Warner/Chappell Dismiss Evidence Apparently Proving 'Happy Birthday' Has No Copyright

The protracted court battle over whether classic celebration song Happy Birthday should be public domain continues, with ostensible rights-holders Warner-Chappell shooting down evidence from opposing lawyers that a newly discovered 1922 songbook proves their copyright claims to the composition are invalid.

The case has been in motion since 2013, when a class-action complaint against the label was issued to challenge its assertion that people should pay money to publicly perform the English-speaking world's best-known song. As we reported back in March, Warner/Chappell have been exercising their control over rights to the song since 1935, when the company lodged a federal copyright registration for the song, and it is the validity of this registration that is now being called into question.

In addition, lawyers for the plaintiffs raised a motion that Warner/Chappell's team were withholding information, though the company's legal team has dismissed that notion too, saying, "Warner/Chappell was not hiding that or other documents or proceeding in bad faith."

As Ars Technica notes, the songbook at the centre of the case's latest development was published in 1922 without a copyright notice but "with a notice giving 'special permission through courtesy of the Calyton F. Summy Co.'", which prosecuting lawyers say unravels Warner's copyright registration because "publishing the lyrics without a copyright notice should have forfeited any copyright and, even if it didn't, copyright on the 1922 songbook expired in 1949" — a solid 14 years after Warner registered its own copyright claim. However, Ars Technica says, credited author Patty Hill explained back in 1942 that she was unaware "of any publication that contained the Good Morning To You lyrics 'with her permission'".

Thus, lawyers for Warner/Chappell maintain that the statement's ambiguity and questionable origin doesn't automatically wipe their claims out of existence.

"That statement does not say what the 'special permission' was for", Warner/Chappell's lawyers wrote. "Was it for [source melody] Good Morning To All only? Was it for that work in combination with the Happy Birthday lyrics?"

"It is possible that The Cable Company's applications and/or deposit copies to the Copyright Office might have some further information bearing on these matters, although we have not seen these," the lawyers said.

The case is ongoing. Read more about the history of Happy Birthday here.