Well, there is clearly only ONE solution: bail out Warner/Chappell. They've obviously suffered enormous losses.
Birthday gift to a healing nation. On Jul 28, 2015, at 5:24 PM, Deg Farrelly <deg.farre...@asu.edu> wrote: >> From > https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150727/16042931768/happy-birthday-copyr > ight-bombshell-new-evidence-warner-music-previously-hid-shows-song-is-publi > c-domain.shtml > > > ³Last minute evidence that completely turns a legal case on its head > doesn't come about all that often -- despite what you see in Hollywood > movies and TV shows. The discovery process in a lawsuit generally reveals > most of the evidence revealed to everyone pretty early on. And yet... in > the high profile lawsuit over the copyright status > <https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130613/11165823451/filmmaker-finally-a > ims-to-get-court-to-admit-that-happy-birthday-is-public-domain.shtml> of > the song "Happy Birthday," the plaintiffs "Good Morning to You > Productions" (who are making a documentary about the song and are arguing > that the song is in the public domain) have popped up with a last minute > filing, saying they have just come across evidence that the song is > absolutely in the public domain > <http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/happy-birthday-lawsuit-smoking-gu > n-811144?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter>. > > And, here's the real kicker: they discovered this bit of evidence after > two questionable things happened. (1) Warner/Chappell Music (who claims to > hold the copyright for the publishing, if it exists) suddenly "found" a > bunch of relevant documents that it was supposed to hand over in discovery > last year, but didn't until just a few weeks ago, and (2) a rather > important bit of information in one of those new documents was somewhat > bizarrely "blurred out." This led the plaintiffs go searching for the > original, and discover that it undermines Warner Music's arguments, to the > point of showing that the company was almost certainly misleading the > court. Furthermore, it definitively shows that the work was and is in the > public domain. ³ > > This has been such an interesting example of how murky copyright can be, > even for things published before 1923 (which is our usual cutoff for > assuming things are in the public domain). This is a really important > copyright case for this reason, and it looks like we¹ll get more > information this week, since there was a hearing scheduled for tomorrow > (from > http://arstechnica.com/apple/2015/07/filmmakers-fighting-happy-birthday-cop > yright-find-their-smoking-gun/) > > Also, important library note: the critical 1922 edition was found in the > University of Pittsburgh archives. Bam! > > > deg farrelly > Media Librarian/Streaming Video Administrator > Arizona State University Libraries > Tempe, AZ 85287-1006 > 602.332.3103 > > > VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues > relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, > preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and > related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective > working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication > between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and > distributors. VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and distributors.
