Summary
The post analyses the landmark California District Court judgment rejecting Warner/Chappell Music's copyright claim over the 'Happy Birthday' lyrics. The court determined that Warner/Chappell, as successor to Summy Co., never acquired valid rights in the lyrics, as the original authors did not transfer such rights. Evidence showed that the Hill sisters did not seek federal copyright protection or legally enforce their rights in the lyrics. The judgment clarifies that the 'Happy Birthday' lyrics may now be used commercially without fear of infringement. The case serves as a significant resource for understanding copyright ownership, transfer, and the public domain.
The California District Court ruled that Warner/Chappell Music does not hold a valid copyright in the lyrics to “Happy Birthday to You”, determining that Summy Co. — the predecessor through which Warner/Chappell derived its claimed title — never received an assignment of the lyrics from the Hill sisters, the alleged authors. The decision means the song’s lyrics may be used commercially without payment of royalties.
Background
Warner/Chappell Music had been claiming copyright ownership of the “Happy Birthday” lyrics for decades, earning an estimated (2) million dollars in revenue per year from licensing. The company claimed to be the successor-in-interest of Summy Co., which was said to have acquired the copyright from the authors Mildred Hill and Patty Hill in 1935.
The plaintiffs in the case, Rupa Marya et al., brought proceedings before the California District Court contesting the validity of Warner/Chappell’s copyright claim and the alleged transfer of ownership to Summy Co. The court reviewed copyright registrations, transfer agreements, publications, licences, and the records of earlier copyright proceedings.
The Court’s Findings
Judge King concluded as follows:
The summary judgment record shows that there are triable issues of fact as to whether Patty wrote the Happy Birthday lyrics in the late Nineteenth Century and whether Mildred may have shared an interest in them as a co-author. Even assuming this is so, neither Patty nor Mildred nor Jessica ever did anything with their common law rights in the lyrics. For decades, with the possible exception of the publication of The Everyday Song Book in 1922, the Hill sisters did not authorize any publication of the lyrics. They did not try to obtain federal copyright protection. They did not take legal action to prevent the use of the lyrics by others, even as Happy Birthday became very popular and commercially valuable. In 1934, four decades after Patty supposedly wrote the song, they finally asserted their rights to the Happy Birthday/Good Morning melody—but still made no claim to the lyrics.
Defendants ask us to find that the Hill sisters eventually gave Summy Co. the rights in the lyrics to exploit and protect, but this assertion has no support in the record. The Hill sisters gave Summy Co. the rights to the melody, and the rights to piano arrangements based on the melody, but never any rights to the lyrics. Defendants’ speculation, that the pleadings in the Hill-Summy lawsuit somehow show that the Second Agreement involved a transfer of rights in the lyrics is implausible and unreasonable. Defendants’ suggestion that the Third Agreement effected such a transfer is circular and fares no better. As far as the record is concerned, even if the Hill sisters still held common law rights by the time of the Second or Third Agreement, they did not give those rights to Summy Co.
In light of the foregoing, Defendants’ Motion is DENIED and Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED as set forth above. Because Summy Co. never acquired the rights to the Happy Birthday lyrics, Defendants, as Summy Co.’s purported successors-in-interest, do not own a valid copyright in the Happy Birthday lyrics.
Significance
By virtue of the judgment, the “Happy Birthday” lyrics may be rendered commercially without any risk of copyright infringement and without the obligation to pay royalties. The case, though complex, offers instruction on a range of copyright principles including:
- Works and Rights
- Validity of Registration and importance of consistency in authorship
- Copyright divesting by Publication
- Forfeiture and Abandonment of copyright
- Validity of transfer of ownership
- Joint Authorship
Reference: Rupa Marya, et al., Plaintiffs v. Warner/Chappell Music, Inc., et al., Case 2:13-cv-04460-GHK-MRW, pages 42, 43.
Disclaimer
This article is for general information and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult a qualified attorney before acting on any matter discussed here.