A district court judge in the Central District of California
issued an order in Rupa Marya, et al. v. Warner/Chappell Music,
Inc., et al. (Case. No. CV 13-4460-GHK (MRWx) granting the
plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment seeking to invalidate
the copyright to the lyrics of the song "Happy Birthday To
You."
The Court's decision turned on what it deemed as the failure of
the purported author of the lyrics to assign her rights to the
lyrics to Warner/Chappell's successor in interest. While the
rights to the "Happy Birthday" melody were properly
transferred, the lyrics were not, and the Court ruled that the
asserted copyright to the lyrics is invalid. The ruling could
potentially put an end to the millions of dollars that the
publishing company, Warner/Chappell collects each year in licensing
revenue for the use of the lyrics.
The facts underlying this case date back more than a century to
1893 when two sisters, Mildred and Patty Hill, wrote the melody to
a song entitled "Good Morning To All," which has
the same melody that traditionally accompanies the "Happy
Birthday" lyrics, and even has similar lyrics (i.e
"Good morning to you, Good morning to you"). The Hill
sisters assigned their rights to "Good Morning to All" to
Clayton F. Summy, who subsequently obtained a copyright
registration for "Good Morning to All" that expired in
1949. As a result the traditional melody of the "Happy
Birthday" song has long been in the public domain, a fact not
disputed by the parties. Rather, the parties' dispute focus
only on the "Happy Birthday" lyrics.
At some time after 1893 (the record is not clear) people began
singing the traditional "Happy Birthday" lyrics
to the "Good Morning To All" melody. The lyrics were
published several times between 1911 and 1935, when the Clayton F.
Summy Company obtained a copyright registration for a work entitled
"Happy Birthday To You." In a 1942 lawsuit, the Hill
sisters disputed the Summy Company's right to obtain a
copyright to the "Happy Birthday to You" work covered by
the registration, but as part of the 1944 settlement of the
lawsuit, they assigned to the Summy Company all of their rights in
the work. This copyright registration, which Warner/Chappell
subsequently obtained and the plaintiffs now seek to invalidate,
has served as the basis for seeking royalties for the use of the
"Happy Birthday" lyrics.
To support their claim that Warner/Chappell's copyright to the
"Happy Birthday" lyrics is invalid, the
plaintiffs presented several arguments including that Patty Hill
did not write the "Happy Birthday" lyrics (as she
claimed), and that Ms. Hill had either divested or abandoned any
rights she possessed in the lyrics due to the widespread
publication of the lyrics prior to the 1935 issuance of the
copyright registration for the "Happy Birthday"
work. The court found that genuine issues of material fact existed
concerning these issues, and denied the parties' cross-motions
for summary judgment on these issues.
However, the Court did find credence in plaintiffs' argument
that even assuming that the Hill sisters possessed rights to the
"Happy Birthday" lyrics, they did not transfer
those rights to the Summy Company, thereby invalidating
Warner/Chappel's asserted copyright to the lyrics. Upon
analyzing the agreements between the Hill sisters and the Summy
Company, the court determined that the Hill sisters assigned only
their rights "Happy Birthday" melody, and at no time
transferred or sought to transfer any rights to the lyrics. In
addition to finding no support in the Hill/Summy agreements, the
court noted that there was no evidence apart from the agreements
that the Hill sisters claimed or intended to transfer rights to the
lyrics to the Summy Company. The sisters never fought to protect or
tried to obtain a copyright for the "Happy
Birthday" lyrics on their own (even though Patty claimed
to have written the lyrics). Furthermore, after the Hill sisters
transferred their rights to the Summy Company, although the company
filed several lawsuits alleging infringement of its rights to
"Happy Birthday," it never asserted that the lyrics had
been infringed.
In conclusion, the Court held that because the Hill sisters never
transferred the copyright to the "Happy
Birthday" lyrics to the Summy Company, the company and
every successor in interest including Warner/Chappell did not own a
valid copyright to the lyrics and cannot properly assert them
against a party seeking to sing the lyrics.
The Court's ruling could potentially end Warner/Chappell's
reported $2 million in licensing revenue that it collects annually
for use of the "Happy Birthday" lyrics.
Originally published October 13, 2015
This article is intended to provide information of general interest to the public and is not intended to offer legal advice about specific situations or problems. Brinks Gilson & Lione does not intend to create an attorney-client relationship by offering this information and review of the information shall not be deemed to create such a relationship. You should consult a lawyer if you have a legal matter requiring attention. For further information, please contact a Brinks Gilson & Lione lawyer.