Editing Happy Birthday to You (section)

=== 2013 lawsuit ===
On June 13, 2013, documentary filmmaker [[Jennifer Nelson (filmmaker)|Jennifer Nelson]] filed a putative [[Class action|class action suit]] in federal court for the [[United States District Court for the Southern District of New York|Southern District of New York]] against Warner/Chappell in the name of her production company Good Morning to You Productions.<ref name=Masnick/> She had paid {{US$}}1,500 to secure the rights as part of a documentary that she was making about the song and its history. Her complaint relied heavily on Brauneis's research, and sought the return of her money and all royalties collected by the company from other filmmakers since 2009.<ref name="ages" /><ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.scribd.com/doc/147645129/Happybirthday |title= Class Action Complaint: Good Morning to You Productions v. Warner/Chappell Music |via= Scribd.com |date= June 13, 2013 |access-date= September 9, 2017 |archive-date= April 30, 2019 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20190430112110/https://www.scribd.com/doc/147645129/happybirthday |url-status= live }}</ref> A week later, ''[[Rupa Marya]] v. Warner Chappell Music Inc'' was filed in the Central District of California.<ref name=Dkt>{{cite web|url=https://archive.org/details/gov.uscourts.cacd.564772|title=Case docket: Rupa Marya v. Warner Chappell Music Inc|work=archive.org|access-date=September 15, 2015}}</ref> Five weeks later, Nelson refiled the case there,<ref>Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, ''Good Morning To You Productions Corp. v. Warner/Chappell Music'', Docket No. 1:13-cv-04040 (S.D.N.Y. filed July 26, 2013).</ref> and the cases were combined.<ref>Third Amended Consolidated Complaint, ''Good Morning to You Productions Corp. v. Warner/Chappell Music'', Docket No. 2:13-cv-04460 (C.D. Cal. November 6, 2013).</ref><ref>{{cite news |last= Masnick |first= Mike |url= http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130903/17133224395/warner-music-reprising-role-evil-slayer-public-domain-fights-back-against-happy-birthday-lawsuit.shtml |title= Warner Music Reprising the Role of the Evil Slayer of the Public Domain, Fights Back Against Happy Birthday Lawsuit |work= Techdirt |date= September 3, 2013 |access-date= October 14, 2013 |archive-date= November 3, 2013 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20131103223251/http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130903/17133224395/warner-music-reprising-role-evil-slayer-public-domain-fights-back-against-happy-birthday-lawsuit.shtml |url-status= live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last= Johnson |first= Ted |url= https://variety.com/2013/biz/news/court-keeps-candles-lit-on-dispute-over-happy-birthday-copyright-1200703048/ |title= Court Keeps Candles Lit on Dispute Over 'Happy Birthday' Copyright |work= Variety |date= October 7, 2013 |access-date= December 11, 2017 |archive-date= June 28, 2017 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170628023627/http://variety.com/2013/biz/news/court-keeps-candles-lit-on-dispute-over-happy-birthday-copyright-1200703048/ |url-status= live }}</ref> In April 2014, Warner's motion to dismiss had been denied without prejudice, and discovery began under an agreed plan with respect to Claim One, declaratory judgment as to whether "Happy Birthday to You" was in the public domain. The court was expected to rule on the motion for summary judgment as to the merits issues on Claim One.<ref>Dkt. 89 (Joint Report Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan)</ref> A jury trial was requested.<ref>Amended Complaint, Dkt. 75.</ref>

Nelson's attorneys Betsy Manifold and Mark Rifkin presented new evidence on July 28, 2015, one day before a scheduled ruling, which they argued was conclusive proof that the song was in the public domain, "thus making it unnecessary for the Court to decide the scope or validity of the disputed copyrights, much less whether Patty Hill abandoned any copyright she may have had to the lyrics". They had been given access to documents previously held back from them by Warner/Chappell, which included a copy of the 15th edition of ''The Everyday Song Book'' published in 1927. The book contained "Good Morning and Happy Birthday", but the copy was blurry, obscuring a line of text below the title. Manifold and Rifkin located a clearer copy of an edition published in 1922 that also contained the "Happy Birthday" lyrics. The previously obscured line was revealed to be the credit "Special permission through courtesy of The Clayton F Summy Co." Manifold and Rifkin argued that the music and lyrics were published without a valid copyright notice as was required at the time, so "Happy Birthday" was in the public domain.<ref name=thr-newevidence>{{cite news |title= 'Happy Birthday' Lawsuit: 'Smoking Gun' Emerges in Bid to Free World's Most Popular Song |url= http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/happy-birthday-lawsuit-smoking-gun-811144 |work= [[The Hollywood Reporter]] |access-date= July 28, 2015 |archive-date= December 28, 2015 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20151228163056/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/happy-birthday-lawsuit-smoking-gun-811144 |url-status= live }}</ref>

Warner/Chappell disputed the evidence, arguing that, unless there was "necessary authorization from the copyright owner", the "Happy Birthday" lyrics and sheet music would still be subject to [[common law copyright]] as an unpublished work, and that it was unknown whether the "special permission" from the Summy Company covered "Good Morning to All", "Happy Birthday", or both, thus alleging that the publication in ''The Everyday Song Book'' was unauthorized. The company also argued that it was not acting in bad faith in withholding the evidence of the 1927 publication.<ref name=ars-commonlaw>{{cite web |title=Warner Lawyers: 1922 Songbook with 'Happy Birthday' Lyrics Wasn't 'Authorized' |url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/07/warner-lawyers-1922-songbook-with-happy-birthday-lyrics-wasnt-authorized/ |website=[[Ars Technica]] |date=July 29, 2015 |access-date=July 30, 2015 |archive-date=July 30, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150730142246/http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/07/warner-lawyers-1922-songbook-with-happy-birthday-lyrics-wasnt-authorized/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

On September 22, 2015, federal judge [[George H. King (judge)|George H. King]] ruled<ref name="US District Court CA">{{harvp|US District Court CA|2015}}.</ref> that the Warner/Chappell copyright claim over the lyrics was invalid.<ref name=maiduc>{{cite news |url= http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-happy-birthday-song-lawsuit-decision-20150922-story.html |title= 'Happy Birthday' Song Copyright Is Not Valid, Judge Rules |date= September 22, 2015 |first= Christine |last= Mai-Duc |newspaper= Los Angeles Times |access-date= September 22, 2015 |archive-date= September 23, 2015 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20150923014052/http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-happy-birthday-song-lawsuit-decision-20150922-story.html |url-status= live }}</ref><ref name=thr-bdaypd>{{cite news |first= Eriq |last= Gardner |date= September 22, 2015 |title= 'Happy Birthday' Copyright Ruled to Be Invalid |url= http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/happy-birthday-copyright-ruled-be-826528 |work= The Hollywood Reporter |access-date= September 23, 2015 |archive-date= September 23, 2015 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20150923142246/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/happy-birthday-copyright-ruled-be-826528 |url-status= live }}</ref> The 1935 copyright held by Warner/Chappell applied only to a specific piano arrangement of the song, not the lyrics or melody.<ref name=hunt>{{cite news |url= https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/23/us-judge-rules-happy-birthday-is-public-domain-throws-out-copyright-claim |title= Happy Birthday Ruled Public Domain as Judge Throws out Copyright Claim |work= [[The Guardian]] |location= London |first= Elle |last= Hunt |date= September 23, 2015 |access-date= September 23, 2015 |archive-date= September 23, 2015 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20150923232639/http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/23/us-judge-rules-happy-birthday-is-public-domain-throws-out-copyright-claim |url-status= live }}</ref> The court held that the question of whether the 1922 and 1927 publications were authorized, thus placing the song in the public domain, presented questions of fact that would need to be resolved at trial.<ref name="US District Court CA" /> However, Warner/Chappell had failed to prove that it actually had ever held a copyright to the lyrics, so the court was able to grant [[summary judgment]] to the plaintiffs, thus resolving the case.<ref name="US District Court CA" />

Some initial news sources characterized the decision as ruling that the song was in the public domain,<ref name=hunt/><ref name=calamur>{{cite web |url= https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/09/happy-birthday-public-domain/406867 |title= Unchained Melody |work= [[The Atlantic]] |first= Krishnadev |last= Calamur |date= September 22, 2015 |access-date= September 23, 2015 |archive-date= September 23, 2015 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20150923111033/http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/09/happy-birthday-public-domain/406867/ |url-status= live }}</ref> but the decision did not go so far, holding only that Warner/Chappell did not prove they owned the copyright.<ref name=maiduc/> However, as there were no other claimants to the copyright, and the copyright to the melody had long ago expired,<ref>{{harvp|US District Court CA|2015|pp=14–16}}.</ref> the plaintiffs suggested that the song was ''de facto'' in the public domain.<ref name=maiduc /> Also, the judge ruled that the song was not copyrighted by Summy Co., who had written in the song book, "Special permission through courtesy of the Clayton F. Summy Co." Since there was no evidence Summy Co. had copyright on the song, the song is still considered to be in the public domain.<ref>{{Cite news |first= Christine |last= Mai-Duc |date= September 23, 2015 |title= Filmmaker Picks a Fight with a Corporate Giant and Sets 'Happy Birthday' Free |url= http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-how-the-happy-birthday-song-was-set-free-20150923-story.html |work= Los Angeles Times |access-date= February 24, 2016 |archive-date= February 24, 2016 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160224071416/http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-how-the-happy-birthday-song-was-set-free-20150923-story.html |url-status= live }}</ref>

Before the lawsuit, Warner/Chappell had been earning $2 million a year licensing the song for commercial use,<ref name="calamur" /> with a notable example the $5,000 paid by the filmmakers of the 1994 documentary ''Hoop Dreams''<ref>{{cite interview |last= Quinn |first= Gordon |interviewer= Bob Garfield |title= Truth and Consequences |type= Transcript |url= http://www.onthemedia.org/story/132349-truth-and-consequences/transcript/ |work= On the Media |date= May 8, 2009 |access-date= December 12, 2015 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20151222122153/http://www.onthemedia.org/story/132349-truth-and-consequences/transcript/ |archive-date= December 22, 2015 |url-status= dead |df= mdy-all }}</ref> in order to safely distribute the film.<ref>{{cite web |title= 'Happy Birthday', 'Hoop Dreams', and the Fight for Fair Use |url= https://www.kartemquin.com/news/happy-birthday-hoop-dreams-and-the-fight-for-fair-use |publisher= Kartemquin Films |date= September 22, 2015 |access-date= December 12, 2015 |archive-date= December 22, 2015 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20151222093712/https://www.kartemquin.com/news/happy-birthday-hoop-dreams-and-the-fight-for-fair-use |url-status= live }}</ref> On February 8, 2016, Warner/Chappell agreed to pay a settlement of $14 million to those who had licensed the song, and would allow a final judgment declaring the song to be in the public domain, with a final hearing scheduled in March 2016.<ref name="thr-14million">{{cite news |first= Eriq |last= Gardner |date= February 9, 2016 |title= Warner Music Pays $14 Million to End 'Happy Birthday' Copyright Lawsuit |url= http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/warner-music-pays-14-million-863120 |work= The Hollywood Reporter |access-date= February 9, 2016 |archive-date= February 10, 2016 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160210075924/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/warner-music-pays-14-million-863120 |url-status= live }}</ref><ref name="cbc-settlement">{{cite news |date= February 9, 2016 |title= Happy Birthday: Warner Offers up to $14M to Settle Copyright Dispute |url= http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/happy-birthday-settlement-1.3440182 |work= CBC News |access-date= February 9, 2016 |archive-date= February 10, 2016 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160210010726/http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/happy-birthday-settlement-1.3440182 |url-status= live }}</ref> On June 28, 2016, the final settlement was officially granted and the court declared that the song was in the public domain.<ref name="settlement2016" /> The following week, Nelson's short-form documentary ''Happy Birthday: My Campaign to Liberate the People's Song'' was published online by ''[[The Guardian]]''.<ref name="techdirt-bdaydoc">{{cite web|title=Documentary About Freeing Happy Birthday From Copyfraud Comes Out The Day After Happy Birthday Officially Declared Public Domain|url=https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160701/17352234877/documentary-about-freeing-happy-birthday-copyfraud-comes-out-day-after-happy-birthday-officially-declared-public-domain.shtml|website=Techdirt|date=July 5, 2016|access-date=July 13, 2016|archive-date=July 6, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160706155705/https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160701/17352234877/documentary-about-freeing-happy-birthday-copyfraud-comes-out-day-after-happy-birthday-officially-declared-public-domain.shtml|url-status=live}}</ref>

In the wake of their success, the lawyers involved in the "Happy Birthday" lawsuit filed similar lawsuits regarding "[[We Shall Overcome]]"<ref name="billboard-weshalllawsuit">{{cite magazine|title='Happy Birthday' Legal Team Turns Attention to 'We Shall Overcome'|url=http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/7332976/we-shall-overcome-public-domain-lawsuit-copyright|magazine=Billboard|date=April 12, 2016|access-date=April 15, 2016|archive-date=April 16, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160416042957/http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/7332976/we-shall-overcome-public-domain-lawsuit-copyright|url-status=live}}</ref> and "[[This Land Is Your Land]]".<ref>{{cite web|last1=Farivar|first1=Cyrus|title=Lawyers who yanked 'Happy Birthday' into public domain now sue over 'This Land'|url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/lawyers-who-yanked-happy-birthday-into-public-domain-now-sue-over-this-land/|access-date=August 18, 2016|website=Ars Technica|date=June 18, 2016|archive-date=August 13, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170813010506/https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/lawyers-who-yanked-happy-birthday-into-public-domain-now-sue-over-this-land/|url-status=live}}</ref>