UK - Photographers face copyright threat after shock ruling

Mike Cash · 01-26-2012, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by RioRico

Tell that to kids at birthday parties who want to sing HAPPY BIRTHDAY but find that it's copyrighted and the owners want payment for every 'performance'. I kid thee not.

So the copyright holders should be forced to relinquish their property just because it was successful?

Copyright not actively protected can come to be considered copyright abandoned. Even if a holder had no realistic hopes of effectively protecting a copyright on every instance, at least a pretense of protecting it must be made in order to prevent its loss by default. In other words, by failing to at least go through the motions of protecting the song at trivial events which would yield trivial sums they risk losing the ability to collect for non-trivial use (television, movies, etc) for non-trivial sums.

Copyright is very much a "use it or lose it" proposition.

People always get their backs up in the air over "Happy Birthday" as though it were a public domain tune that some nefarious lawyer came along and copyrighted. The song got copyrighted because it was the original work of the people who created it....two old ladies, if memory serves. People indignantly ask, "How could they copyright Happy Birthday?!?!"

Easy....they wrote it.

**monochrome** · 01-26-2012, 09:17 PM

[EDIT - just read UP thread Rico already said this, so its been done, too.] My wife dismisses almost every print I make thus; "its been done."

(But she applauded my daughter's B&W images of New Mexico mesas marked by fluffy clouds under full sun. Go figure.)

**interested_observer** · 01-27-2012, 04:42 AM

Originally posted by Mike Cash

... People always get their backs up in the air over "Happy Birthday" as though it were a public domain tune that some nefarious lawyer came along and copyrighted. The song got copyrighted because it was the original work of the people who created it....two old ladies, if memory serves. People indignantly ask, "How could they copyright Happy Birthday?!?!"

Easy....they wrote it.

I think that I understand copyright pretty well. The problem with copyright is that, copyrights have been extended, well beyond the original copyright period. The copyright extension almost makes it appear that they may become permanent for all time. In the case of "Happy Birthday to You", the song apparently was not originally copyrighted, and in use in the late 1800's but not copyrighted until the 1930's.

Happy Birthday to You - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wheatfield · 01-27-2012, 06:12 AM

Originally posted by Mike Cash

People always get their backs up in the air over "Happy Birthday" as though it were a public domain tune that some nefarious lawyer came along and copyrighted. The song got copyrighted because it was the original work of the people who created it....two old ladies, if memory serves. People indignantly ask, "How could they copyright Happy Birthday?!?!"

Easy....they wrote it.

Except they didn't write it, did they? The copyright owner is a megacorp, completely unrelated to the original authors. OTOH, as long as performances of it are of a non commercial basis, Warner music doesn't get to collect royalties. Apparently, that little tune earns a couple of million a year for the copyright owners.

Last edited by Wheatfield; 01-27-2012 at 08:23 AM.

Mike Cash · 01-27-2012, 06:29 AM

So intellectual property, unlike other property, shouldn't be transferable? Or is it only when a "megacorp" owns the property that the intellectual property rights should be voided?

Wheatfield · 01-27-2012, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by Mike Cash

So intellectual property, unlike other property, shouldn't be transferable? Or is it only when a "megacorp" owns the property that the intellectual property rights should be voided?

Go back and read the post you are responding to. Your reply has pretty much nothing to do with the context of it.

normhead · 01-27-2012, 09:02 AM

The image was close enough to cause confusion, and also close enough there is no way the photographer wasn't told to create that confusion with his photo. You really get tired of these people running around claiming their intent was other than what it was. Who was naughty here? They tried to get as close as possible to copyright infringement without crossing the line. The judge just told them they'd crossed the line. They were trying to confuse people and influence people who wouldn't otherwise buy their product. I actually applaud the ruling. It's good to know that if I create an image that becomes popular, someone else can't cash in on it by going to the same place, putting his tripod where mine was and taking the same image. If someone is inspired by my image and wants to take the same image as an exercise, or just so they say they took it them-self, that's wonderful. However, if they want to do something that costs me sales of my original print by doing a close copy... that's the definition of intellectual property.

Mike Cash · 01-27-2012, 10:23 PM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

Go back and read the post you are responding to. Your reply has pretty much nothing to do with the context of it.

What did I miss? I said the people who wrote the song copyrighted it. You started talking about it now being owned by a megacorp that makes a couple of million per year off of being the current owners of the copyright.

That seemed an irrelevant point to bring up unless you were against the notion of a megacorp being able to hold the intellectual property rights to something they purchased rather than created. Was that not the point you were makIng? I'm having trouble seeing where I jumped the tracks.

RioRico · 01-27-2012, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by Mike Cash

What did I miss? I said the people who wrote the song copyrighted it. You started talking about it now being owned by a megacorp that makes a couple of million per year off of being the current owners of the copyright.

Read the Wikipedia entry. The people who wrote the melody did not copyright it. The HAPPY BIRTHDAY lyric seems to genuine folk-process, and circulated freely in the public domain for decades. The company that copyrighted the melody+lyric (probably illegally) had no connexion with its authorship.

The alleged purpose of copyright (and patent rights) is to encourage innovation and creation by granting a limited-period monopoly. Imposing copyright for many decades after the death of an author certainly doesn't encourage the corpse to create anything new. One might argue that extended copyright benefits the author's descendants. But if the ownership has been sold, those descendants gain no further benefit.

Our current IP regime is a fine example of a SYSTEM GONE WRONG (**) in that it actively discourages innovation built upon prior art. BoingBoing recently posted a link to dozens of old film scenes that Geo Lucas copied move-for-move in RAIDERS OF THE LOST ART. That film could not be made under the current IP regime. I could rant at length about the toxicity of the system, but I'll stop now -- except to point out that states imposing strong IP will have their shorts eaten by states that ignore it. Strong IP is suicidal.

** SYSTEMS GONE WRONG (cf SYSTEMANTICS) -- Le Chatelier's Principle: Complex systems tend to oppose their own proper function.

01-27-2012, 04:42 AM	#18
interested_observer Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,707 Original Poster	Originally posted by Mike Cash ... People always get their backs up in the air over "Happy Birthday" as though it were a public domain tune that some nefarious lawyer came along and copyrighted. The song got copyrighted because it was the original work of the people who created it....two old ladies, if memory serves. People indignantly ask, "How could they copyright Happy Birthday?!?!" Easy....they wrote it. I think that I understand copyright pretty well. The problem with copyright is that, copyrights have been extended, well beyond the original copyright period. The copyright extension almost makes it appear that they may become permanent for all time. In the case of "Happy Birthday to You", the song apparently was not originally copyrighted, and in use in the late 1800's but not copyrighted until the 1930's. Happy Birthday to You - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Shock, awe: British government agrees that copyright has gone too far	RioRico	General Talk	4	08-22-2011 01:38 PM
Misc my G-shock	YaoTW	Post Your Photos!	3	06-01-2010 08:35 PM
People The Face of a Newbi is a face only a mother could love :)	Borislav	Post Your Photos!	2	04-23-2010 12:36 PM
(The Big shock) CANON 7D - NIKON D300S & PENTAX K-x ISO PERFORMANCE (The Big shock)	starscream	Pentax DSLR Discussion	21	01-14-2010 05:17 AM
Another threat to Photographers	Wheatfield	General Talk	36	02-18-2009 11:14 AM

01-26-2012, 09:15 PM	#16
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	Originally posted by RioRico Tell that to kids at birthday parties who want to sing HAPPY BIRTHDAY but find that it's copyrighted and the owners want payment for every 'performance'. I kid thee not. So the copyright holders should be forced to relinquish their property just because it was successful? Copyright not actively protected can come to be considered copyright abandoned. Even if a holder had no realistic hopes of effectively protecting a copyright on every instance, at least a pretense of protecting it must be made in order to prevent its loss by default. In other words, by failing to at least go through the motions of protecting the song at trivial events which would yield trivial sums they risk losing the ability to collect for non-trivial use (television, movies, etc) for non-trivial sums. Copyright is very much a "use it or lose it" proposition. People always get their backs up in the air over "Happy Birthday" as though it were a public domain tune that some nefarious lawyer came along and copyrighted. The song got copyrighted because it was the original work of the people who created it....two old ladies, if memory serves. People indignantly ask, "How could they copyright Happy Birthday?!?!" Easy....they wrote it.

01-26-2012, 09:17 PM	#17
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	[EDIT - just read UP thread Rico already said this, so its been done, too.] My wife dismisses almost every print I make thus; "its been done." (But she applauded my daughter's B&W images of New Mexico mesas marked by fluffy clouds under full sun. Go figure.)

01-27-2012, 06:12 AM	#19
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	Originally posted by Mike Cash People always get their backs up in the air over "Happy Birthday" as though it were a public domain tune that some nefarious lawyer came along and copyrighted. The song got copyrighted because it was the original work of the people who created it....two old ladies, if memory serves. People indignantly ask, "How could they copyright Happy Birthday?!?!" Easy....they wrote it. Except they didn't write it, did they? The copyright owner is a megacorp, completely unrelated to the original authors. OTOH, as long as performances of it are of a non commercial basis, Warner music doesn't get to collect royalties. Apparently, that little tune earns a couple of million a year for the copyright owners. Last edited by Wheatfield; 01-27-2012 at 08:23 AM.

01-27-2012, 06:29 AM	#20
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	So intellectual property, unlike other property, shouldn't be transferable? Or is it only when a "megacorp" owns the property that the intellectual property rights should be voided?

01-27-2012, 08:23 AM	#21
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	Originally posted by Mike Cash So intellectual property, unlike other property, shouldn't be transferable? Or is it only when a "megacorp" owns the property that the intellectual property rights should be voided? Go back and read the post you are responding to. Your reply has pretty much nothing to do with the context of it.

01-27-2012, 09:02 AM	#22
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	The image was close enough to cause confusion, and also close enough there is no way the photographer wasn't told to create that confusion with his photo. You really get tired of these people running around claiming their intent was other than what it was. Who was naughty here? They tried to get as close as possible to copyright infringement without crossing the line. The judge just told them they'd crossed the line. They were trying to confuse people and influence people who wouldn't otherwise buy their product. I actually applaud the ruling. It's good to know that if I create an image that becomes popular, someone else can't cash in on it by going to the same place, putting his tripod where mine was and taking the same image. If someone is inspired by my image and wants to take the same image as an exercise, or just so they say they took it them-self, that's wonderful. However, if they want to do something that costs me sales of my original print by doing a close copy... that's the definition of intellectual property.

01-27-2012, 10:23 PM	#23
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	Originally posted by Wheatfield Go back and read the post you are responding to. Your reply has pretty much nothing to do with the context of it. What did I miss? I said the people who wrote the song copyrighted it. You started talking about it now being owned by a megacorp that makes a couple of million per year off of being the current owners of the copyright. That seemed an irrelevant point to bring up unless you were against the notion of a megacorp being able to hold the intellectual property rights to something they purchased rather than created. Was that not the point you were makIng? I'm having trouble seeing where I jumped the tracks.

01-27-2012, 11:19 PM	#24
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by Mike Cash What did I miss? I said the people who wrote the song copyrighted it. You started talking about it now being owned by a megacorp that makes a couple of million per year off of being the current owners of the copyright. Read the Wikipedia entry. The people who wrote the melody did not copyright it. The HAPPY BIRTHDAY lyric seems to genuine folk-process, and circulated freely in the public domain for decades. The company that copyrighted the melody+lyric (probably illegally) had no connexion with its authorship. The alleged purpose of copyright (and patent rights) is to encourage innovation and creation by granting a limited-period monopoly. Imposing copyright for many decades after the death of an author certainly doesn't encourage the corpse to create anything new. One might argue that extended copyright benefits the author's descendants. But if the ownership has been sold, those descendants gain no further benefit. Our current IP regime is a fine example of a SYSTEM GONE WRONG (*) in that it actively discourages* innovation built upon prior art. BoingBoing recently posted a link to dozens of old film scenes that Geo Lucas copied move-for-move in RAIDERS OF THE LOST ART. That film could not be made under the current IP regime. I could rant at length about the toxicity of the system, but I'll stop now -- except to point out that states imposing strong IP will have their shorts eaten by states that ignore it. Strong IP is suicidal. ** SYSTEMS GONE WRONG (cf SYSTEMANTICS) -- Le Chatelier's Principle: Complex systems tend to oppose their own proper function.