Entertainment desk
< April 16	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 18 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 17

Private Screenings

Does anyone know what is the name of the song that plays at the beginning and closing credits of the Turner Classic Movies program Private Screenings? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 04:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Every Thought of You by Reid Hall and Chuck Moore, for that episode atleast. meltBanana 13:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but is it possible to find out who recorded it for the program? This lady claims she recorded the theme song for the show in 2007, but YouTube turns up The vocalist is Rene Marie.

("The Very Thought of You" is not the same song as "The Every Thought of You". Different lyrics.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎67.243.105.192 (talk) 08:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Random Song Title 2

Sorry to be asking for another song title, but what's the name of the song that has several unique phrases, notably "uno dos tres cuatro cinco cinco seis"? I think it's by The Offspring, correct me if I'm wrong. What's it called? 2D Backfire Master ^{sweet emotion} 04:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If You put "uno dos tres cuatro cinco cinco seis" "the offspring" into google (The quote marks force google to search for that exact phrase, not just the words.) you get a whole bunch of web sites with lyrics for the song "Pretty Fly (For a White Guy)" APL (talk) 04:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday to You as a non-recorded performance

According to the article, anyone singing "Happy Birthday" is singing it illegally. This isn't news, of course. But here's what I was wondering. Weird Al Yankovic never received permission to release (for example) "Snack All Night" (Black or White by Michael Jackson), and yet he performs it regularly at concerts. The recording and distribution of this song is illegal (mechanical rights haven't been paid), but him performing it is not (as far as I understand it). So as long as "Happy Birthday" isn't being recorded during a birthday party, how is singing it illegal? If it really were illegal, then singing along with a popular song in the car would rake in trillions for recording artists and their studios! Was not able to find this exact question in the archives/talk page – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think the copyright lasted that long, WB must have renewed it...I think it's only illegal if no royalties are paid after a public performance of it - a car or a house would be a private performance and so no royalties need to be paid, although if it was played on national radio (For example Radio 1 here in the UK) royalties would have to be paid for it. Sorry if I'd already said something you've said already...I just realised my reply didn't get you anywhere! :) Chevymontecarlo. 07:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Public performance, even a live performance, is restricted by US Copyright law (See US Copyright law#Exclusive rights). However parody is an accepted category of fair use. I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, but my understanding is that, as a purveyor of parody, Weird Al would have a legal right to record & distribute his songs, even if he does not receive permission from the original copyright holders. The reason he restricts recordings to where permission has been obtained is not due to legal restrictions, but is done simply as a courtesy to other recording artists. A verbatim rendition of "Happy Birthday" in your example would not fall under the parody class of fair use. Singing along in your car would likely be considered a "private performance", but singing to a group of 10 year olds might be considered "public" enough. (Note that there is a compulsory license/mechanical license of songs for the purposes of a cover version - you have to pay, but the copyright holders cannot normally restrict you from performing it.) As a final note, while "Happy Birthday to You" is still under copyright in the US, the song "Good Morning to All", which is equivalent musically, is under the public domain. -- 174.24.208.192 (talk) 08:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the parody fair use thing... I'd forgotten! Okay that makes perfect sense. So mechanical licenses aside, a public performance of a song, even non-recorded, requires monetary compensation then, it sounds like. I still don't get the reason why someone can slap new lyrics to "Good Morning to All" and suddenly copyright the piece as a whole, but perhaps that's beyond the scope of my original question. Thank you both for your responses! I'll keep it open another day or so in case anyone else wishes to chime in. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This would be called a derivative work and the new elements of such a work are newly copyrighted by the new elements' author. Any copyrighted older elements upon which the work is based remain copyrighted by the original author. Anyway, our article Happy Birthday to You mentions one law professor who cited various problems with the copyright and has claimed, "It is almost certainly no longer under copyright". Nobody has challenged WB in court on this point yet. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That song is so well-known and universally used that if its alleged copyright holder actually did try to sue someone, especially an ordinary family, the cost in negative publicity would far outweigh any gain they might expect from a "royalty". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if Marilyn Monroe paid a royalty when she sang her famous sultry version of the song to JFK that time? That was certainly a much more "public" performance than kids singing it at a birthday party. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, again you have posted something that is flatly wrong, because you did not look for a reference. WB regularly ~~threatens to sue~~ collects royalties that are demanded by and paid to ASCAP and the Harry Fox Agency by film companies, for example, that include this song in their films. This litigiousness is why you rarely hear servers at restaurants singing "Happy Birthday" but some other awful made up jingle. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should start using an IP address, and you would start defending me instead. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, neither of you provided any sort of reference. Vimescarrot (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to hear Comet's information on whether MM paid a royalty for her performance, and also whether any kids' private party has ever been threatened with a suit. Certainly WB might threaten a commercial production, that would be a different story, and that's not what I was talking about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is what qualifies as "private". For example, Boy Scouts and similar orgs can't sing it: [1]. They are only allowed to sing public domain songs. In several nations, there's such a backlash against the absurdly strict copyright laws that they have a "Piracy Party", which actually wins some elections. StuRat (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine that WB would actually file suit against a kids' party. That would be an incredibly stupid thing to do. Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for Mr. Warmth to research whether MM had to pay a royalty for singing it to JFK. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My response about you being flatly wrong was to your flatly wrong claim that the copyright holder wouldn't sue "someone" to collect royalties because of negative publicity. I don't know whether Marilyn Monroe paid up, and I don't know whether they have sued an ordinary family. Just start supplying references, please. Looking up a reference, such as the Happy Birthday to You article, not only helps the querent, but the process also helps us all stop posting untrue things. Comet Tuttle (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You asked about sources; the Happy Birthday to You article that I linked to earlier in this thread notes that Warner claims "that unauthorized public performances of the song are technically illegal unless royalties are paid to it"; the article links to the Brauneis paper which notes that ASCAP, on behalf of the H.B.T.Y. authors, demands the public performance payments; that these payments were a little under US$2 million per year by 1996; that restaurant chains like "Red Lobster, Outback Steakhouse, and Romano's Macaroni Grill, have developed birthday songs of their own in part to avoid having to purchase live music performance licenses from ASCAP"; and that the song "has featured in the current unavailability of the civil rights documentary Eyes On The Prize, which features footage of a group singing 'Happy Birthday To You' to Martin Luther King, Jr.". The paper mentions 4 lawsuits beginning in the 1930s regarding the song, including a lawsuit against the Postal Telegraph-Cable Company, alleging the company used the H.B.T.Y. song with lyrics as a singing telegram (!), without a license. I struck my claim above that WB "regularly sues" over this matter; sorry about that; it appears that there are no recent lawsuits, because after ASCAP or the Harry Fox Agency present their demands, people pay up. I do maintain that royalty payments are routinely demanded over the song, despite the negative publicity. The Brauneis paper argues that H.B.T.Y. is indeed probably not copyrighted, but, again, nobody has challenged the song's copyright status in court. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, singing "Happy Birthday" to a group of 10-year-olds would count as a copyright violation? Well then, I guess teachers everywhere who acknowledge a student's birthday and have the whole class sing "Happy Birthday" have been breaking the law all these years, and with no consequence! 24.189.90.68 (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, it's technically a copyright violation, but WB of course goes after TV shows and movies because the "damages" are higher. Comet Tuttle (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Side Question ... I just stumbled across this question today. It got me thinking ... aren't there tons of TV shows and movies where characters sing "Happy Birthday"? I probably can't think of a specific example ... but I am sure that I have seen it over the years ...no? Am I imagining this? Isn't it rather ordinary / common to see characters singing this in a TV show or movie? Thank you. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

No, there probably aren't as many as you think there are. And those that do almost certainly license it. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember seeing an interview with Penny Marshall about her movie Big starring Tom Hanks. They shot two versions of the birthday scene: one with them singing the familiar Happy Birthday song, and the other with them singing a birthday song that the film's composer quickly invented. That allowed them to license the famous song for the theatrical release, but then save money by using the made-up song for TV and video. The film turned out to be a big hit, of course, so maybe they licensed the "real" song for one of the DVD releases. —Kevin Myers 07:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is almost certainly the case that Weird Al got permission to sing the song at concerts. While his work is parody and a form of fair use, the legal definition of "parody" is narrow enough that most don't want to fall back on it (the cost of litigating would be prohibitive). He has lawyers who no doubt worked something out. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "Weird Al" Yankovic article has a section going into detail about Weird Al and permission. Under US law, parody is a protected First Amendment right; but Weird Al makes it a point to ask for permission anyway. However, parody aside, under US law, any performer can perform any song written by anybody in history, and there is a standard royalty that is supposed to be paid to the authors; it's administered by ASCAP and BMI in the US. Permission is not needed. (That Weird Al article notes that although Coolio was upset about a Weird Al parody of a song of his, Coolio accepted the royalty checks.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[In 1871, Lewis Carroll published Through the Looking-Glass, featuring "The Unbirthday Song", which was used later by Walt Disney. (lyrics) -- Wavelength (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)][reply]

["The Unbirthday Song" is in the Disney film, but it is not in Through the Looking-Glass (though the word un-birthday does occur in the latter). Deor (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)][reply]

This is fascinating stuff, I knew it was a complex issue! Thanks everyone for all the responses! I'm reading this every day, so any new comments would be very welcome. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a LOT of half-a$$ed misinformation in the above responses. Parody has nothing to do with "fair use." The question is whether one can write new lyrics to an old melody and publish them. If the new lyrics are parody, yes; if not, no. In the former case, if the publication includes the music (i.e., is not print and only print), royalties are owed (but not always paid) to the copyright holder, administered, e.g., by ASCAP; in the latter, the song cannot be published at all. ("Publish" is a catch-all which here also means "peform a song" or "release a recording.") The context is the right to "cover" copyrighted songs, which in the US is absolute (followed by payment of royalties). The parody issue is about re-writing the lyrics within this absolute right. Some copyright holders objected to the absolute right to "cover" songs being extended to those with re-written lyrics, and the right was restricted to re-written lyrics that were "parody." If I rewrite "Moon River" as "Chopped Liver" and describe Jewish dietary practices of the 1960s, I have the right to "cover" the melody of "Moon River"; if I rewrite the lyrics to describe how my heart was broken in my last love affair, or my patriotic love for my homeland, etc., it's not parody and I have no right to cover the melody. As for "Happy Birthday" and "illegality" -- it is NOT "illegal" to violate copyright in the USA (with exceptions such as "pirating" merchandise); rather, copyright violations give standing to the holder of the copyright to file a cause of action in court. You can do anything you want with copyrighted material; but some things you do will allow you to be sued, if the copyright holder chooses to do so. This basic point is misunderstood again and again and again by people inquiring about the "illegality" of copyright infringement. "Copyright" is utterly irrelevant unless and until the copyright holder threatens a cause of action, which he or she has no obligation to do (as opposed to a public prosecutor learning of a significant illegal act). 63.17.94.91 (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you can also murder anyone you want, although you will then be prosecuted for it. In common language, "illegal" means anything that will get you in trouble (including owing damages) with the courts (including civil). Yes, that's not the formal definition, but it is the one most people use, since there doesn't seem to be a single term for that ("engaging in behavior which causes legal liability" ?). StuRat (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re murder: as I said, "as opposed to a public prosecutor learning of a significant illegal act." It is not common to refer to causes of actions as "illegal acts." If you paid a well-meaning, honest teenager to paint your house, and he did the best he could but unfortunately was extremely incompetent, which in turn caused you to spend $1000 to fix the damage he inadvertently did -- would you call the guy a "criminal"? Would you say to him, "Don't you realize it's ILLEGAL to be a lousy house-painter?" No. But you might sue him for the $1000. To use another example: If an adult got caught shoplifting a three-dollar item from Disneyland, he would almost certainly be referred to the police; if the same person stood outside Disneyland on a busy Anaheim street with a guitar and an upturned hat full of spare change and spent all day singing tunes from Disney movies, a dozen Disney lawyers would walk right by him and not think twice. My main point is that people sometimes muse (as casual mental experiments) about "copyright violations" based on behavior that is technically actionable but so irrelevant that it is never even noticed, much less punished. It's like the "what if one siamese twin killed a guy?" questions, or tearing the tags off pillows. Tortious behavior is not illegal (unless ALSO defined as criminal behavior); and copyright violations are of no interest whatsoever to copyright holders unless they potentially have economic consequences, such as "diluting" the value of a work (or the creator's "brand") by over-exposure or negative exposure, or putting a significant amount of consumer money into the pocket of someone exploiting the copyright holder. 63.17.56.71 (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's view the FBI warning [2]:

“The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by up to 5 years in federal prison and a fine of $250,000.”

It's fine that copyright holders may choose not to prosecute people who copy DVDs for their own home use, but the fact that they can legally take action, with fines up to a quarter million dollars and 5 year prison sentences, for copying, even when not for financial gain, seems to mean it's illegal. If not, how could they threaten prison ? StuRat (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word exists for the act, and it is only one syllable: tort. The behavior could be called "tortious behavior" or "committing a tortious act" or the like. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Comet Tuttle ... a copyright infringement is not a tort per se ... or is it? I am not sure. Aren't they two completely different/separate legal concepts? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 01:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

A tort is just something you can sue somebody for, so, yes, most copyright infringements are just torts. (There are some criminal copyright infringements, which are rare by comparison.) This page says that copyright infringement is a major area of tort litigation, and Googling "copyright tort" yields 6.5 million articles to browse. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should all stick with this parody version:

Happy Birthday to you,
Happy Birthday to you,
You look like a monkey,
And you smell like one, too.

Or has anybody managed to copyright that ? StuRat (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work, you copied half of it, pay up, mister. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The version I've usually heard has the second line as "You live in a zoo". So that's 3/4 derivative, 1/4 copied. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]