Talk:Happy Birthday to You

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Happy Birthday to You article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Louisville Portal
Happy Birthday to You is within the scope of WikiProject Louisville, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of metropolitan Louisville, Kentucky and related subjects in the Wikipedia.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
Please explain ratings on the ratings summary page.

Contents

[edit] 2003 discussion

Hey! Isn't including the full text of an editorial a copyright violation!? --Frecklefoot 18:12 22 May 2003 (UTC)

This article has great material in it...but it needs major NPOV editing. I like it though :) Kingturtle 18:43 22 May 2003 (UTC)

Note to J. Byron, who added a lot of material recently: Thanks for your huge contribution! Please consider signing in and creating a user page for yourself here. A couple of minor points to note though. We don't sign articles on Wikipedia, the credits are stored in the page history (and people list their work on their user page sometimes). Articles are written in an encyclopedic rather than reporting style, so first-person isn't appropriate. You don't need to make any changes yourself, as eveyone is free to edit everyone else's work. Cheers. -- Tarquin 19:02 22 May 2003 (UTC)

Hi, I was unaware of your editing rules. I am having some trouble navigating your site. No copyright violation, it is my own research and editorial. I posted the same material elsewhere. J. Byron —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.29.17 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 22 May 2003 (UTC)

Try the village pump page. That has links to our FAQ pages, and you can post on the "pump" to ask for help. welcome to the site! -- Tarquin 22 May 2003

Good stuff, Mr. Byron. I did a touch of editing - replaced your legal disclaimers with our standard ones, for example. Oh, and I felt I had to trim these songs - not really encyclopedic for us to include our own compositions! :) Martin 22 May 2003

Mer-ry Christ-mas to You!
Mer-ry Christ-mas to You!
Mer-ry Christ-mas Dear Fri-ends
Mer-ry Christ-mas to All.
© 2003, J. Byron, but dedicated to the public domain.
Mer-ry [your holiday here] to You!
Mer-ry [your holiday here] to You!
Mer-ry [your holiday here] Dear Fri-ends
Mer-ry [your holiday here] to All.
Martin 22 May 2003.

I guess you are right. I posted my revised article at InfoAnarchy. http://www.infoanarchy.org/?op=comments&sid=2003/5/31/16042/4219&cid=3 Feel free to rewrite the information (for your pages) as you see fit :-) J. Byron —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.225.235.96 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 4 July 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MyRedDice (talk • contribs) 18:00, 4 July 2003 (UTC)

So Warner Communications owns the rights to Happy Birthday? Well, they must be KAJILLIONAIRES by now with all the daily singings of the song around the world! ;) SD6-Agent 09:49, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Most popular?

Happy Birthday is among the top three most popular songs in the English language, along with "Auld Lang Syne" and "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow."

That needs a reference. --zandperl 03:43, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • I've attributed it to the Guinness Book of World Records. See [1]. anthony (see warning) 15:00, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] So retuarants can sing it?

There is an urban legend that resturants are not allowed to sing Happy Birthday to You, as that would infringe upon the copyright. However, public performance rights are given to the owner of the melody, not the lyrics. So is this urban legend false? anthony (see warning) 14:33, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the lyrics are copyrighted too. What makes you think they aren't? It's not like I can make up my own tune and then sing the entire lyrics of, say, "I can't get no satisfaction" over it, right? Restaurants pay royalties for all the music played in their establishment (including radio, CDs, live bands, etc.), usually in a bulk monthly fee. Presumably the list of songs they pay for includes Happy Birthday to You, so maybe that's why there isn't a big problem. 21:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Calling something an urban legend inherently means it's untrue. This is actually true.74.192.43.101 20:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Birthday to You

The song seems to be more popularly referred to as Happy Birthday to You. Also, this resolves the disambiguation to some extent, so I moved it there. anthony (see warning) 14:57, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] removed this bit

"And a other versionis:

Happy Birthday to you, I went to my backyard, I saw a dog, and He snifed like you,too"

I think someone just wanted to put in his two-tenths of a cent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.38.130 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 22 March 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyrightism

Can't believe a song with common use to such a vastitude is restricted. We hereby propose your attention to the emerging "copyrightism". In such case either should the copyright be exempted or the government or whatever national body should buy the work into public domain. How chould your decency impossible imagine to apply for a licence everytime you sing the song in a restaurant or in the general public?

I am SERIOUSLY considering starting a campaign to buy the rights to "Happy Birthday." I don't have the money to do it as an individual, but I'm if we get enough people to donate, say $1-$10 US we'll be able to do it as a group. Anyone want to help? Writerchick 21:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

As seen in some of the linked articles, there are people with good arguments to the effect that this particular copyright is invalid. Perhaps somebody could actually take the alleged owner to court over it. *Dan T.* 21:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Saying that the copyright is invalid, just because its a popular song, is like saying Mickey Mouse should be in the public domain, just because a lot of people like him. Someone created this song, and they (or more likely someone representing their estate, which is just as legally, and morally applicable) deserve to be compensated for it. If they chose to sell their copyright, thats also their right. The person who then owns the copyright post transaction has the same legal (and moral) rights to be compensated for its use, as the original owner did. If you created something popular, and it provided for you financially, there isn't a single person on this board who wouldn't be upset if that property was moved into the public domain, simply because a lot of people like it. No one is saying you can't sing it at your birthday party. Television shows are highly profitable for networks, and its entirely reasonable for them to be forced to pay a fee to use material for their show. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.154.101.37 (talk) 07:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC).
I'm going to have to disagree with your plan to take the owner's copyright without just compensation, as it is grossly immoral and disgusting. 68.84.224.36 (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First Verse?

The phrase "The first verse goes like this" implies that there are more than one verse. However, a search of the Web turns up no other Web sites that give even this first verse. Can anyone come up with a reference to some authoritative information on this putative first verse or on any subsequent original verses?

Also, if the claim is that this verse and the chorus comprise the complete song, then the entry should be edited to reflect that fact (by omitting the "first verse" phrase). Other Web sites are copying this entry, so we should try to get this right, yes? David 14:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "cha cha cha"??

Being long out of childhood and not having children myself, I was surprised to learn today that modern kids add "cha cha cha" after every verse of the song. A quick Google revealed this to be rather well established.

I would like know the origin of this alteration and perhaps see the info added to the entry if it is deemed relevant.

It's fairly common, far more common than some of the additional verses, so I think it would warrent being included. --TeN 01:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Never heard of it myself. Perhaps it's an American practice? Nil Einne 17:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright expiration date?

The first paragraph says it expires in 2030; the second, in 2008 (lyrics) and 2016 (music) - which is right? UOSSReiska 16:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The 2008/2016 years are for other countries that observe life + 70 years (not the U.S.). That shift in the copyright section was not obvious, so I split into subsections. —Twigboy 17:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The article also states that "other countries" observe life + 50 years, and life + 70 years. I put a {cn} next to both of these, not only because the article repeats itself with conflicting information, but also because it fails to mention any other country by name. There is a HUGE world out there, and I doubt that this world unanimously agreed on universal copyright terms that the US refused to be a part of. "Some parts of Europe" perhaps. ~ Agvulpine (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What lawsuit

It seems something has been lost in an edit:

Contrary to what is often erroneously reported, the lawsuit was dropped, and there was no outcome to the case. As a result, the Summy Company registered the copyright for Happy Birthday to You, which does not affect today's public domain status of "Good Morning to All."

The lawsuit is not mentioned anywhere else so readers like me are left wondering, what lawsuit? I could probably find this out in the history but I'm a bit buzy at the mo Nil Einne 17:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal issues

In the international section:

  • Shouldn't some mention be made of the fact (as suggested in the American section) others may have had these lyrics before they were "made" by Preston copyrighted in which case I assume the copyright would be invalid?
  • Aren't works for hire considered under other jurisdictions?

Nil Einne 17:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

In the US section it's not explained very well. They were only copyrighted in 1935 but they clearly existed in 1928 (and 31 and 33). They weren't copyrighted then. I assume you can copyright something which someone else wrote before you so I assume then that Preston is purported to have written these lyrics before 1928 but this isn't explained... Also where does Summy fit in to all this. They evidently published the song Good Morning To All written by the sisters but where, when and how did they publish it? Did the two sisters write it for them (work for hire) or what? It's rather confusing! Nil Einne 17:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The article claims that "The current owner of the 1935 copyright believes that one cannot sing 'Happy Birthday to You' lyrics for profit without paying royalties." I can't find anything confirming this. Source? - Ketsuekigata 22:15 19 November 2006

[edit] American

This is so stupid. Americans "show off" too much, especially in medias like encylopedias. I see "The melody of "Happy Birthday to You" was written by American sisters Patty and" They were an AMERICAN... oh YAH.. they were an AMERICAN sisters.. THEY WERE AN AMERICAN SISTERS! Not just this article, there's plenty more which have "AMERICAN" and redirecting to Undited States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.197.247.58 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

How mature of you to insult all Americans. "Americans 'show off' too much." *rolls eyes*. And, so what if they were American sisters, but then again, so what if the article links to the United States article? Is it affecting the integrity or truth of the information contained in the article? No. Then is doesn't matter if it's linked or not. Focus on other things that do affect the article, like the fact that it needs more citing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.167.102 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Why the hostility? I don't see why this is a problem. It's not at all uncommon to cite the country of origin for a composer or a musical work, nor is it uncommon to link to that country's article. I would cite examples, but there's no need... merely search any musician, composer, or folk song and there's a decent chance that this will be the case. --TeN 01:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry!

Anyone who reads this article's history page will find that [[Special:Contributions/68.125.34.1|68.125.34.1]] is wrongly written as [[User:68.125.34.1|68.125.34.1]]. I'm really sorry - here's what it should be - 68.125.34.1. Sorry for any problems this may have caused you. Trixovator 21:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] “… and many more.”?

Right now the article doesn't mention the oft-added line “… and many more”. with the 5-6-5-b7 melody, ending on a I7 chord. Either I am dead wrong about the song here, or somebody who knows more about the subject should add this. I for one don't even know if this is even the correct song this line is added too. — Mütze 10:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the correct song that you are referring to. There are many variations of the song and this is one of the potential endings to the song. Cadwal 04:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where are the lyrics?

I went to WMG and I can't find the lyrics anywhere.Cadwal 04:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well as the article states the lyrics are copyrighted so I think that asking Warner Music Group for a copy would be the best thing. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Added link to the article —Twigboy 19:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for that, I serously couldn't find them on the web site (in fact I had a hard time finding the lyrics anywhere to be honest). Cadwal 06:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What royalties are sought?

Since royalties are such a prominent part of this article, the article should state what amount of money Warner is demanding for its use. Presumably this could be gathered for the different venues that you'd expect: a movie, a TV show, a stage play, a music CD, a restaurant's being allowed to have the employees sign it, a PA announcer at a football stadium. Tempshill 19:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Noticed there were claims about $10K for a film and $5K for a Disney attraction, so I added the section. If anyone has additional royalty data, that would be welcome. Also of course it would be great if someone somewhere has written about what actual revenues Warner is receiving. Tempshill 19:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Popularity vs legal aspect

There is a severe dearth of information on the popularity of this song as opposed to the odd copyright & royalty issues concerning the publication. The song's popularity in English-speaking culture is assumed, although it seems to be quite a triumph, considering the lengthy legal history of the song. How did it become so widespread in our culture, despite its not being disseminated via mass media? 74.192.43.101 15:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Happy Birthday is a common folk song and was disseminated as such through homes and the public school system. I remember it being played by my music teacher on the piano. The first I heard about it being copyrighted was in the mid-late 90's when Letterman made a big deal out of it, which seems to correlate with the early occurrences of the song variances in different movies and TV shows. I'm of the belief that legal claims are only recent, and would really like to find some older movies and TV shows that actually sang it in full.
I personally believe the courts would throw such a lawsuit out the window, as this is akin to claiming copyright for Where is Thumpkin or the Pledge of Allegiance or the National Anthem. ~ Agvulpine (talk) 10:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Who has removed my links from the article. They provide valuable information on the subject. What's the point of the WWW if we don't use the most of linking each other. That's way the Internet exists. Pmpa 10:26 22 September 2007

[edit] Copyright

Since corporate copyright in the US is 100 years, shouldn't the song enter public domain in 2035, since it was first published in 1935? In Countries such as Canada and Australia were copyright, even corporate, is the life of the author plus 50 years, shouldn't it have entered the public domain in 1996 since the last author died in 1946? Am I wrong ? Samuell (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Birthday Dirge

Noted there was no entry anywhere on wikipedia for the birthday dirge (originally from the SCA). Is this something we can add to this page or give it its own namespace?

Tune of : "Volga Boatmen"

Death and gloom and black despair
People dying everywhere
Happy Birthday! (UHH!) Happy Birthday! (UHH!)

and it goes on some fifty lines or so growing with each encounter with another who knows it finally ending with:

FINALE: If there be verses we have missed
You can add them to the list.

I pray you pass your verse along
And thus improve our merry song.
eleuthero (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] String quartet has Happy Birthday to You theme

The Happy Birthday to You theme in part of an unknown string quartet, possibly by Mozart, can be heard below: Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg

Here is the intro to this unknown string quartet: Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg

Does anybody know the name of this string quartet? Thanks--Geremia (talk) 08:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Brauneis' 2008 paper

A recent article, Robert Brauneis, "Copyright and the World's Most Popular Song" (Mar. 14, 2008), is likely to be the standard resource on the history and copyright status of this song. It's available online at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1111624. I don't have time at the moment to update the article, but anyone who is interested will find amazing and thoroughly researched detail. John M Baker (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I read the paper, and it's very very good. I added it to the External Links section. I also reworked the copyright stuff in the introduction (citing his paper). The Copyright Status section still needs major help. netjeff (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other jurisdictions

There is inconsistent information as to how much the copyright extends in other jurisdictions. In the first paragraph, it is said to be 50 years after the death of the authors, and later, there is a computation based on 70 years. Ratfox (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)