Jump to content

Talk:Happy Birthday to You/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

2003 discussion

Hey! Isn't including the full text of an editorial a copyright violation!? --Frecklefoot 18:12 22 May 2003 (UTC)

This article has great material in it...but it needs major NPOV editing. I like it though :) Kingturtle 18:43 22 May 2003 (UTC)

Note to J. Byron, who added a lot of material recently: Thanks for your huge contribution! Please consider signing in and creating a user page for yourself here. A couple of minor points to note though. We don't sign articles on Wikipedia, the credits are stored in the page history (and people list their work on their user page sometimes). Articles are written in an encyclopedic rather than reporting style, so first-person isn't appropriate. You don't need to make any changes yourself, as everyone is free to edit everyone else's work. Cheers. -- Tarquin 19:02 22 May 2003 (UTC)

Hi, I was unaware of your editing rules. I am having some trouble navigating your site. No copyright violation, it is my own research and editorial. I posted the same material elsewhere. J. Byron —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.29.17 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 22 May 2003 (UTC)

Try the village pump page. That has links to our FAQ pages, and you can post on the "pump" to ask for help. welcome to the site! -- Tarquin 22 May 2003

Good stuff, Mr. Byron. I did a touch of editing - replaced your legal disclaimers with our standard ones, for example. Oh, and I felt I had to trim these songs - not really encyclopedic for us to include our own compositions! :) Martin 22 May 2003

Mer-ry Christ-mas to You!
Mer-ry Christ-mas to You!
Mer-ry Christ-mas Dear Fri-ends
Mer-ry Christ-mas to All.
© 2003, J. Byron, but dedicated to the public domain.
Mer-ry [your holiday here] to You!
Mer-ry [your holiday here] to You!
Mer-ry [your holiday here] Dear Fri-ends
Mer-ry [your holiday here] to All.
Martin 22 May 2003.

I guess you are right. I posted my revised article at InfoAnarchy. http://www.infoanarchy.org/?op=comments&sid=2003/5/31/16042/4219&cid=3 Feel free to rewrite the information (for your pages) as you see fit :-) J. Byron —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.225.235.96 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 4 July 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MyRedDice (talk • contribs) 18:00, 4 July 2003 (UTC)

So Warner Communications owns the rights to Happy Birthday? Well, they must be KAJILLIONAIRES by now with all the daily singings of the song around the world! ;) SD6-Agent 09:49, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Most popular?

Happy Birthday is among the top three most popular songs in the English language, along with "Auld Lang Syne" and "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow."

That needs a reference. --zandperl 03:43, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

So restaurant staff can sing it?

There is an urban legend that restaurants are not allowed to sing Happy Birthday to You, as that would infringe upon the copyright. However, public performance rights are given to the owner of the melody, not the lyrics. So is this urban legend false? anthony (see warning) 14:33, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the lyrics are copyrighted too. What makes you think they aren't? It's not like I can make up my own tune and then sing the entire lyrics of, say, "I can't get no satisfaction" over it, right? Restaurants pay royalties for all the music played in their establishment (including radio, CDs, live bands, etc.), usually in a bulk monthly fee. Presumably the list of songs they pay for includes Happy Birthday to You, so maybe that's why there isn't a big problem. 21:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Calling something an urban legend inherently means it's untrue. This is actually true.74.192.43.101 20:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Public performance rights are given to "literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works" [17 U.S.C. 106(4)], and this would include the lyrics to a song. Copyright is certainly claimed by Warner/Chapell, but see Prof. Robert Brauneis' article that argues the lyrics may prove not to be under copyright after all if it were litigated...72.25.153.110 (talk) 04:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Restaurants and bars are not charged for specific performances or specific works. They pay a relatively small yearly subscription fee to royalty collection agencies, usually ASCAP and BMI, which entitles them to host performances of all music registered with the agencies (nearly all commercial music created in or distributed within the United States is registered with either ASCAP or BMI). Until the Copyright Act of 1998, restaurants could not play the radio or commercially released recorded music in any form without subscribing to ASCAP or BMI, so virtually all were covered for any performance of "Happy Birthday" anyway. Since the 1998 law went into effect, restaurants that never host live music are exempt from having to subscribe and can legally play recorded versions of "Happy Birthday" to their heart's content. They just can't have a group perform it (or virtually any other non-public-domain music) live on stage. TheScotch (talk) 09:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Happy Birthday to You

The song seems to be more popularly referred to as Happy Birthday to You. Also, this resolves the disambiguation to some extent, so I moved it there. anthony (see warning) 14:57, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

removed this bit

"And a other versionis:

Happy Birthday to you, I went to my backyard, I saw a dog, and He snifed like you,too"

I think someone just wanted to put in his two-tenths of a cent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.38.130 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 22 March 2005 (UTC)

Copyrightism

Can't believe a song with common use to such a vastitude is restricted. We hereby propose your attention to the emerging "copyrightism". In such case either should the copyright be exempted or the government or whatever national body should buy the work into public domain. How chould your decency impossible imagine to apply for a licence everytime you sing the song in a restaurant or in the general public?

I am SERIOUSLY considering starting a campaign to buy the rights to "Happy Birthday." I don't have the money to do it as an individual, but I'm if we get enough people to donate, say $1-$10 US we'll be able to do it as a group. Anyone want to help? Writerchick 21:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

As seen in some of the linked articles, there are people with good arguments to the effect that this particular copyright is invalid. Perhaps somebody could actually take the alleged owner to court over it. *Dan T.* 21:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Saying that the copyright is invalid, just because its a popular song, is like saying Mickey Mouse should be in the public domain, just because a lot of people like him. Someone created this song, and they (or more likely someone representing their estate, which is just as legally, and morally applicable) deserve to be compensated for it. If they chose to sell their copyright, thats also their right. The person who then owns the copyright post transaction has the same legal (and moral) rights to be compensated for its use, as the original owner did. If you created something popular, and it provided for you financially, there isn't a single person on this board who wouldn't be upset if that property was moved into the public domain, simply because a lot of people like it. No one is saying you can't sing it at your birthday party. Television shows are highly profitable for networks, and its entirely reasonable for them to be forced to pay a fee to use material for their show. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.154.101.37 (talk) 07:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC).
We're jumping the gun here, aren't we? because no one said that the copyright is invalid just because the song is very popular. However, some people's interest in buying out the copyright and releasing it to the public domain may stem from this popularity. But there are numerous reasons described in the main article for the copyright on "Happy Birthday to You" to be legally invalid, not the least of which is that the melody is taken note-for-note from "Good Morning to All" which was first published in 1893. But, on another note, just as there is nothing wrong with someone creating something that becomes popular and being compensated, even highly lucratively compensated, for the use of what they created, there is certainly nothing wrong (neither legally nor morally) with someone else buying all the rights to this work from its creator, the creator's estate, or any subsequent copyright holder, and then, as the then-copyright holder, releasing the copyright into the public domain. (And, perhaps, there should be a campaign to buy Mickey Mouse from Disney and release him into the public domain) :) --Champaign (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to have to disagree with your plan to take the owner's copyright without just compensation, as it is grossly immoral and disgusting. 68.84.224.36 (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
If I understand Writerchick correctly, her proposal is to buy the copyright from the current copyright holder (and hence, give them "just compensation") using donated money and then, as the then-legal copyright holder, release the song into the public domain. I fail to see what is either immoral or disgusting about that. However, considering that there are many sound reasons (as sited in the main article) to believe that the original copyright may be legally (and in all probability morally, as well) invalid, I would personally be more for taking the current owner to court over the copyright and have it (most likely) nullified once and for all. --Champaign (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how this could be a valid copyright since it was taken from a song written in 1893. By that standard, anyone could go around copyrighting a bunch of public domain works now. I would guess it just hasn't been challenged.
I could hardly agree more. Even considering that the lyrics were first published in 1912, that means that when the song was "registered for copyright" in 1935 it had already been in the public domain for 23 years. It is outrageous that any court could possibly contend, at this point, that this song is not in the public domain.
For this reason I believe that Wikipedia should not pretend that the song is under copyright protection at this time. In any case, there is a compelling "fair use" argument here: If the lyrics appeared in Wikipedia it would be solely for the purpose of educating the public, and (unlike commercial encyclopedias) no one makes a profit from the content of Wikipedia.Daqu (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I love these conversations that span 4 or 5 years. According to Snopes,[2] the song is still under copyright by Warner (thanks to various Congressional extensions of the copyright laws) and won't be public domain until at least the year 2030. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I prefer facts. Maybe I should make that is icon 1923px cygnis insignis 19:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I would trust Snopes' facts more than I would trust the facts from Time or Newsweek. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
There will always be someone in a knock-shop who is more appealing than the others, I'm still not tempted to buy. cygnis insignis 19:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
There are endless sources in google parroting that the song, or at least the words of the song, are still under copyright and that Warner collects royalties. Many sources also claim that the copyright is "unclear" and that Warner is essentially bluffing - assuming they even do collect royalties. What's needed is some recent suit (not 1935) in which Warner successfully collected damages for copyright violation of the song. That would settle it for certain. But if there's doubt, wikipedia shouldn't be at the forefront of forcing the issue. That's not wikipedia's purpose. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
[It is my opinion that if anyone paid a royalty, a trivial amount in the budget for a movie score, it was as a member of that parent group of companies, or as an endorsement of a precedent for ludicrous claims of ownership, a situation they could also profit from. I doubt I am the first to ponder along those lines.] It is quite right that wikipedia should not advance the issue, but it can repeat the result of a matter settled at that sister. cygnis insignis 20:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Good luck finding such info. Although a call to WB might be useful, albeit with probably getting passed from one phone to another all day. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Is that what happened when you asked about your tags? I think we should "Just do it" :-) cygnis insignis 21:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
What tags? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, you mean the "PD-self" question about an item derived from a commons item? It was hard to get a straight answer, but the likelihood of being sued seems slim. But someone at WB might know the answer to the question of the song's copyright... or might know someone who knows someone. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Nah, your →signature← … cygnis insignis 21:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Explain, please? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
"What's Up, Doc?" was what I noticed, when I thought to make light of CV silliness. cygnis insignis 22:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
At first I thought you were talking about the arrows. That was before I got the point. Thanks for the tip. OK, you might be contending that "What's up, Doc?" is a copyrighted or trademarked expression. I don't know if it is or not. However, when it appeared as a cartoon's title, the comma was not there, just as it was always absent from "That's All Folks!" So I could claim "not guilty" by reason of punctuation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Not quite the 10% difference of a parody :-) cygnis insignis 22:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
A quick survey on google suggests the expression is in the public domain. In fact, when Tex Avery put that question in Bugsy's mouth, it came from a commonly-used expression from back home. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

According to pdinfo.com, and other sources, any song published before 1922 is in the Public Domain. Since Happy Birthday To You was printed in 1912, it definitely should be in the Public Domain and any copyright in the U.S. would be indefensible at this time -- making a lot of this discussion outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.19.235.169 (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the content of the article, not for launching campaigns or voicing opinions about the subject of the article. Writerchick's original comment in this section is way out of line. TheScotch (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

First Verse?

The phrase "The first verse goes like this" implies that there are more than one verse. However, a search of the Web turns up no other Web sites that give even this first verse. Can anyone come up with a reference to some authoritative information on this putative first verse or on any subsequent original verses?

Also, if the claim is that this verse and the chorus comprise the complete song, then the entry should be edited to reflect that fact (by omitting the "first verse" phrase). Other Web sites are copying this entry, so we should try to get this right, yes? David 14:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

"cha cha cha"??

Being long out of childhood and not having children myself, I was surprised to learn today that modern kids add "cha cha cha" after every verse of the song. A quick Google revealed this to be rather well established.

I would like know the origin of this alteration and perhaps see the info added to the entry if it is deemed relevant.

It's fairly common, far more common than some of the additional verses, so I think it would warrent being included. --TeN 01:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Never heard of it myself. Perhaps it's an American practice? Nil Einne 17:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I looked the "cha cha cha" bit for Happy Birthday on Google, and according to one answer, the "cha cha cha" bit originated from the now-defunct restaurant Chi-Chi's.

The first paragraph says it expires in 2030; the second, in 2008 (lyrics) and 2016 (music) - which is right? UOSSReiska 16:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The 2008/2016 years are for other countries that observe life + 70 years (not the U.S.). That shift in the copyright section was not obvious, so I split into subsections. —Twigboy 17:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The article also states that "other countries" observe life + 50 years, and life + 70 years. I put a {cn} next to both of these, not only because the article repeats itself with conflicting information, but also because it fails to mention any other country by name. There is a HUGE world out there, and I doubt that this world unanimously agreed on universal copyright terms that the US refused to be a part of. "Some parts of Europe" perhaps. ~ Agvulpine (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the UK is an exception to the 2016 European copyright expiration term of the melody because, under the Copyright Act 1911, it followed the Berne Convention Comparison of Terms from 1912 to 1956, during which period, 'Good Morning to All' entered the Public Domain in the US, its country of origin. This means the melody is already Public Domain here. Listener Sheogorath (talk) 09:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

This whole section raises more questions than answers. It states that the first publication of the tune and lyrics was in 1912. The 1909 Copyright Act states that published works without a copyright notice attached automatically enter the public domain, even if we ignore that the Berne convention (1886) states that copyright begins from first publication. Copyright terms in 1912 were 28 or 56 years, either way the copyright would have expired decades ago. How can a work which was already published and in the public domain (or copyrighted) in 1912 be copyrighted (again?) 23 years later? Quoting from the US government's own advice on copyright - "all works published in the United States before January 1, 1923, are in the public domain" [3] 80.1.154.246 (talk) 09:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

What lawsuit

It seems something has been lost in an edit:

Contrary to what is often erroneously reported, the lawsuit was dropped, and there was no outcome to the case. As a result, the Summy Company registered the copyright for Happy Birthday to You, which does not affect today's public domain status of "Good Morning to All."

The lawsuit is not mentioned anywhere else so readers like me are left wondering, what lawsuit? I could probably find this out in the history but I'm a bit buzy at the mo Nil Einne 17:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

In the international section:

  • Shouldn't some mention be made of the fact (as suggested in the American section) others may have had these lyrics before they were "made" by Preston copyrighted in which case I assume the copyright would be invalid?
  • Aren't works for hire considered under other jurisdictions?

Nil Einne 17:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

In the US section it's not explained very well. They were only copyrighted in 1935 but they clearly existed in 1928 (and 31 and 33). They weren't copyrighted then. I assume you can copyright something which someone else wrote before you so I assume then that Preston is purported to have written these lyrics before 1928 but this isn't explained... Also where does Summy fit in to all this. They evidently published the song Good Morning To All written by the sisters but where, when and how did they publish it? Did the two sisters write it for them (work for hire) or what? It's rather confusing! Nil Einne 17:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe the sisters wrote it for the children in their classes and then were convinced to get it copyrighted. They never pursued a copyright for any variant related to birthday celebrations. But I could be wrong; this needs to be researched. David spector (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The article claims that "The current owner of the 1935 copyright believes that one cannot sing 'Happy Birthday to You' lyrics for profit without paying royalties." I can't find anything confirming this. Source? - Ketsuekigata 22:15 19 November 2006

American

This is so stupid. Americans "show off" too much, especially in medias like encylopedias. I see "The melody of "Happy Birthday to You" was written by American sisters Patty and" They were an AMERICAN... oh YAH.. they were an AMERICAN sisters.. THEY WERE AN AMERICAN SISTERS! Not just this article, there's plenty more which have "AMERICAN" and redirecting to Undited States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.197.247.58 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

How mature of you to insult all Americans. "Americans 'show off' too much." *rolls eyes*. And, so what if they were American sisters, but then again, so what if the article links to the United States article? Is it affecting the integrity or truth of the information contained in the article? No. Then is doesn't matter if it's linked or not. Focus on other things that do affect the article, like the fact that it needs more citing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.167.102 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Why the hostility? I don't see why this is a problem. It's not at all uncommon to cite the country of origin for a composer or a musical work, nor is it uncommon to link to that country's article. I would cite examples, but there's no need... merely search any musician, composer, or folk song and there's a decent chance that this will be the case. --TeN 01:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

But they were Americans weren't they? Would it make you feel better if we pretended that they were from the planet Thargoid? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.26.234 (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry!

Anyone who reads this article's history page will find that [[Special:Contributions/68.125.34.1|68.125.34.1]] is wrongly written as [[User:68.125.34.1|68.125.34.1]]. I'm really sorry - here's what it should be - 68.125.34.1. Sorry for any problems this may have caused you. Trixovator 21:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

“… and many more.”?

Right now the article doesn't mention the oft-added line “… and many more”. with the 5-6-5-b7 melody, ending on a I7 chord. Either I am dead wrong about the song here, or somebody who knows more about the subject should add this. I for one don't even know if this is even the correct song this line is added too. — Mütze 10:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the correct song that you are referring to. There are many variations of the song and this is one of the potential endings to the song. Cadwal 04:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Where are the lyrics?

I went to WMG and I can't find the lyrics anywhere.Cadwal 04:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well as the article states the lyrics are copyrighted so I think that asking Warner Music Group for a copy would be the best thing. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Added link to the article —Twigboy 19:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for that, I serously couldn't find them on the web site (in fact I had a hard time finding the lyrics anywhere to be honest). Cadwal 06:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What royalties are sought?

Since royalties are such a prominent part of this article, the article should state what amount of money Warner is demanding for its use. Presumably this could be gathered for the different venues that you'd expect: a movie, a TV show, a stage play, a music CD, a restaurant's being allowed to have the employees sign it, a PA announcer at a football stadium. Tempshill 19:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Noticed there were claims about $10K for a film and $5K for a Disney attraction, so I added the section. If anyone has additional royalty data, that would be welcome. Also of course it would be great if someone somewhere has written about what actual revenues Warner is receiving. Tempshill 19:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I added a source claiming that the royalty for performance on television is $700. David spector (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a severe dearth of information on the popularity of this song as opposed to the odd copyright & royalty issues concerning the publication. The song's popularity in English-speaking culture is assumed, although it seems to be quite a triumph, considering the lengthy legal history of the song. How did it become so widespread in our culture, despite its not being disseminated via mass media? 74.192.43.101 15:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Happy Birthday is a common folk song and was disseminated as such through homes and the public school system. I remember it being played by my music teacher on the piano. The first I heard about it being copyrighted was in the mid-late 90's when Letterman made a big deal out of it, which seems to correlate with the early occurrences of the song variances in different movies and TV shows. I'm of the belief that legal claims are only recent, and would really like to find some older movies and TV shows that actually sang it in full.
I personally believe the courts would throw such a lawsuit out the window, as this is akin to claiming copyright for Where is Thumpkin or the Pledge of Allegiance or the National Anthem. ~ Agvulpine (talk) 10:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Who has removed my links from the article. They provide valuable information on the subject. What's the point of the WWW if we don't use the most of linking each other. That's way the Internet exists. Pmpa 10:26 22 September 2007

(Sounds like SOMEbody is living deep in a dark, isolated, quiet hole somewhere.) KDS4444Talk 23:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Since corporate copyright in the US is 100 years, shouldn't the song enter public domain in 2035, since it was first published in 1935? In Countries such as Canada and Australia were copyright, even corporate, is the life of the author plus 50 years, shouldn't it have entered the public domain in 1996 since the last author died in 1946? Am I wrong ? Samuell (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The US corporate copyright for works published between 1923 and 1963 is 95 years. In Australia, New Zealand and Fiji the song has been in the public domain since 1 January 1997 (http://mycoffeelounge.net/forum-replies.php?t=13332). Tigad (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Birthday Dirge

Noted there was no entry anywhere on wikipedia for the birthday dirge (originally from the SCA). Is this something we can add to this page or give it its own namespace?

Tune of : "Volga Boatmen"

Death and gloom and black despair
People dying everywhere
Happy Birthday! (UHH!) Happy Birthday! (UHH!)

and it goes on some fifty lines or so growing with each encounter with another who knows it finally ending with:

FINALE: If there be verses we have missed
You can add them to the list.

I pray you pass your verse along
And thus improve our merry song.
eleuthero (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

String quartet has Happy Birthday to You theme

The Happy Birthday to You theme in part of an unknown string quartet, possibly by Mozart, can be heard below:

Here is the intro to this unknown string quartet:

Does anybody know the name of this string quartet? Thanks--Geremia (talk) 08:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is the Minuet from Mozart's Divertimento in D, K205. If this is the origination of the melody, then this entire article is completely off. 24.6.202.178 (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Robert Brauneis' 2008 paper

A recent article, Robert Brauneis, "Copyright and the World's Most Popular Song" (Mar. 14, 2008), is likely to be the standard resource on the history and copyright status of this song. It's available online at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1111624. I don't have time at the moment to update the article, but anyone who is interested will find amazing and thoroughly researched detail. John M Baker (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I read the paper, and it's very very good. I added it to the External Links section. I also reworked the copyright stuff in the introduction (citing his paper). The Copyright Status section still needs major help. netjeff (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Other jurisdictions

There is inconsistent information as to how much the copyright extends in other jurisdictions. In the first paragraph, it is said to be 50 years after the death of the authors, and later, there is a computation based on 70 years. Ratfox (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Other similar songs

Anyone able to find a link to words and/or music for the other songs alleged to be similar (or virtually the same), such as "Happy Greetings to You? The article and a number of sites talk about how some claim they are similar - it seems like it would be useful to the reader to be able to link to those other songs and either listen or look at the sheet music and see for themself. I wasn't able to find any, has anyone come across any of them? --Minderbinder (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Archibald A. Hill

There should be something about the role of linguist Archibald A. Hill (not the same person in the Archibald Hill article), the nephew of the Hill sisters, who apparently owned the copyrights at one point, and who was widely rumored to have supported the Linguistic Society of America and the Linguistics department library at the University of Texas at Austin with the income. See http://www.utexas.edu/faculty/council/2000-2001/memorials/Hill,%20A/hill,%20a.html Churchh (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Second verse/alternate verse

If citation is feasible, I think there should be some mention of the several common alternate or second verses of the song, such as "How old are you?"/"How old are you now?" or "happy birthday to you/you live in a zoo/you look like a monkey/and you smell like one too." TheHYPO (talk) 12:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


American-facing article

This article is written from a primarily American viewpoint (it refers to an Act without mentioning it is an American Act; "the Supreme Court" apparently refers to the US Supreme Court, but this is not made clear; indeed, there is a specific section about "other" jurisdictions). This should please be rewritten to reflect a wider audience and Wikipedia's status as a global unbiased encyclopædia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.89.234 (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I added a few U.S. in the intro text to make those parts more clear that they apply to the U.S. netjeff (talk) 06:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

International Versions

Shouldn't the article mentions versions of the song in other countries and languages? It is a very popular song, after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.31.68 (talk) 08:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The very first paragraph says that the song's "lyrics have been translated into at least 18 languages". Was there something more you were looking for? netjeff (talk) 07:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

First song in space?

I have read in quite a few places that the first song ever sung in outer space was Happy Birthday to You.

I don't know if this goes under public performances or something else, nor do I have a good source, but if it is true, it should be included.

Agnostic Certainty (talk) 04:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Mashed potatoes and stew

Mashed potatoes and stew,
Mashed potatoes and stew,
Bread and butter, in the gutter,
Mashed potatoes and stew.

I've no idea where that started, or if anyone's interested, but I know I didn't make it up. --Nigelj (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I had always thought the ubiqitous "alternative version", at least in British playgrounds, used tomatoes that were squashed, rather than potatoes that were mashed: e.g. [4], and also needed some simian flavour, thus:
Happy Birthday to you,
Squashed tomatoes and stew,
You look like a monkey,
And you act like one too!
or
Happy Birthday to you,
Squashed tomatoes and stew,
You look like a monkey,
And you live in a zoo!.
You will find 18,000 Google hits for ""squashed tomatoes and stew". So I think these may need to be added. 109.153.211.118 (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Girl Scouts lawsuit

One of the often-heard stories about this song's copyright status was about how there were threats to sue the Girl Scouts of America for singing this song at campers' birthdays. Seems like a significant enough statement to include in the article maybe? Here's a source: [5], probably can find more/better ones with a bit of work. I just Googled "Happy birthday song + girl scouts", and that was on the first page. (There's 400,000+ other results, so it's not like this is just an insignificant rumor.) Lurlock (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


Tradition

The tradition section seems unnecessary. I guess someone put it there to help put the song in context, but it goes on a little too far. Whether or not someone eats cake and gets presents is in no way relevant to the SONG. 76.179.52.143 (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

When the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act of 1998 was passed, it failed to renew or extend any copyrights that were in still in extension from prior to 1962. This is where people find basis for the truism that "nothing published in the USA prior to 1923 is copyrighted in the USA". But this only became true at the end of 1997. Therefore, after acknowledging that there "might" still have been copyright in the USA for a work published as early as 1906, with necessary notice, registration and renewal, those copyrights expired in 1997 (if not before 1962) and were thus "not around" to be further extended in October of 1998. We can cite 17 USC § 304 (Note 7) from http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.html#304. Anybody have a problem with that? Lupinelawyer (talk) 05:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how relevant that is to this article as Warner is claiming that the song was first copyrighted in 1935. 217.35.75.188 (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
It's relevant at least to the extent there is incontrovertible proof that the tune was published prior to 1900. Whether Warner continues to claim non-existent rights in something is not relevant to whether there is any LEGAL basis for their claim. Let them try to prove it court. Lupinelawyer (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Pre-1956 Deaths not retroactive for 70 years

In Australia the changes to make copyright 70 years after death are not retroactive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_Australia#Copyright_term Europe is maybe the same. This song could be out of copyright everywhere but the USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.72.39 (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Some Problems

The start of the article contains some dates which are confusing as they use a past tense with a future date, such as "first appeared in print in 2078" i can't say as to whether this was a mistake or subterfuge. However the main problem I have is with the reference to the song "99 Problems" as the basis for the melody of happy birthday. As far as I'm aware this is a Jay Z song from the 2000s and presumably a joke. As I can't remember how to wiki properly I figured I'd put out the notice. Drunk Redditor, over and out — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cant remember prev username (talk • contribs) 12:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Translations

What is this section supposed to be saying? It looks like "translations of the greeting 'Happy Birthday!'" unrelated to the song.

For example (check ja:WP) the Japanese words to the song are not the normal Japanese greeting o-tanjōbi omedetõ (お誕生日おめでとう) but happĩ bāsudē tū yū (ハッピーバースデートゥーユー). And it looks to my non-expert eye as though at least some of the other versions would not fit the tune.

The article at the top claims the song has been translated into "at least 18" languages: so what are the rest of the 30+ "translations" cited for? I suggest the whole table should be deleted as meaningless.

Meanwhile, it might be interesting to have a list of languages in which the song is actually well-known, and distinguish cases (such as Japanese and Dutch, if my weak grasp of Dutch is to be trusted) in which the song is sung in (more-or-less) English, from ones such as French (imwgoFitbt) in which it is sung in translation.

Imaginatorium (talk) 08:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I independently confirm the problem (list giving translations for the wish phrase, not for the actual song version used in particular countries). The Czech phrase Všechno nejlepší (lit. "all/everything the best") is only an equivalent of en: phrase Happy birthday. Because it does not explicitely refer to a birthday, its use is broader than in case of en: counterpart (you can say it on namedays, weddings etc.). Neverthless this is only a wish-phrase, which has nothing to do with the song. The usual cs: version of the song in dubbed movies goes as: Hodně štěstí, zdraví (Czech pronunciation: [ˈɦodɲɛ ˈʃcɛsciː ˈzdraviː]; "a lot of happiness, health"). --Miaow Miaow (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree, the section seems out of place. Also, somebody added a Mongolian row 4 days ago. It appears to possible be correct, but I'm guessing that the encoding it's using is wrong. Can someone fix it, or should it just be removed? Somnlaut (talk) 06:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Someone deleted the translation section; someone else (user TS133) replaced it with the comment "Translations are very relevant given the widespread intercultural use of the song". Of course this is true (though I'm not quite sure what "intercultural use" is), and would be a reason for having a list of translations of the song, not just a list of semi-random greetings. So I removed the section again. I suggest it could be added back in, with just those languages for which there is palpable evidence that the song is sung in that language. Or perhaps better a list of countries in which it is sung, together with the words used, which might be the original English words (Netherlands?) or the katakana version of the English words (Japan)
Imaginatorium (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Suit Finally Brought

A suit has been brought to declare the song in the public domain.[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by John M Baker (talk • contribs) 19:39, 13 June 2013‎ (UTC)

Yes, and a NY Times article today states that Warner/Chappell … “paid $25 million in 1988 to acquire Birchtree Ltd”, while the lead section of this article currently states it was The Summy Company that Warner/Chappell bought in 1990 for $15 million. Also, the Music licensing article agrees it was Birchtree Ltd., but says it was “1989, when Time Warner first purchased the piece” (not the whole company?) How can we find the correct facts? MJ (t • c) 15:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Just remember that the best source for almost anything on this subject is the Brauneis article. Birchtree was the parent of the Summy-Birchard Company and was acquired in 1988. There seems to be a dispute as to the purchase price, see Brauneis at 20 - 21 and note 106. John M Baker (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
That seems to reflect a judgment that we're not in a position to make until the lawsuit is resolved. John M Baker (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Lawsuit Update

The parties to the lawsuit have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. In an unusual procedure, the two sides filed a joint brief that includes the positions of each side. There is also a Joint Statement of Uncontroverted Facts, which actually includes both undisputed and disputed statements of fact, with citations to the documentary evidence relied upon. If anyone would like copies of these for purposes of updating the article, send me a Wikipedia email and I'll reply with PDFs. John M Baker (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Settlement was reached in February 2016 OpenDoc3551 (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Lyrics

This article has a section for the lyrics for "Good Morning to You". The section for Happy Birthday, however, doesn't have the lyrics. But it *does* have a set of instructions the reader can use to reconstruct the lyrics.

If the lyrics are legally permissible, they should be included. If the lyrics are not legally permissible, not only should they not be included, but a description of how to reconstruct them shouldn't be either.

I am pretty certain that we're not permitted to add to the Harry Potter article a string of descriptions which allowed the reader to reconstruct the book by saying "take 1,236,507 copies of the letter 'e', 1,098,477 copies of the letter 't', ... And arrange them so that they are contained in the most common word in the English language which appears 35,665 times, placing the first copy of the word in the 8th position in sentences 12, 14, 15... 9805, and 9807. Then insert the name of the title character in sentences 2, 3, 5, ....." If it's really illegal to include the work, it's also illegal to encode the work into a set of instructions, and include the set of instructions. You can't work around copyright that way. Either delete the instructions and don't replace them with the lyrics (if illegal), or delete the instructions and replace them with the lyrics (if legal). Ken Arromdee (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I mean, on the one hand, I agree, but how much can you really say about the lyrics to Happy Birthday without revealing the entirety of the lyrics? Only three words are different from Good Morning to You -- two of which are in the title, and one of which is your name. 100.4.152.175 (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Except that the song in question is more or less a complete copy of another song with some words changed. Also Happy Birthday is one of those songs which is so short, it can be reproduced in its entirety and fall under fair use under some cases.

This is completely ridiculous. Watch Warner/Chappell sue Wikipedia for having the lyrics to Happy Birthday to You. I mean, seriously, that would never happen. David815 (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

1911 publication of the lyrics

Somebody found this on techdirt: [7]. Choor monster (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

In addition, this version says specifically that the song is sung to the same tune as "Good Morning to you." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.163.59.6 (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

2013 lawsuit

the article doesn't mention what the judge ruled, only the arguments. well? who won? kind of an important detail to skip over --92.193.28.8 (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

There hasn't been a decision yet. Jonathunder (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Decision was just announced. DMacks (talk) 02:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Not public domain

"However on a September 22, 2015 court ruling the song was made public domain as a federal judged argued that the copyright claim was invalid" -- This is not completely true. Warner's claims to the song are invalid but the copyright status is technically "orphaned".68.203.4.62 (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

This news story says "Happy Birthday to You, has been brought into the public domain". 165.225.98.66 (talk) 04:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
It entered the public domain in 1912 when it was published without a copyright notice per the 1909 Copyright Act.80.1.154.246 (talk) 09:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
My copyright attorney tells me that all works of art are automatically copyrighted as soon as you publish them. You can harden your copyright by registering it, he says. He also says it only goes in to the public domain if you say so, or if it stale dates. YMMV. Checkingfax (talk) 10:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
The relevant law is the one that applied at the time, not what applies today. Works published prior to 1978 were required to affix a copyright notice to claim copyright, and required to register their copyright if they wanted to extend their copyright term beyond an initial 28-year term. Dragons flight (talk) 10:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no "orphan" for lyrics published before 1923, everything there is PD by default you have to assert copyright not the other way around. 1. No one else is currently claiming copyright in the courts. 2. Both sides agreed the melody itself is public domain. 3. The lyrics were first published in 1911 predating 1923. Any claim of orphan is an assertion of copyright, and that would require evidence that a valid claim of copyright exists. And there is none now that Warner was denied copyright. -- GreenC 17:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Green Cardamom, with respect, I think you misunderstand what an orphan work is.
More importantly, your interpretation of the copyright status of the lyrics, while definitely arguable, is just your interpretation of the facts and the law. The decision did not hold that the work is public domain. Indeed, the decision recognized that there were earlier publications, but the evidence is not clear whether those publications were divestitive of copyright. So there was just insufficient evidence for the court to say the work was public domain. Instead, the court could only make assessments based on the existing evidence -- which is that Warner could not prove that it owned the copyright. As a practical matter, then, there are no current claimants, and so users around the world (yes, the world) can treat it as a public domain work (assuming the decision stands on appeal, as I believe it will). But in reporting on the judicial decision, it is absolutely inaccurate to say that the court said that the work was in the public domain. You will not find that anywhere in the text of the opinion, and luckily the major sources I have seen have not misstated the opinion in the text of their articles. The ABC article is actually a Reuters article and it's wrong. I'm not sure if that's because the first paragraph was an extra lede added, or if Reuters just got it wrong, but it's only one source, and all the other media sources that I listed (see below) get it right. --Lquilter (talk) 02:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

According to this "Judge George H. King ruled that a copyright filed by the Summy Co. in 1935 granted only the rights to specific piano arrangements of the music, not the actual song." This means the lyrics can be safely added to the article, and the music can also, so long as it's not the "specific piano arrangements" that are still copyright. What those arrangements are is not yet clear. -- GreenC 14:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I think this should all be more carefully discussed on this talk page. In the excitement it seems to have been forgotten that this latest (very welcome!) ruling affects only the US. Edits need to distinguish the US case from the wider issue. On the face of it, if Patty and Mildred really wrote the tune together (rather than, for example, hearing it somewhere), then there is still a year or so under the EU 70 years from death of composer rule; and this is much more clearcut than the Warner shenanigans. (Do Warner claim any rights outside the US?) Imaginatorium (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
The servers are located in the USA and that is where laws for content hosted on Wikimedia servers apply. Not a new discussion or first time it has come up. -- GreenC 16:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Also the melody itself is not copyright, neither side in the court case claimed it is. See page 10. -- GreenC 16:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

UK & Rule of the shorter term

"An exception to this rule is enjoyed in the UK, however, since the melody's original US copyright lapsed during the 1912–1956 period that the UK followed the Berne Convention Comparison of Terms (AKA Rule of the Shorter Term)."

What does that actually mean in terms of when the copyright ends/ended in the UK? -- KTC (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Original research is the simple answer. When applied the Rule of the Shorter Term means a work produced in Country A only enjoys copyright protection in Country B for as long as it's in copyright in Country A. However the copyright status in the US seems a confusd mess that it's impossible to start making assertions that take assumptions and apply them to other countries. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Two comments Sept 23, 2015

I read part of the article and see two problems: 1. the claim that blowing out the birthday candles insures that the wish will be fulfilled. This is correct, except that the superstition/customary belief I grew up with (Michigan, 1950s & 60s) is that you must blow them ALL out in one SINGLE breath, and that the wish remain a secret (at least, during the party). 2. The lyrics: For younger children, there is (in my locale) a second verse: "How Old Are You? How Old Are You? How Old, Dear [name of child], How Old Are You." After which the parent will either ask the child how old s/he is, or ask them to count the candles...now that I think about it, I'm not sure if this verse is sung before the candles are blown out or afterwards. (perhaps it depends on how fast they are burning down.) One last thing: the very young or those without adequate breath are often helped by one or more people in blowing out the candles. In the case of the very young, this may be done surreptitiously, without his/her awareness. Older adults (or parents of young children) may ask the youngsters to help. All of this is flexible, and varies from party to party. FWIW.216.96.79.108 (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

With regard to your point #1: What you describe is exactly the same widespread understanding I grew up with (1970s and 1980s Los Angeles). These two data points aren't a valid source, but I think they constitute a valid rebuttal to the current claim made in the article. With regard to #2, I have heard a variety of variations and additions to the song, although not the one you mention, so this may be more region- and time-dependent than your first point. — Lawrence King (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
According to a very amusing episode of Seinfeld, it's possible to give one's birthday wish to Newman. However, I'm not sure that or any of these other customs are supported by reliable secondary sources. Jonathunder (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

What about the people who already paid royalties to use the song?

Are they entitled to a refund? Special VU (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The court didn't address that. After they exhaust all appeals, those who paid would have a right to ask for a refund and if they refuse then likely a class action since it's so many. Or there may be no legal basis to ask for a refund depending on the laws. -- GreenC 01:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
The court didn't address that in this opinion. That portion of the case will be handled separately, so there will be a decision on that as well. This decision may yet be appealed by Warner. --Lquilter (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

"Public domain"

The decision did not say that the song's lyrics are in the public domain; it simply said that Warner/Chappell was not able to prove that they had the rights to the song. This likely means that the song is de facto public domain, because there are no other claimants to the lyrics; but the judge did not make that holding. The press articles cited also do not make that claim. Some headlines misleadingly say that it's in the public domain, but headlines are not themselves reliable sources, because they are often written by a copy editor, not the author of the story.

  • For instance, the Wall Street Journal headline and the caption in the image says "Federal Judge Rules 'Happy Birthday' Song in Public Domain", but if you read the article, you will see that in fact nowhere in the text of the article does the author of the article actually say that -- as indeed, they really couldn't, because the judge didn't make that holding. WSJ Headlines are very often not written by the author, and are not themselves reliable sources.
  • Here's another article, in The Hollywood Reporter, which is also very careful to not say the song is "in the public domain": http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/happy-birthday-copyright-ruled-be-826528 . Eriq Gardner is an excellent reporter on copyright matters, and this is a mainstream "reliable" source.
  • The NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/business/media/happy-birthday-copyright-invalidated-by-judge.html, discusses the decision; again, you can see that they do not say that the decision holds the work to be in the public domain; rather, that the plaintiffs' lawyers are quoted as saying that the work would be in the public domain, de facto: "If the judge’s ruling stands, “Happy Birthday to You” would become part of the public domain. “Since no one else has ever claimed to own the copyright, we believe that as a practical matter, this means the song is public property,” said Mark C. Rifkin, a lawyer for the plaintiffs."
  • The LAT article, http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-happy-birthday-song-lawsuit-decision-20150922-story.html, similarly does not say that the lyrics are in the public domain, or that the decision says they are. It does note that the plaintiffs' attorneys say the song is now publicly available -- no direct quote, although one is given in the NYT article that's a little clear. It also quotes Robert Brauneis (the legal scholar who did much of the legwork on the song) as noting that there is now an open question as to whether the work is in the public domain or if there is some heir that might own it. (In copyright law, we call works with that indeterminate status an "orphan work".) So again, the decision did not say the song is in the PD; and the news article does not report the decision as saying that.

User:Green Cardamom was concerned about an earlier edit I made explaining this, and apparently that editor or someone else reverted and put the information back in about public domain. I have taken out that statement, as it is not supported by the press articles listed, and is definitely not supported by the opinion itself. The decision did NOT (and could not) find the work was in the public domain; it can only adjudicate the evidence presented, which was just Warner / Chappell's claims. We really owe it to our readers to not replicate misleading headlines and twitter streams, and carefully read sources to not mis-state what they are saying.

--Lquilter (talk)

Additional sourcing: A blog post on The Atlantic is cited for the proposition that the decision says the song is in the public domain (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/09/happy-birthday-public-domain/406867/). This is a blog posting, not an article from The Atlantic magazine. While it's published, it's not fact-checked, etc., so it's not of the same caliber as a fact-checked article. --Lquilter (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
It's true that the court case did not specifically rule on whether the lyrics were public domain or not, only that Warner did not own the copyright to the lyrics. (The case did make it pretty clear though that it would be difficult for anyone to successfully claim intact copyright on the lyrics, even Patty Hill.)[8] Kaldari (talk) 08:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of what the judge said, the public at large now sees this work as being in the public domain. Legally speaking, every work in the public domain could be challenged at any time if someone came forward with a claim of copyright. A valid copyright claim would overrule a work from being in the public domain. So could a new law retroactive bringing PD works into copyright again (this has happened). Despite this, we still call works PD on Wikipedia when there is no valid claim and they otherwise fulfill the criteria for PD (predate 1923 etc.). The article must state somewhere the commonly held belief that the work is in the public domain which is support by numerous sources. -- GreenC 13:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Predating 1923 is not the criteria. It's pre-dating 1923 with an authorized publication in the US. The question of whether the publication is authorized is unsettled.
I don't have a problem with stating the commonly held belief that the song is in the public domain (if cited), as long as it is actually clear that the decision did not so hold, and that distinction is really clear in the text. I'm talking about what the decision held. We can also discuss, at length, the scholarship and commentary discussing the copyright status of the song. (The Brauneis article does so at length and is the most comprehensive discussion of this question, and does conclude that both lyrics and melody are likely in public domain.) But we absolutely cannot misrepresent the holdings of the court, even if in media frenzy, some media commentators are misrepresenting it. In fact, we should probably discuss the confusion in the initial reporting, while summarizing the actual holding (with cites to both media and decision). --Lquilter (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
That's a long document so I searched on "public domain" and can't find a clear quote saying they believe it's in the public domain. I may be missing the bigger picture if you have any suggestions how it might be deployed in this article. -- GreenC 16:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
At this juncture I would simply describe the court holding. I think that's simplest. We could say, "Although sometimes characterized as placing the song in the public domain, [cite Atlantic, Reuters] the court's decision was actually more limited, holding just that Warner/Chappell had not proven that they owned a copyright in the work.[cite to opinion; cite to LAT etc. describing the opinion]"
My proposal to include Brauneis was really aimed just at addressing what I thought you wanted to include -- discussion of confusion and likelihood of the work being in the public domain. He's the major source of scholarship on this point, so I would start with him. --Lquilter (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok I added something. I think it's important to add a mention about the perception among some reliable sources that is now effectively (defacto?) public domain, alongside the technical ruling which is emphasized three times (lead section and twice in the body). Not sure where to add Brauneis since it predates the ruling. Maybe as an external link? -- GreenC 14:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The 1922 publication

I removed the sentence "The judge found the lyrics were first published in 1922, predating the 1935 copyright by Warner/Chappell."

The judge did not find this as a fact. This fact was undisputed. On the issue the judge found that it was a trialable issue of fact as to wether or not permission was granted for the lyrics to appear in this text, and denied a motion of summar judgement declearing the work to be in the public domain as a result of the publication of this work. 85.19.71.131 (talk) 09:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Your assertion contradicts User:Lquilter who said above that the judge said nothing about it being in the public domain. It also contradicts a reliable source. So which is it? Might I suggest linking to the judgement and citing page and line numbers when making an assertion so that it can be verified. Here is the judgement. -- GreenC 13:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
The anonymous editor is right, and not contradicting me -- I think it's just hard to parse the lengthy sentence. The court found that whether the 1922 publication was authorized was found as a triable issue of fact. pp.21-22 of the PDF:

"Plaintiffs’ strongest evidence in support of their divestive publication defense is the publication of Happy Birthday in The Everyday Song Book in 1922. Unlike the other publications in the record, the publisher of The Everyday Song Book appears to have had the permission of at least Summy Co. to print Good Morning and Happy Birthday. ... If the publication was authorized, that could make it a general publication (without proper copyright notice), divesting the Hill sisters of their common law copyright. ... [But] [a]s Defendants point out, there is no direct evidence that the Hill sisters had authorized Summy Co. to grant permission for the publication of the lyrics in The Everyday Song Book. ... Since the publication of The Everyday Song Book would not be sufficient to entitle Plaintiffs to a directed verdict, Plaintiffs cannot satisfy their initial burden under Rule 56. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED as to this issue."

--Lquilter (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

McCartney?

Through the 1980s and 1990s it was often said that Paul McCartney held the rights to this song. There is no mention of this in the article. Was it an urban legend? Kingturtle = (talk) 16:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

It was often said? -- GreenC 16:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I had also heard similar rumors. Unless McCartney was an investor in Warner, it was strictly urban legend. The Beetles did have a birthday song, but it shares neither melody nor words with Happy Birthday to You. I hope this helps, 18/32. :) Etamni | ✉ | ✓  10:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we should have a separate article about various urban legends about Happy Birthday. -- More seriously, Kingturtle, if you have a reputable source for it being said, that demonstrates that this was a common belief, notable enough for inclusion in a general article about the song, then please let us know. --Lquilter (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

It was just a rumor going around in the 1990s. It's not a big deal. But here is one semi-reasonable site that mentions it. http://www.menshealth.com/best-life/happy-birthday-facts

Kingturtle = (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Lyrics with the melody

Can someone explain the small numeral "5" above the staff on the second line of the musical score? Jonathunder (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Does it indicate the continuation of the fifth measure? Can anyone proficient in reading sheet music confirm this? Jonathunder (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
It's the measure number, marking the beginning of the fifth full measure (you don't count the pick-up measure at the beginning). – Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Happy birthday to John?

Currently we follow the earliest published version of the song and give the third line as "Happy birthday to John," which experience daily shows is an invitation to vandalism. Perhaps we should use instead the version published in the court opinion (page 2), which gives the line as "Happy birthday dear [NAME]". Since that is the court-approved version of the lyrics, I consider it to have greater authority than the historical use, and while I don't mean to be overly optimistic, perhaps it would somewhat reduce vandalism. Note also that my argument may be seen as one against my personal interest. John M Baker (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that using a generic/placeholder is better for the main discussion, unless we are actually talking about a specific publication or use of them. Helps emphasize that it's for "whoever is mentioned". So, I guess "hope you have a crappy birthday, John":) DMacks (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

the song would have been copyrighted till 2013 1893+120=2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.5.70.112 (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

punctuation error

In the phrase "the filmmakers of the 1994 documentary, Hoop Dreams," the film title is a restrictive appositive, so should not have a comma before and after it. 2605:A601:4100:3300:2306:3E9B:EE82:C306 (talk) 07:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

No longer listed as a vital article

I am removing the vital article template as this article is no longer listed as a vital article in that project. Users at the vital article article project, which the template is linked to, have discussed, voted and come to a consensus the article about the song "Happy Birthday to You" is no longer to be listed as a vital article in the expanded 10'000 article list.

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_51#Remove_Happy_Birthday_to_You

[9]

Any issues, please discus here, or at the project, thank you.  Carlwev  15:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Happy Birthday to You. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

caption?

I think a caption would be helpful to accompany the article but I am not sure exactly what to add. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Suggested addition

Due to the article being locked to anonymous editors, I can't add this myself, but maybe someone else can. In 1964 the comedy duo of Homer and Jethro recorded a gallows humor song called "Joe Bean". The original single (visible here) was marked "Do not divulge the ending." A possible reason for this is that the song incorporates a traditional chorus of "Happy Birthday to You" at the end, and the song was still well in copyright in 1964. Johnny Cash recorded a version for his 1966 album, Everybody Loves a Nut, but it doesn't include the disclaimer. Later, when Cash recorded a version of "Joe Bean" for his live album, At Folsom Prison, he sang only the first line of the chorus. 136.159.160.122 (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Proving wrong

I have seen that "Are you one? Are you..." thing that the Article says is done in Canada, in multiple places here in the United States.

Namethatisnotinuse (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Happy Birthday melody

Consider adding that the Happy Birthday melody is a derivative of Beethoven's Sonata for violin and piano no. 5 in F major op. 24 "spring". A substantial portion of the melody can be heard there and it is very likely that Mildred Hill was referencing Beethoven's melody since she is considered a songwriter and musicologist. This would atleast put the earliest version of the melody back to 1801 unless Beethoven derived the melody from another prominent musician.

65.255.181.151 (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea! But wikipedia articles need to be based on cited references that are considered "reliable", not just what we might notice on our own and then figure out from there as original research/synthesized ideas. DMacks (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Happy_Birthday_to_You/Archive_1&oldid=1243348571"