Happy Birthday to You, Case Study Example

Abstract

In the following case, arbitration will be applied to the dispute between Bobby Bandleader and Johnny Singstealer. Singstealer owns the copyright to the song, ‘Happy Birthday to You’, and alleges that Bandleader has been flagrantly violating his ownership of the tune for years. He is suing Bandleader for one million dollars. The arbitration and ruling will be determined by attention to existing copyright laws, along with a relevant eye on the universal application of the song as this pertains to its having been perceived as belonging to the public domain.

Overview of the Case

For approximately twenty years, a feature of Bobby Bandleader’s popular bistro has been the expectation and delivery of the song, ‘Happy Birthday to you’, by and to his patrons. From the start Bandleader tailored a unique version of the standard and has been freely performing this in his restaurant with, according to Bandleader, no awareness of broaching any legal copyright.

Jimmy Singstealer is the current owner of the song’s copyright, which has been sold over the years to a variety of successive owners. The copyright itself has already been determined to be legal and in effect; consequently, any public performances of the song, as insisted upon by Singstealer, must be compensated for in royalty payments. Given the duration of Bandleader’s use of the song, Singstealer’s attorney are suing for the round sum of one million dollars. He is as well demanding that any future performances be prohibited. Both parties have agreed to submit to this arbitration, to resolve the case without incurring the need to go to trial.

Hard Legalities

From the outset, this arbitration accepts as acknowledged by all concerned parties that Singstealer does indeed own the copyright to the song in question and that the copyright law is a distinct reality, not to be sidestepped through technicalities. The right exists because of a long and hard-won battle, most notably exemplified by the attacks on Charles Dickens when, visiting in America in the 19^th century, he spoke out against the pirating of his work by Americans due to an absence then of any international copyright structure. Moreover, copyright does not just conveniently ‘fade away’: “One of the defining aspects of copyright as a property right is its intangible nature – the right can be replenished endlessly…There are no finite bounds on the property interest” (Golvan, 2007, p.2).

So, from a purely legal standpoint, Singstealer is within his rights to demand compensation. Not only is his ownership of the song evident, so too is there no doubt as to Bandleader’s having repeatedly performed the song in public, and without Singstealer’s consent or with any payment to same. As the copyright owner may dictate value, and given the length of time in which his property has been used, he is as well within his rights to name a figure he deems suitable as compensation. He has, too, the absolute right to demand future performances not occur. These are the facts as seen in the light of existing law.

Areas of Interpretation

The most apparent factor in this case is that Bandleader could plead ignorance of the song’s having a copyright status, and with great credibility. The song dates back to the late 19^th century and uncounted numbers of all kinds of creative work from this time, and indeed from later years, were sold and marketed prior to the instituting of copyright laws. Moreover, variations even within the work of one artist are not uncommon. “To use a well-known Irving Berlin song such as ‘Blue Skies’….you might have to pay Berlin’s heirs – the copyright owners of his songs – as much as $250,000. But you can use one of Berlin’s songs that has already entered the public domain, such as ‘Alexander’s Ragtime Band’, for free” (Fishman, 2010, p.9).

Given the universal usage of the song, ‘Happy Birthday to You’, over such an extended time, it would in fact be unusual for Bandleader to have assumed that the copyright was in place. Ignorance of the law, it is reminded, is never an excuse for violating it. Nonetheless, the hazy conceptions regarding public domain are not an inconsequential factor, most particularly in this instance. Simply put, the territory remains murky: “Current scholarship on the public domain…does not endeavor to draw it precisely, nor the box that should be containing it” (Torremans, 2007, p.162). We are dealing with the perhaps most frequently and unknowingly abused work as regards to copyright, and that widespread abuse must be taken into consideration as we arbitrate.

Resolution

That the creators of the song are long deceased is irrelevant to this decision; what is of concern is the product and the rights attached to it. This arbitration finds that Singstealer is wholly within his rights to both object to the violation of his copyright, and to demand recompense.

Nonetheless, the commonality of the article in question remains far too broad and enduring to ignore. It is probable that few, if any, people are actually aware that this song they randomly sing in homes and offices every day is protected, and this omnipresent mentality must play into a fair ruling.

Consequently, it appears that the single most important deciding factor here lies in the public, or commercial, use of the song Bandleader has made. It has been a draw to his business, he has profited by it, and the minor variations to it he has made are not relevant. The average citizen singing ‘Happy Birthday’ is not so obligated, and Bandleader should compensate Singstealer. That said, the sum in question is grossly excessive, and clearly arrived at through no meaningful calculation. This arbitration finds that Bandleader should pay Singstealer the sum of $10,000, to be paid in agreed-upon installments.  Moreover, Singstealer in accepting this payment grants Bandleader permission to perform the song in the future. Any objection to this on Singstealer’s part would give rise to an insistence that he seek out and sue every enterprise so using his property.

References

Fishman, S. (2010.)  The Public Domain: Use Copyright-Free Writings, Music, Art & More. Berkeley, CA: NOLO.

Golvan, C. (2007.)  Copyright Law and Practice. Sydney, Australia: the Federation Press.

Torremans, P. (2007.)  Copyright Law: A Handbook of Contemporary Research. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.