"Happy birthday to you", presumably. The copyright is owned (or at least claimed) by Warner/Chappell Music, and a derivative work is created every time someone's name is inserted into the third line.
I'd assume Gareth is correct for derivative works in general.
HBTY isn't used that frequently in broadcast / commercial settings, because of the notoriety of its status: if you hear it at all, it'll be a snippet that tries to evade a royalty claim under the auspices of fair use.
(And now I wonder whether the American practice of following it with "For s/he's a jolly good fellow" comes directly from the desire of film/TV people to indicate birthdays without shelling out for HBTY.)
The purported rights-holders -- the Brauneis paper covers why HBTY might be out of copyright -- argue that all public performances are subject to their authorisation.
In practice, there's a pragmatic standoff -- they can go after the film studios and TV production companies to claim a licence that's budgetary small change, but if they were to seek out a greater reward, chances are that the claim of ownership would end up facing the kind of legal scrutiny discussed by Brauneis.
The reclusive Chinese plutocrat Cai Yu, who copyrighted his name in the late nineteenth century. Only a complex phonetical defence allows us to say "happy birthday to...", "bless..." or "thank...".
Individual performances of HBTY aren't subject to copyright, though, are they? It's only the *recording* of such which is copyright-infringing.
I'm pretty sure that if a work is in copyright, then individual performances are infringing. If dsquared were to sell tickets for his live concert performance of "Poker Face" without getting permission from Lady Gaga, it would be no defence against Ms Gaga's copyright infringement suit that he was only performing the song, not recording it.
In principle, live performances are covered by copyright. This is why the Performing Rights Society will sometimes have a go at making you take out a licence for your pub even if you don't have canned music - because somebody might start singing a song there (if there's a piano in the corner they might even have a case!).
Nope and nope. The Authorised Version is Crown Copyright, but only in the UK and only applies to printing. Also, few people produce derivative works specifically of the KJV (as opposed to the Bible in general) - the whole point of the KJV to obsessives is that it's something to be stuck to word-for-word.
If dsquared were to sell tickets for his live concert performance of "Poker Face" without getting permission from Lady Gaga, it would be no defence against Ms Gaga's copyright infringement suit that he was only performing the song, not recording it.
OTOH, were he to get such permission, I would certainly buy one.
I don't think I need individual permission from Lady Gaga - the general PRS licence from whatever pub I can find that will allow me to perform "Poker Face" should cover it.
Although thinking about it, lots of bands do ban performances of their music at political rallies (ABBA recently dragged a bunch of fascists over the coals for this one), so I suspect that if Lady G got wind of this planned performance and really objected to it, she could put her foot down.
I should have used a theatre example, as I know a bit more about that. Individual live performances of plays are certainly subject to copyright, and you need explicit permission (which you have to pay the publishers for) in order to go ahead. I assumed the same was true of songs, but it isn't - or rather it is but the music licence of the venue covers it. If the venue doesn't have a licence, then you'd need to seek permission from the copyright owner directly or via the PRS (who would probably tell you to just get a temporary licence).
few people produce derivative works specifically of the KJV
Handel, Mendelssohn, but not many others. It's regularly quoted in live performances (or "sermons" as they're called) but I suspect this would be OK under fair use.
Danish fascists, whose party leader is a woman called Pia Kjaersgaard, nicknamed "Mama Pia". Apparently. Although of course there's a derivative-work aspect to it because they sing along the wrong words.
I'm fairly sure that following Campbell vs Acuff-Rose, any common-law jurisdiction would have have no chance of upholding a lawsuit in the style of the Danish fascists. In the US and UK, you can sing whatever song you like (as long as you pay the publisher) without the publisher's permission, and you can change the words for parody purposes, even if they're really unpleasant. What you can't do is use someone else's *copyrighted recording* without permission.
Note, too, that copyright in HBTY is probably bogus; various legal articles have made the point that the case is weak (there is prior art to burn) but that it's not worth the while of any one victim to spend the money to prove it. If I was Warren Buffet that would be one of the things I would enjoy wasting my money on.
rickroll
ReplyDeleteSpartacus, presumably
ReplyDelete"Happy birthday to you", presumably. The copyright is owned (or at least claimed) by Warner/Chappell Music, and a derivative work is created every time someone's name is inserted into the third line.
ReplyDeleteI was going to guess 'Steamboat Willie', but Gareth's guess seems like a good one.
ReplyDeleteI'd assume Gareth is correct for derivative works in general.
ReplyDeleteHBTY isn't used that frequently in broadcast / commercial settings, because of the notoriety of its status: if you hear it at all, it'll be a snippet that tries to evade a royalty claim under the auspices of fair use.
(And now I wonder whether the American practice of following it with "For s/he's a jolly good fellow" comes directly from the desire of film/TV people to indicate birthdays without shelling out for HBTY.)
Gareth is right!
ReplyDeleteIt's nice to be right, but I was only guessing. Time for you to reveal your sources.
ReplyDeleteOf course, whether the copyright on Happy Birthday To You is a valid one or not is actually a complex issue.
ReplyDeleteIndividual performances of HBTY aren't subject to copyright, though, are they? It's only the *recording* of such which is copyright-infringing.
ReplyDeleteThe purported rights-holders -- the Brauneis paper covers why HBTY might be out of copyright -- argue that all public performances are subject to their authorisation.
ReplyDeleteIn practice, there's a pragmatic standoff -- they can go after the film studios and TV production companies to claim a licence that's budgetary small change, but if they were to seek out a greater reward, chances are that the claim of ownership would end up facing the kind of legal scrutiny discussed by Brauneis.
The reclusive Chinese plutocrat Cai Yu, who copyrighted his name in the late nineteenth century. Only a complex phonetical defence allows us to say "happy birthday to...", "bless..." or "thank...".
ReplyDeleteIndividual performances of HBTY aren't subject to copyright, though, are they? It's only the *recording* of such which is copyright-infringing.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure that if a work is in copyright, then individual performances are infringing. If dsquared were to sell tickets for his live concert performance of "Poker Face" without getting permission from Lady Gaga, it would be no defence against Ms Gaga's copyright infringement suit that he was only performing the song, not recording it.
In principle, live performances are covered by copyright. This is why the Performing Rights Society will sometimes have a go at making you take out a licence for your pub even if you don't have canned music - because somebody might start singing a song there (if there's a piano in the corner they might even have a case!).
ReplyDeleteHmm, I would have said King James Bible meself (perpetual Crown Copyright)
ReplyDeleteNope and nope. The Authorised Version is Crown Copyright, but only in the UK and only applies to printing. Also, few people produce derivative works specifically of the KJV (as opposed to the Bible in general) - the whole point of the KJV to obsessives is that it's something to be stuck to word-for-word.
ReplyDeleteIf dsquared were to sell tickets for his live concert performance of "Poker Face" without getting permission from Lady Gaga, it would be no defence against Ms Gaga's copyright infringement suit that he was only performing the song, not recording it.
ReplyDeleteOTOH, were he to get such permission, I would certainly buy one.
I don't think I need individual permission from Lady Gaga - the general PRS licence from whatever pub I can find that will allow me to perform "Poker Face" should cover it.
ReplyDeleteAlthough thinking about it, lots of bands do ban performances of their music at political rallies (ABBA recently dragged a bunch of fascists over the coals for this one), so I suspect that if Lady G got wind of this planned performance and really objected to it, she could put her foot down.
ReplyDeleteI should have used a theatre example, as I know a bit more about that. Individual live performances of plays are certainly subject to copyright, and you need explicit permission (which you have to pay the publishers for) in order to go ahead.
ReplyDeleteI assumed the same was true of songs, but it isn't - or rather it is but the music licence of the venue covers it. If the venue doesn't have a licence, then you'd need to seek permission from the copyright owner directly or via the PRS (who would probably tell you to just get a temporary licence).
few people produce derivative works specifically of the KJV
Handel, Mendelssohn, but not many others.
It's regularly quoted in live performances (or "sermons" as they're called) but I suspect this would be OK under fair use.
Also: what sort of fascists listen to ABBA, for pete's sake? And what songs, specifically?
ReplyDeleteDanish fascists, whose party leader is a woman called Pia Kjaersgaard, nicknamed "Mama Pia". Apparently. Although of course there's a derivative-work aspect to it because they sing along the wrong words.
ReplyDeleteOh, I see. I was trying to think of ABBA songs that express a vaguely fascist ethos and had got as far as "The Winner Takes It All".
ReplyDeleteI'm fairly sure that following Campbell vs Acuff-Rose, any common-law jurisdiction would have have no chance of upholding a lawsuit in the style of the Danish fascists. In the US and UK, you can sing whatever song you like (as long as you pay the publisher) without the publisher's permission, and you can change the words for parody purposes, even if they're really unpleasant. What you can't do is use someone else's *copyrighted recording* without permission.
ReplyDeleteNote, too, that copyright in HBTY is probably bogus; various legal articles have made the point that the case is weak (there is prior art to burn) but that it's not worth the while of any one victim to spend the money to prove it. If I was Warren Buffet that would be one of the things I would enjoy wasting my money on.
ReplyDelete