Happy Birthday to All

Oct 14, 2015

Reading Time : 2 min

Happy Birthday (c)

In 1893, Mildred J. and Patty Smith Hill published the song Good Morning to All. The Hill sisters originally wrote the song for fellow teachers to sing to their students as they entered the classroom each morning. While the words in Good Morning to All may seem unfamiliar, the song’s melody is unmistakably that of Happy Birthday. In subsequent decades, the song’s more recognizable lyrics were incorporated, and companies began profiting off of the song via singing telegrams, movies and even a Broadway musical. The song’s success prompted a lawsuit by the Hill family, who reclaimed its control over the song in 1935.

The Arguments

Defendant Warner/Chappell Music, Inc. argued that the copyright was transferred from the Hill sisters to Summy Co. in 1935, and Warner/Chappell Music, Inc. became the rightful holders of the copyright as successor in interest. If this were true, various changes to copyright laws would have protected the lyrics through 2030. However, U.S. District Judge George H. King was not convinced. Judge King pointed out that it is questionable as to whether the Hill sisters ever held a valid copyright to the lyrics, and, even if they did, there is no evidence that a valid transfer to Summy Co. ever took place. As a result, this case has thrown the well-known song into the public domain.

Why Now?

The copyright issue of Happy Birthday has been a topic of discussion for years, but it has remained largely unchallenged. Many television and movie studios argued that, even if Warner/Chappell Music, Inc. did not own a valid copyright to Happy Birthday, the company could easily raise the cost of using its other songs to compensate its losses, or simply to punish a challenger.

Given these concerns, it is not surprising that the Happy Birthday lawsuit did not come from a major studio. Instead, the challenge was brought by Jennifer Nelson, the creator of a documentary that focuses on the history of the song.

Significance

The court’s ruling has more significance than the song itself. Warner/Chappell Music, Inc. is likely to challenge the ruling rather than accept $30 million in future lost revenue. Additionally, since Warner/Chappell Music, Inc. never owned a valid copyright to the lyrics, will it be forced to return the money it collected from the song?  Finally, the birthday placeholders will likely disappear as television shows, movies and restaurants reclaim their right to sing Happy Birthday to children and reluctant teenagers.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.