Queen Elizabeth: copyright violator
p2p news / p2pnet: So, the Queen of England, Queen Elizabeth II, has just turned 80 and she’s so popular that apparently, the thought of her retiring or abdicating the throne can’t be entertained.
With all the flourish, pomp, circumstance and military precision afforded a royal anniversary of this caliber, one would think those who organised the spectacle would be aware of the rights of certain parties, and not infringe them.
According to several news reports, for example on CNN, as well as the live world-wide coverage of the celebratory event, brass bands played Happy Birthday To You to Her Majesty.
And yet not a word has been mentioned whether or not royalties were paid to AOL Time Warner, the legal and rightful copyright owner of the song.
According to Wikipedia and other public sources, "Warner claims that unauthorized public performances of the song are technically illegal unless royalties are paid to them."
Did the Royal Household, the British government, it’s territories, or whoever arranged the celebrations have permission from AOL Time Warner to publicly play their song? And if so, did they pay for the privilege accordingly?
According to FACTNet:
"ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers) has been known to threaten legal action for the singing of Happy Birthday. In 1992 an ASCAP undercover agent caught a piano player at a New Jersey restaurant playing George Gershwinís [sic] "Rhapsody in Blue" without a license. ASCAP sued the restaurant and settled out of court for $5,500."
How did they know?
"ASCAP and BMI have field agents on payroll who listen to the radio and watch the newspaper listings. When a new venue starts offering live music, an agent will either show up in person or write a letter demanding money for the license. "If a nightclub or even a store refuses to buy the license, then ASCAP or BMI will hire spies, often local music teachers or semi-professional musicians who will make notes and testify in court as expert witnesses that on a certain date at a certain time a certain song was indeed played."
According to Snopes, "royalties are due for public performance, defined by copyright law as performances which occur "at a place open to the public, or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered."
Were there any field agents, spies, or Spooks monitoring the airwaves and television stations covering the festivities? Surely this type of event and its coverage would constitute "a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances."
Although the copyright status of Happy Birthday To You (as well as the lyrics) is somewhat unclear (according to Wikipedia and FACTNet), AOL Time Warner demands royalties for public performances of the song. One can see this in the end credits of any film, teleplay, stage production, book, or other publication that has used or mentioned any part of the song: Happy Birthday To You used by permission of AOL Time Warner”, or words to that effect. One assumes that a license was granted for the use and that royalties were paid for the privilege.
The Queen and whoever arranged the parties and brass bands seem to have been unaware, or just didn’t care that if they didn’t have legal permission from AOL Time Warner, the act of performing the song violated international copyright laws.
I’m not aware of any news article stating that royalties were paid for the recent world-wide public performances of Happy Birthday To You.
If there was no license granted or royalties paid those responsible should be given hefty fines and jailed for several years for blatantly disregarding copyright laws and infringing on the rights of others.
After all, it’s the law, Mum.
catflap – p2pnet
April 22nd, 2006 at 2:35 pm
I enjoyed this article and it makes some good points.
The law is only effective when it is enforced.
Ask AOL Time Warner if the Queen has permission to play their music. I’m willing to bet that it goes without saying.
Selective law-enforcement is an interesting concept and of course is commonplace in spheres other than copyright. But when it’s so obvious that certain laws apply to some and not others, it’s very difficult for the majority of people to see the benefit in having them.
And with no respect for the law, people do not willingly obey it. They simply try to avoid being caught breaking it.
April 22nd, 2006 at 5:19 pm
There are many more problems with the catalogs that ASCAP and BMI license:
These are bloated with work in the public domain. The Amercian national anthem is included (meaning it is also licensed) by ASCAP, BMI licenses practicallt all the national anthems of Latin America. Happy Birthday is one of these public domain works claimed by a music publisher fo no other reason that because it is in the public domain there is no owner to sue the publisher and the government and the Copyright Office doesn’t give a damn because they have become protectos of the copyright cartels.
No copies of their catalogs are actually distributed when licensed. so all the licensee gets is peace of mind, meaning that ASCAP nor BMI will sue them. Its like paying protection money so as not to worry of being murdered.
My family owns the rights to several songs registered illegally on these catalogs (an Internet search says so) and at the Copyright Office and have found that there is no way to remove them, short of suing and that is a risky proposition, as lawyers are too expensive and courts too crooked and anything can happen. From personal eperience.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
April 22nd, 2006 at 5:47 pm
The music for “Happy Birthday” is identical to a mid-19th centry folk song entitled “Good Morning to You” that frontier mothers would sing to their infants and toddlers upon rousing them in the morning for another day of the real-life version of Little House on the Prarie.
The lyrics for “Happy Birthday” were penned by two sisters from Kentucky in the late 1800s and were set to the song mentioned previously. The song wasn’t actually copyrighted until the 1930s, thus explaining why it remains under copyright today.
Therefore, if the military brass band (which rarely, if ever, include vocalists) merely played the music for “Happy Birthday” and no one was designated to sing the lyrics, then no copyright violation occured.
Furthermore, many countries have an narrow exemption in their copyright laws allowing for public performances by the Government at “official state functions.”
April 22nd, 2006 at 6:36 pm
hi. the “good morning” song issue is detailed in the links i provided in my story, i didn’t feel a need to discuss it. but it’s good that you did anyway.
cnn and other major news agencies are reporting the bands played “Happy Birthday”, with no mention of the good morning song as an alternative. it really woiuldn’^t make sense to refer to it as the good morning song on the queen’s birthday.
i don’t know if there was an accompanying choir which sang the lyrics, but the official bands played the song, which is copyrighted and identified as “Happy Birthday To You”.
April 22nd, 2006 at 8:07 pm
The song is reportedlu in the public doamain (PD) as it was published on or before 1915. Anything published befor 1923 is in the publidc domain. Additionally the song was not copyright registered when published and the law then said that anything published without a copyright notice became public domain.
Allegedly ASCAP enforces the alleged copyright as an agent for the alleged copyright owner. They are both, with this song, in the “get the all the money you can” business.
April 22nd, 2006 at 8:29 pm
Who really cares, I would love to see how far the RIAA would get with suing the Queen or the British Government, not very far I think.
April 23rd, 2006 at 1:41 am
Aw Shucks! Come-on RIAA Go for it. Sue our Queen!!! Just go for it! See where it gets you.
Oops! Sorry, silly me I forgot….she’s not some little 12yr old kid or an old age pensioner..is she? You dont have the bottle!
April 23rd, 2006 at 3:19 am
Sorry to let the air out of yet another stupid story on P2Pnet, but broadcasters, worldwide, pay fees to Performing Rights Organizations to obtain ‘blanket licenses’ that allow them to broadcast any song controlled by the PROs without fear of copyright infringement suits. Performances are monitored by the PROs and payments are made to the appropriate writers and publishers from the fees collected.
Additionally, while everyone who reads P2Pnet’s fountain of misinformation seems to be RIAA-phobic… The RIAA has nothing to do with this particular process.
April 23rd, 2006 at 5:01 am
They wouldn’t even try. As if AOL did contemplate such a thing, the government may reconsider all the business tax AOL doesn’t pay. Of course, they may consider it, but as soon as this ‘error’ is pointed out, AOL is more likely to make a press statement that they gave permission as a ‘thank you’ to the queen.
April 23rd, 2006 at 6:41 am
Yeah, I hope that they do sue Her Majesty. It would do more damage to the publisher than to Her Majesty because I am sure that she would not simply roll over and take their abuse. It also would not help the publishers’ popularity either. Most music, movie, and book publishers have already lost my business due to under-quality, over-priced product.
April 23rd, 2006 at 9:23 am
well.. doesn’t the doesn’t the official performance on the occasion of military marches and such benefit from an exemption in the UK 1988 act?
i believe it does. so there the queen was in her right.
sorry to burst your bubble.. (correct me if i’m wrong)
April 23rd, 2006 at 9:23 am
well.. doesn’t the doesn’t the official performance on the occasion of military marches and such benefit from an exemption in the UK 1988 act?
i believe it does. so there the queen was in her right.
sorry to burst your bubble.. (correct me if i’m wrong)
April 23rd, 2006 at 9:51 am
my article is part tongue-in-cheek, part sarcastic, part rhetorical, and completely true and current with present-day events, as far as the facts i’ve been able to confirm.
my aim was – sorry you didn’t get it – to point out inconsistencies (as another reader here rightly concluded) in how and when the laws are administered – and to whom they’re applied. besides my hatred for the neocon big music and movie cartels, i have a deep-rooted, almost innate abhorrence for anything regarded as “Royal” and the scams the blue-blood get away with. either the law is administered equally, or not at all.
i never said or claimed that royalties were not paid. i also never claimed they were. i asked (sarcastically, rhetorically, etc) whether or not they had been paid, and if not, i discussed what i feel should be done as a consequence.
some animals ARE NOT more equal than others.
my bubble wasn’t burst.
sorry to burst yours. i just hate having to explain myself again and again.
April 23rd, 2006 at 9:57 am
please show me exactly where in my article i refer to the RIAA.
April 23rd, 2006 at 10:31 am
“broadcasters, worldwide, pay fees to Performing Rights Organizations to obtain ‘blanket licenses’ that allow them to broadcast any song controlled by the PROs without fear of copyright infringement suits.”
What a nice way to put it. The fact is that broadcasters do not know what songs are “controlled”. No list of sonngs are supllied.
“Controlled” is the wrong word. “licensed” is the correct word. The Performing Rights Organizations do not control any song. The control (management) is done by the legal and beneficial owners. The legal owners is that which in essence has been hired by the real (beneficial) owner to manage the song bor the benefit of the real owner. Legal owners are frequently music publishers, who unfortunately mess up the management of the congs or steal their profits from the real, beneficial owners owners.
Because licensees (broadcasters, restaurants, etc.) do not know which songs they can perform (no catalog is given), the so called blanket license is a fraud, a the licensee has no idea what it can perform. Licensee know this but accept the arrangement out of fear and are willing to pay protection money.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
April 23rd, 2006 at 10:53 am
i did get your motivation and i do agree with the unfairness of unequal treatment of animals but all i was saying is that from a copyright perspective i believe that in this case there is no issue.
The role of royals is to serve the Public interest. whether or not this is justified is a personal thing, but in copyright there are exceptions to infringement when the public interest benefits from it. and given the pulic interest in the queen’s birthday i believe in this case the exception applies. and that’s why no royalties have to be paid. here its not a matter of favourism towards the blue blooded, but a (in my opinion) justified legal exception.
so that was the bubble i burst: its not about the person of the queen, its about the public interest in the happening.
April 23rd, 2006 at 2:25 pm
I can’t find any such exemption, whether for ‘public interest’ , for the Army, or otherwise. If it existed, it would be in the UK copyright Act, which (fully up to date ) is at http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/legislation/legislation.pdf . Reader’s Write seems to be imagining this.
You could make a Freedom of Information Act request of the British Army, which provides the bands and so was the institution which was in breach of copyright unless it had a license, as to whether it had a license and, if not, whether it paid or has been asked for royalties. it’s pretty predictable that the answer will be ‘no; no; and no’!
April 23rd, 2006 at 3:09 pm
There is no public interest issue here.
The interest of the public is served when all music can be performed for free if no profit is made from the music. If there was no entrance fee to attend the Queens’s (or anyon’es) birthday and no profit made from the event or was collected from advertisers at the event, there should be no charge for playing the music. If this disagrees with the law, then the law is bad from a public interest perspective.
As it is now, music almost everuwhere is a prisioner of the copyright cartels and that should be changed so that the public interest is served.
Free the music!
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
April 23rd, 2006 at 3:24 pm
You could make a Freedom of Information Act request of the British Army, which provides the bands and so was the institution which was in breach of copyright unless it had a license, as to whether it had a license and, if not, whether it paid or has been asked for royalties. it’s pretty predictable that the answer will be ‘no; no; and no’!
In Britain, as elsewhere the laws apply only to those at the bottom.
April 23rd, 2006 at 5:03 pm
rules and laws are just getting stupid now, soon you probly won’t be allowed to say copywrited words in public without getting a fine.
April 23rd, 2006 at 11:15 pm
Whether there is a “public interest” exemption (which it doesn’t look liek there is) or permission is required, you have to get the ok from someone BEFORE playing the song.
So I want to see either a document from the U.K. Home Office saying they voided the copyright on this occasion, or a document from AOL Time Warner saying they’d be happy to let the Brits use the song free of charge…on this occasion.
Unless AOL/Brit Government just make it all up after the fact.
April 24th, 2006 at 1:25 am
It really doesn’t matter what the piece is entitled. The fact is that the melody is identical to that of a work in the public domain, therefore that particular melody is not subject to copyright.
There are many works of classical music (usually only a portion of it, such as one movement) that have an alternative “popular” title. While someone may have penned lyrics for it that are under copyright, that does not also extend to the music.
In this particular case, the whole issue is likely moot as the piece was performed at an official state function, thus falling under an exemption. That condition is sufficient. In addition, it was performed by an official arm of the Government, one of the UK’s military bands. This would make it extremely difficult to pursue a lawsuit as the band members would likely enjoy statutory immunity as the performance was part of their official duties.
April 24th, 2006 at 1:34 am
“Oh, you made a boo-boo,
‘Happy Birthday to You.’
You sung it in Denny’s…..
Now Edgar Bronfmann’s suing you….”
Sung to the tune of…. Oh, never mind…..
–TurboGeek
(On his fourth Cosmopolitan)
April 24th, 2006 at 3:58 am
The other possibility is that all of the military bands in the UK have a blanket license from the UK equivalent of ASCAP or BMI to perform any song from their catalog, at any venue, under any circumstances. In the case of a live performance, the only copyright holder of concern is the composer. The ‘publisher’ (i.e., the recording industry) has no role in the case of live, public performances.
I find it interesting that the UK copyright laws are filed and available from the patent office when the administration and legalities of copyrights versus patents are vastly different.
April 24th, 2006 at 8:15 am
all military bands in the UK fill out their monthly PRS returns with a cheque
April 24th, 2006 at 8:46 am
Although Happy Birthday to You may be in copyright in the USA it is not so protected under UK (or European) law where copyright expires 70 years afterthe composer died. It seems nobodyknows exactly who wrote the current popular verson so copyright expires 70 years after it was furst published, i.e. 2005. Just because something is protected in one country it is not necessarily protected in another in exactly the same way.
Graham
April 24th, 2006 at 10:05 am
“Just because something is protected in one country it is not necessarily protected in another in exactly the same way.”
The song Hay Birthday to you was reportedly published many times before it was copyright registered in 1935. The fact that ir was so well known before it was copyright registered means that it must have been published, as word of mouth spreading would have resulted in a million (to use a nu,ber) versions.
So the song is on the public doamain and a publisher and ASCAP is still exploiting it. Essentially stealing from others by exploting confussion and ignorance of the copyright laws, That is what publishers and performance rights have always done, steal, usually from songwriters. This time around it is from the performers of the songs and the public that eventually pays for something that must be, legally speaking, free and the payments are made out of fear of being sued.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
April 24th, 2006 at 6:08 pm
HOW the hell did A-lways O-ff-L-ine/Time Warner get the ‘copyright’ to a song that has been around far LONGER than THEY have?!?!?!?!?!?
This is absolutely PREPOSTEROUS!!!!!! GRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
April 24th, 2006 at 7:04 pm
I will show how music publishers become the owner of the public domain Mexican Anthem. These are the steps they can follow if they also want to own the American National Anthem. The steps are generic and can be used to get ownership of any musical work in the public domain. You can do it too if you want a fast buck.
BTW, the Mexicans are furious because their anthem has been taken over.
1. Get anyone (no musical knowlege is required) to take an old public domain arrangement of a famous public domain work and make some cosmetic additions or changes. The new work now qualifies for a new copyright (yes the copyright laws are very stupid). Nevermind that the Copyright Office cops work to protect for the idustry one would assume they are to watch over. They always look sideways, like the Chicago police in the Capone days.
2. Spread the word that you have rights ver the famous musical work. Just never say that the work you own is a derivative of a public domain work or be specific in saying that you will sue the user. Never say you are the only owners, as others can pull the same scam. For example, the American anthem has hundreds of claimants (probably a record). Just check the ASCAP catalog.
3. When the work is used without your license you make a claim for money, making a veiled, indirect threat that you may sue. Just don’t say it too directly. If someone ignores you, you also ignore that someone. Some will simply pay and that is the payoff of the scam.
4. If you make enough money from the scam, a well know music publisher will make even more money. Sell your copyright to that publisher.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas
October 14th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
The melody’s been in the Public Domain since 1950, anyway. You see, it entered the US Public Domain in that year, and with the UK following the Rule of the Shorter Term from 1911-1956…