to You” - “Happy Birthday” IS a derivative of “Good Morning” however.
http://www.pdinfo.com/rp/R002152.htm http://members.aol.com/katzmarek/pdmusic.htm
The commercial value of this song to many people would include the lyrics, so this doesn’t help everybody.
This is not legal advice, nor am I affiliated with the links provided.