Marya v. Warner/Chappell Music, Inc.
131 F. Supp. 3d 975
C.D. Cal.2015Background
- Plaintiffs (Rupa Marya, Robert Siegel, Good Morning to You Productions Corp., Majar Productions, LLC) seek a declaratory judgment that defendants Warner/Chappell and Summy‑Birchard do not own a valid copyright in the lyrics to “Happy Birthday to You.”
- The melody originated in the 1893 song Good Morning to All by Mildred and Patty Hill; the melody entered the public domain long ago. The dispute centers solely on the lyrics’ authorship, ownership, and whether any transfer to Summy Co. (and successors) occurred.
- The Happy Birthday lyrics appear in print by 1911 and in multiple publications and films through the 1920s–1930s; some publications credited other authors for the works containing the lyrics. Summy Co. registered copyrights in 1935 (notably E51990), listing a piano arrangement as the new matter and Preston Ware Orem as arranger/author of the new matter.
- The Copyright Office certificate for E51990 is facially inconsistent: it describes a piano arrangement as new matter and lists Orem as author, so it does not clearly show that Summy Co. registered or owned the lyrics; the Court refused to afford the registration a presumption covering the lyrics.
- Historical litigation (Hill–Summy suits) and agreements (First, Second, Third Agreements) are in the record; the Second Agreement (1934–35) allegedly concerned piano arrangements and royalties, and the Third Agreement (1944) assigned certain copyrights to Summy Co., but the record contains no clear evidence that the Hill sisters ever transferred common‑law rights in the lyrics to Summy Co.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authorship of lyrics | Lyrics may have been written by others; publications credit other authors | Patty Hill authored the lyrics in the 1890s (per her deposition) | Genuine dispute of material fact; summary judgment denied to both on authorship |
| Presumption from 1935 registration (E51990) | Registration does not prove Summy owned lyrics; certificate is materially inconsistent | Registration should carry presumption of validity covering lyrics | Registration does not establish presumption that Summy owned or registered the lyrics because of material defects; defendants must prove ownership by other evidence |
| Divestive publication (loss of common‑law rights) | Lyrics were published (e.g., 1922 Everyday Song Book) and thus divested authors of common‑law rights | Any 1922 publication was unauthorized or limited; Hill sisters retained common‑law rights | Triable issues of fact exist about whether any publication was authorized; summary judgment denied to both |
| Transfer of lyrics to Summy Co. | No evidence shows Hill sisters transferred lyrics; Second Agreement covered piano arrangements only | Second (or Third) Agreement conveyed lyrics to Summy Co. (or later confirmed) | No admissible evidence of a transfer of lyric rights; court grants plaintiffs’ motion on transfer point and holds defendants did not prove Summy acquired lyrics |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard and role of court in assessing genuine issues of material fact)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (movant’s initial burden on summary judgment and allocation of burdens)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (nonmoving party must do more than show metaphysical doubt to defeat summary judgment)
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (ownership of a valid copyright is an element of infringement)
- A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001) (abandonment requires intent to surrender rights)
- Hampton v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 279 F.2d 100 (9th Cir. 1960) (abandonment must be shown by overt act manifesting intent to surrender rights)
- Data Gen. Corp. v. Grumman Sys. Support Corp., 36 F.3d 1147 (1st Cir. 1994) (material error in registration deposit may destroy presumption of validity)
- United Fabrics Int’l, Inc. v. C & J Wear, Inc., 630 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 2011) (burden shifts to challenger after claimant produces certificate of registration)