Warner Music Reprising The Role Of The Evil Slayer Of The Public Domain, Fights Back Against Happy Birthday Lawsuit

from the there's-a-movie-plot-in-here-somewhere dept

Earlier this year, we wrote about an interesting lawsuit filed against Warner/Chappell Music, claiming that the song Happy Birthday is in the public domain, and Warner owes millions in fraudulently collected licenses. As you may or may not know, Warner has some rather dubious claims over the copyright to the song, and despite pretty thorough research showing that the song is almost certainly in the public domain, it’s also the most profitable song in history, earning millions of dollars every year for Warner. So with this class action lawsuit filed against it, you didn’t think that Warner was going to give up easily, did you?

Of course its initial response ignores pretty much all of the evidence concerning why there is no actual copyright on the song, but instead focuses on some technicalities to try to dismiss most of the non-copyright claims and then limit the potential liability by arguing that the statute of limitations only goes back three years. It does promise to have a more complete response to the rather compelling evidence that the entire copyright is completely bogus. However, it seems that even the arguments it’s making to limit the lawsuit here are suspect. Oddly, Warner appears to be flipping the usual arguments on their head. Copyright preemption and the statute of limitations generally are used when it comes to infringement claims, rather than totally bogus claims of holding a copyright there is no copyright on (i.e., copyfraud). As such, it seems there’s a decent argument that Warner’s arguments shouldn’t apply here. Preemption is built around the idea that federal copyright law preempts any attempt to do end runs around federal law by throwing in some questionable state copyright claims. But that’s not the situation here. Here, the state claims are not about state copyright claims, but rather things like fraud and unfair competition that come about due to flat out lying about holding a copyright for something that’s in the public domain. That’s not trying to “preempt” federal copyright law, but rather to argue that lying about holding a copyright and shaking down all sorts of people for singing Happy Birthday is a form of fraud.

As for the statute of limitations claim, again the statute of limitations is generally focused on the time frame of some infringement, rather than the timeframe of non-infringement which people only later discovered was licensed under fraudulent claims of potential infringement. Also, the case law on statute of limitations claims in copyright is a complete mess at times, and it sometimes depends on when the plaintiff discovered the violation. So, while Warner may be able to knock out a few minor issues with this stance, it’s certainly not a slam dunk, and they’re still facing the main issue, which is the overwhelming and somewhat damning evidence that their entire claim to holding the copyright is a complete and total sham — a sham used to shakedown films, TV programs, restaurants and venues for millions of dollars.

And, of course, there’s just the general sentiment of the public, who seem to recognize, implicitly, that claiming a copyright on a song as simple and iconic as Happy Birthday (which has been around for well over a century, long after any copyright should be expired) is somewhere up there on the scale of evil with kicking kittens for sport.



Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: warner chappell music, warner/chappell

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Warner Music Reprising The Role Of The Evil Slayer Of The Public Domain, Fights Back Against Happy Birthday Lawsuit”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
26 Comments
Oblatesays:

Re: Re: Kittens?

It’s evil because the MPAA has a patent on it (as a business method) and unless you are licensed to use it you are STEALING from them! Thief! They will find you (or someone else in your IP block) and make you (or them) pay!

Note that they also have a separate patent on kicking kittens on the internet (emphasis theirs).

Michaelsays:

You have to love the audacity of lawyers when you find these two statements in the same filing:

The incredibly short time between requesting a license and turning around the suing shows that Plaintiff Rupa took a license not in reliance on anything Warner/Chappell said or did, but rather in order to manufacture a claim of liability

Declaratory judgement claims based on the Copyright Act, like those alleged in Plaintiffs’ first and second claims for relief, SAC I, 146-72, are subject to the Copyright Act’s three-year statute of limitations

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re:

“Manufacture a claim”. Now they have a casus belli?
It seems Warner are going to claim all the evidence as fraudulently manufactured lies. Somehow that seems a little to the ambitious side.
Somehow I picture this case getting really nasty, very fast when Warner adds the rest of their defence. We are not dealing in pure facts here. Emotions are getting put into this.

Anonymoussays:

However, it seems that even the arguments it’s making to limit the lawsuit here are suspect. Oddly, Warner appears to be flipping the usual arguments on their head. Copyright preemption and the statute of limitations generally are used when it comes to infringement claims, rather than totally bogus claims of holding a copyright there is no copyright on (i.e., copyfraud).

Internet lawyer wannabe fail. Preemption applies because the state law claims all turn on whether the defendant holds a valid copyright. There’s no extra element that makes the claims qualitatively different such that they are not preempted. The three-year statute of limitations applies since all civil actions under the Copyright Act have that three-year statute of limitation. It doesn’t matter if it’s an action for infringement or an action for declaratory judgment such as this.

Preemption is built around the idea that federal copyright law preempts any attempt to do end runs around federal law by throwing in some questionable state copyright claims. But that’s not the situation here. Here, the state claims are not about state copyright claims, but rather things like fraud and unfair competition that come about due to flat out lying about holding a copyright for something that’s in the public domain. That’s not trying to “preempt” federal copyright law, but rather to argue that lying about holding a copyright and shaking down all sorts of people for singing Happy Birthday is a form of fraud.

Again, all of the claims of “fraud” are really copyright claims at bottom. What exactly are the extra elements that make the claims not preempted? I’d love to know. The memorandum cites many cases where such state law claims were preempted. You should read some of them.

As for the statute of limitations claim, again the statute of limitations is generally focused on the time frame of some infringement, rather than the timeframe of non-infringement which people only later discovered was licensed under fraudulent claims of potential infringement.

Nope. The statute of limitations kicks in from the moment the claim accrued. The claim doesn’t have to be one for infringement, as is demonstrated by this very case. Look at the claims, and then determine when they accrued. Whether the claims are for infringement or something else doesn’t matter.

And, of course, there’s just the general sentiment of the public, who seem to recognize, implicitly, that claiming a copyright on a song as simple and iconic as Happy Birthday (which has been around for well over a century, long after any copyright should be expired) is somewhere up there on the scale of evil with kicking kittens for sport.

LOL! It’s evil like kicking cats to assert their rights? I don’t see it. Sorry, Pirate Mike, you fail again.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re:

“Again, all of the claims of “fraud” are really copyright claims at bottom.

If you claim to own something (like a copyright on ‘Happy Birthday’) that you don’t actually own, then try to get people to pay you for said thing you don’t own, that’s fraud.

Please explain how that is copyright and not really fraud…

JMTsays:

Re: Re:

“Internet lawyer wannabe fail.”

And we should take the word of an obnoxious AC over Mike because… why, again?

“It’s evil like kicking cats to assert their rights?”

No, the whole point is that they should not have any such rights to assert. But you know that, you’re just trying to twist things around to take a cheap shot. Sorry, you fail again.

Anonymoussays:

isn’t it strange how one of the entertainment industries companies acts when it is going to get screwed over being naughty. it has been coning money out of people for tens of years and they think it’s ok. when, however, someone is suspected of doing something to one of the things those same industries may actually have the rights to or ownership of, they go absolutely fucking ape -shit!

kitsune361says:

So, if this is a fraud case...

So, if this is a “fraud” case and corporations are “people”… why not have a criminal complaint brought against WMG simultaneously w/ the civil suit?

If they don’t settle out of court, I don’t see how this doesn’t take a decade or more to play out. It looks like Warner is brewing up a paper tempest in their teapot in this one.

RonKaminskysays:

Re: Moved to California

The original case was dismissed in the Southern District of NY on that date, and I had started to be worried that this was just an attempt to blackmail the blackmailers and go for a quick settlement bid.

But it seems that the plaintiffs have refiled in California and are serious about this. Actually now that I think about it, Warner has little recourse but to fight, because any settlement out of court will be seen to be an admission of the weakness their claims, and will only lead to a never-ending succession of other challenges in reply to a demand for licensing fees.

(On an aside: I was happy that I found a new interesting case on which to use up my uncharged $15-per-quarter PACER allocation, but wow — just downloading the whole docket used up over $1. I see I can download just a partial docket by searching by document numbers, but does RECAP have any automatic consolidation in place for these kinds of partial docket searches?)

Mike Masnicksays:

Re: Re:

Didn’t Good Morning to You Productions dismiss the case on July 26th, 2013 albeit without prejudice.

Same law firm filed this one, and a third one as well. Basically the same lawsuit — with two of them being consolidated (the Marya and the Siegel case) into this case. The GMTY lawsuit likely would have been consolidated as well. For whatever reason it appears they decided to drop that one and focus on this one instead. Lots of reasons why they may have chosen that… but, all in all, basically the same lawsuit.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Report this ad??|??Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
Older Stuff
12:25 Australian Privacy Commissioner Says 7-Eleven Broke Privacy Laws By Scanning Customers' Faces At Survey Kiosks (6)
10:50 Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim (45)
10:45 Daily Deal: The All-in-One Microsoft, Cybersecurity, And Python Exam Prep Training Bundle (0)
09:43 Want To Understand Why U.S. Broadband Sucks? Look At Frontier Communications In Wisconsin, West Virginia (8)
05:36 Massachusetts College Decides Criticizing The Chinese Government Is Hate Speech, Suspends Conservative Student Group (71)
19:57 Le Tigre Sues Barry Mann To Stop Copyright Threats Over Song, Lights Barry Mann On Fire As Well (21)
16:07 Court Says City Of Baltimore's 'Heckler's Veto' Of An Anti-Catholic Rally Violates The First Amendment (15)
13:37 Two Years Later, Judge Finally Realizes That A CDN Provider Is Not Liable For Copyright Infringement On Websites (21)
12:19 Chicago Court Gets Its Prior Restraint On, Tells Police Union Head To STFU About City's Vaccine Mandate (158)
10:55 Verizon 'Visible' Wireless Accounts Hacked, Exploited To Buy New iPhones (8)
10:50 Daily Deal: The MacOS 11 Course (0)
07:55 Suing Social Media Sites Over Acts Of Terrorism Continues To Be A Losing Bet, As 11th Circuit Dumps Another Flawed Lawsuit (11)
02:51 Trump Announces His Own Social Network, 'Truth Social,' Which Says It Can Kick Off Users For Any Reason (And Already Is) (100)
19:51 Facebook AI Moderation Continues To Suck Because Moderation At Scale Is Impossible (26)
16:12 Content Moderation Case Studies: Snapchat Disables GIPHY Integration After Racist 'Sticker' Is Discovered (2018) (11)
13:54 Arlo Makes Live Customer Service A Luxury Option (8)
12:05 Delta Proudly Announces Its Participation In The DHS's Expanded Biometric Collection Program (5)
11:03 LinkedIn (Mostly) Exits China, Citing Escalating Demands For Censorship (14)
10:57 Daily Deal: The Python, Git, And YAML Bundle (0)
09:37 British Telecom Wants Netflix To Pay A Tax Simply Because Squid Game Is Popular (32)
06:41 Report: Client-Side Scanning Is An Insecure Nightmare Just Waiting To Be Exploited By Governments (35)
20:38 MLB In Talks To Offer Streaming For All Teams' Home Games In-Market Even Without A Cable Subscription (10)
15:55 Appeals Court Says Couple's Lawsuit Over Bogus Vehicle Forfeiture Can Continue (15)
13:30 Techdirt Podcast Episode 301: Scarcity, Abundance & NFTs (0)
12:03 Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist (66)
10:45 Introducing The Techdirt Insider Discord (4)
10:40 Daily Deal: The Dynamic 2021 DevOps Training Bundle (0)
09:29 Criminalizing Teens' Google Searches Is Just How The UK's Anti-Cybercrime Programs Roll (19)
06:29 Canon Sued For Disabling Printer Scanners When Devices Run Out Of Ink (41)
20:51 Copyright Law Discriminating Against The Blind Finally Struck Down By Court In South Africa (7)
More arrow