Image copyright University of Louisville Image caption A portion of a music manuscript for Happy Birthday's predecessor - "Good Morning to All" 
 
 The company collecting royalties for Happy Birthday To You does not hold a valid copyright to the song, a US federal judge has ruled. 
 
 Warner/Chappell acquired the copyright - which was originally filed in 1935 - in 1988. 
 
 But judge George King ruled that the original copyright was only granted for specific arrangements of the music, not the song itself. 
 
 The tune was composed by two Kentucky sisters in 1893. 
 
 Mildred and Patty Hill called their version Good Morning To All, which later evolved into the song that is popularly sung at birthday parties around the world. 
 
 Warner/Chappell had been collecting fees since 1988, when it bought Birch Tree Group, the successor to Clayton F Summy Co, which claimed the original copyright. 
 
 It is thought to have made $2 million (£1.3 million) a year by charging every time the song was used in a film, television episode, advertisement or other public performance. 
 
 The case against the publishers was launched in 2013 by Rupa Marya and Robert Siegel, who are making a film about the song. 
 
 When Warner asked for $1,500 (£970) for the right to use Happy Birthday To You in the film, Ms Marya and Mr Siegel argued the song was in the public domain and should not be subject to copyright fees. 
 
 Judge King ruled that Summy had never acquired copyright to the song's words. 
 
 'Thrilled' 
 
 "The Hill sisters gave Summy Co the rights to the melody, and the rights to piano arrangements based on the melody, but never any rights to the lyrics," he said. 
 
 Mark Rifkin, one of lawyers who acted for the plaintiffs, said he was "thrilled" by the judge's decision. 
 
 "We did exhaustive historical research and none of it showed that the publisher owned anything other than copyrights to four very specific piano arrangements," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. 
 
 "In the second part of the case, which hopefully we'll get to start very soon, we're going to be asking the court to order Warner to return all the money that's been collected from everyone who has had to pay a licensing fee or royalty to use the song... at least going back to 1988." 
 
 "If they've collected $2m a year over that period, that's a large sum of money." 
 
 After the ruling was announced, Warner/Chappell said: "We are looking at the court's lengthy opinion and considering our options." 
 
 Despite the ruling, the song still remains under copyright in the UK and other countries - and caution should be exercised over its use, says intellectual property lawyer Mark Owen. 
 
 "As elements of the song are still potentially within the maximum copyright term it may be the case that someone still owns some rights to it," said Mr Owen, a partner at law firm Taylor Wessing. 
 
 "There are also complex questions as to what the impact of this ruling may be on uses outside the US, so film-makers here should not now rush into using the song without considering the impact of this judgment carefully." ||||| Attorneys for suing filmmakers uncover a blurry version of an 88-year-old book in the files of Warner/Chappell. That leads to another serendipitous discovery. 
 
 On the eve of a judge's ruling, attorneys find key evidence tucked away in the files of the opposing side. They rush to court with word of their bombshell discovery. If this sounds like the third act of a Hollywood movie, it very well might become one. 
 
 The filmmakers working on a documentary about the world's most popular song, "Happy Birthday to You," and currently suing Warner/Chappell for the right to use the song in the documentary without any license fee, filed court papers on Monday touting newly uncovered evidence that "proves conclusively that there is no copyright to the Happy Birthday lyrics." 
 
 The "proverbial smoking gun," as the plaintiffs put it to a California judge, is a book of children's songs that comes straight out of Warner/Chappell's digital library. 
 
 Betsy Manifold and Mark Rifkin, attorneys for the plaintiffs, were only given access to these files just three weeks ago. They were told the documents were held back "mistakenly." What they found was a blurry version of the 15th edition of The Everyday Song Book, published in 1927. The book contained Happy Birthday lyrics. Intrigued by the discovery, and looking for a cleaner version, the lawyers started hunting down earlier editions, and in the archives of The University of Pittsburgh, they came upon the fourth edition, published in 1922, which included the famous Happy Birthday song without any copyright notice. 
 
 This book, plaintiffs believe, establishes that "Happy Birthday" lyrics were dedicated to the public years before the copyright registration that Warner/Chappell is relying upon was made. 
 
 If this proposition is accepted by the judge, Warner/Chappell may lose out on a cash cow that is reported to reap $2 million a year in revenue. Filmmakers like the named plaintiffs — and others who have forked over as much as six figures to license — would no longer have to pay a penny to feature "Happy Birthday" in motion pictures and television shows. 
 
 Good Morning to You Productions Corp., run by director Jennifer Nelson, filed the class-action lawsuit in 2013 after being told she'd have to pay $1,500 to use the song in her "Happy Birthday" documentary. After first being reported by The Hollywood Reporter, news of the litigation spread across the globe and was called the "lawsuit for the ages" by The New York Times. "It went viral and I never thought it would happen like this," said Nelson in a speech last year. 
 
 The legal action, like Nelson's pending film, puts a spotlight on a song that traces its origin to work by a schoolteacher named Patty Smith Hill and her sister Mildred Hill. 
 
 The Hill sisters later assigned rights to a publishing company owned by Clayton Summy. Later, copyright registrations were made by Sumny's company on "Happy Birthday." Warner/Chappell has been contending that the 1935 registration covers both the piano arrangement as well as nearly universally known lyrics. 
 
 The parties have engaged in nearly two years of debate over such topics as the possibility of fraud and whether decades-old letters about the origins of the song were protected by attorney-client privilege. After extensive discovery, both sides made summary judgment arguments last winter with U.S. District Judge George King requesting extra briefing on the issue of whether the "Happy Birthday" copyright was abandoned. Warner/Chappell has argued it wasn't abandoned unless the Hill Sisters published or authorize others to publish their works prior to the 1935 registration. The song publisher said there was no such proof of that. 
 
 Now, just as King was set to either blow out the candles on this litigation or deliver a gift to those wishing to make free use of the popular song, the plaintiffs have stepped forward with some dramatic flair. 
 
 The next oral hearing in the "Happy Birthday" dispute is scheduled for Wednesday. And so, the new filing comes at the judicial equivalent of a few minutes before midnight, so late that King had previously ordered the parties not to supplement the record with new evidence. The plaintiffs say they have good reason anyhow — the "smoking gun" only recently being obtained from the other side — to come forward with their serendipitous discovery. 
 
 According to their application for the judge to consider this new evidence, "Because the documents prove conclusively that the song is in the public domain, thus making it unnecessary for the Court to decide the scope or validity of the disputed copyrights, much less whether Patty Hill abandoned any copyright she may have had to the lyrics — indeed, all those issues become moot — Plaintiffs are compelled to bring them to the Court’s attention now, before more time is needlessly spent on the pending Summary Judgment Motions and before the oral argument scheduled for July 29, 2015." 
 
 Here's plaintiff's latest court papers. 
 
 Randall Newman, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, says Warner/Chappell "should admit defeat but they won't because too much money is at stake." 
 
 UPDATE: Warner/Chappell has submitted its response in court. The publisher is not opposing the plaintiffs' request to supplement the record, but say "at most, the documents would create an issue of fact whether The Cable Company," the company that put out The Everyday Song Book, "made a publication in 1922 that could have divested the copyright owners — the Hill Sisters — of their common law copyright in the Happy Birthday! lyrics." 
 
 Warner/Chappell says there's there no indication the Hill family was aware of the book nor authorized it. They write the "evidence instead shows that Summy sought and obtained a license to publish the Happy Birthday to You! lyrics" in 1935 — and "Summy would not have had to secure a license from Jessica Hill if it already had the rights to Happy Birthday to You! or if the work had fallen into the public domain." 
 
 Summy appears to have given "special permission" for the 1922 book — but in an attempt to at least let the case go to trial, Warner/Chappell asks "Was it for Good Morning to All only? Was it for that work in combination with the Happy Birthday lyrics?" 
 
 Elsewhere in Warner/Chappell's brief (read here), the defendant attempts to explain why it took them so long to hand over this key evidence. "Warner/Chappell was not hiding that or other documents or proceeding in bad faith," write their attorneys, explaining that it didn't believe documents from its "work product factual investigation" were "subject to discovery" until the March summary judgment hearing, a new review of files and so forth. ||||| The music publisher will also not stand in the way for a judge to declare the song to be in the public domain. 
 
 Sing the song, blow out the candles, eat the cake and unwrap the gifts. 
 
 According to a court filing on Monday, music publisher Warner/Chappell will pay $14 million to end a lawsuit challenging its hold on the English language's most popular song, "Happy Birthday to You." Additionally, the settlement stipulates a proposed final judgment and order that would declare the song to be in the public domain. A memorandum in support of the settlement sings the praises of the deal as "truly, an historic result." U.S. District Judge George H. King will have to sign off on it. 
 
 The revelation of the settlement terms comes after King came to the conclusion this past September that Warner and its predecessor didn't hold any valid copyright to the song and never acquired the rights to the "Happy Birthday" lyrics. At the time, the judge stopped short of declaring that the song was in the public domain, and just before a trial was set to begin in December exploring the history of a song dating back to a 19th century schoolteacher named Patty Smith Hill and her sister Mildred Hill, the sides reached an agreement. 
 
 Warners was expecting to have "Happy Birthday" under copyright until 2030. An IP valuation expert retained by the plaintiffs estimated that the song was to reap between $14 million to $16.5 million in the next 15 years. 
 
 "The judicial determination that 'Happy Birthday' is in the public domain also has substantial value," states the memorandum in support of the settlement. "Because Defendants have charged for use of the Song, untold thousands of people chose not to use the Song in their own performances and artistic works or to perform the Song in public. This has limited the number of times the Song was performed and used. After the Settlement is approved, that restraint will be removed and the Song will be performed and used far more often than it has been in the past. While there is no way to make a reliable estimate of the increase that will result, there can be no dispute that the increase will be substantial." 
 
 An agreement to have a judge declare the song in the public domain is no doubt unusual and will likely command some attention by the judge on review. 
 
 But for now, the settlement provides a big final act to the class action lawsuit brought by film director Jennifer Nelson, who was making a documentary about "Happy Birthday" and was asked to pay a $1,500 license fee. She sued to hinder Warners from ever forcing film and TV producers, or others, to pay again. The plaintiffs argued that a song appearing in early 20th-century children's textbooks had to be in the public domain because of general publication, abandonment or the length of the copyright term. 
 
 By agreeing to the settlement, Warners avoids going to trial to determine whether it should be punished for collecting licensing money for many decades. The music publisher also forgoes an appeal that it teased. The defendant continues to believe that a 1935 copyright registration should have entitled it to a presumption of copyright validity and that the song isn't in the public domain, but it has agreed to a judgment that states otherwise. 
 
 The plaintiffs were represented by attorneys led by Mark Rifkin, who according to the settlement terms will be seeking a $4.62 million fee, a third of the $14 million settlement fund. The rest would go to those who have paid to license "Happy Birthday" and meet the definition of the proposed class. Those folks are estimated to have spent more than $50 million on licensing fees on "Happy Birthday" over the years. 
 
 Last week, in announcing its quarterly earnings, Warner Music Group partly blamed an operating loss on expenses related to the "Happy Birthday" settlement. A hearing on the settlement is scheduled in March. ||||| LOS ANGELES (AP) — The music publishing company that has been collecting royalties on the song "Happy Birthday To You" for years does not hold a valid copyright on the lyrics to the tune that is one of the mostly widely sung in the world, a federal judge ruled Tuesday. 
 
 FILE- In this July 25, 2015, file photo, Terrance Jackson, left, Doris Ware, second from left, and Beverly Booker, right, sing "Happy Birthday To You" to Bernice Williams, seated, as she celebrates her... (Associated Press) 
 
 File-This July 18, 2013, file photo shows a group of kindergarten children singing Happy Birthday to Nelson Mandela outside the Mediclinic Heart Hospital in Pretoria, South Africa. The music publishing... (Associated Press) 
 
 U.S. District Judge George H. King determined the song's original copyright, obtained by the Clayton F. Summy Co. from the song's writers, only covered specific piano arrangements of the song and not its lyrics. The basic tune of the song, derived from another popular children's song, "Good Morning to All," has long been in the public domain. 
 
 King's decision comes in a lawsuit filed two years ago by Good Morning To You Productions Corp., which is working on a documentary film tentatively titled "Happy Birthday." The company challenged the copyright now held by Warner/Chappell Music Inc., arguing that the song should be "dedicated to public use and in the public domain." 
 
 "Because Summy Co. never acquired the rights to the 'Happy Birthday' lyrics, defendants, as Summy Co.'s purported successors-in-interest, do not own a valid copyright in the Happy Birthday lyrics," King concluded in his 43-page ruling. 
 
 The lawsuit also asked for monetary damages and restitution of more than $5 million in licensing fees it said in 2013 that Warner/Chappell had collected from thousands of people and groups who've paid to use the song over the years. 
 
 Marshall Lamm, a spokesman for one of the plaintiffs' lawyers, said that issue would be determined later. 
 
 In the meantime, one of the suit's co-plaintiffs, Ruypa Marya of the music group Ruypa & The April Fishes, praised Tuesday's decision. 
 
 "I hope we can start reimagining copyright law to do what it's supposed to do — protect the creations of people who make stuff so that we can continue to make more stuff," said Marya, who added she paid Warner/Chappell $455 to include "Happy Birthday To You" on a live album during which members of her band and audience sang the song to her the night before her birthday. 
 
 Warner/Chappell has said it doesn't try to collect royalties from just anyone singing the song but those who use it in a commercial enterprise. 
 
 "We are looking at the court's lengthy opinion and considering our options," Warner/Chappell said in a statement following Tuesday's ruling. 
 
 In his ruling King went into great detail about the history of "Happy Birthday To You" and its derivation from "Good Morning to All." 
 
 That song was written by sisters Mildred Hill and Patty Hill sometime before 1893, the judge said, adding that the sisters assigned the rights to it and other songs to Clayton F. Summy, who copyrighted and published them in a book titled "Song Stories for the Kindergarten." 
 
 "The origins of the lyrics to Happy Birthday (the 'Happy Birthday lyrics') are less clear," the judge continued, adding the first known reference to them appeared in a 1901 article in the Inland Educator and Indiana School Journal. 
 
 The full lyrics themselves, King said, didn't appear in print until 1911. 
 
 Since then, they have become the most famous lyrics in the English language, according to Guinness World Records. The song is also sung in countless other languages around the world. 
 
 Warner/Chappell, which eventually acquired the song's copyright from Summy, argued that its predecessor had registered a copyright to "Happy Birthday To You" in 1935 that gave it the rights to all of the song. 
 
 "Our record does not contain any contractual agreement from 1935 or before between the Hill sisters and Summy Co. concerning the publication and registration of these works," the judge said.
– You can now sing "Happy Birthday" anywhere you like without fear of copyright lawyers pouncing. A federal judge has ruled that Warner/Chappell, which has been making around $2 million a year from "Happy Birthday to You," doesn't have the rights to the song and never did, reports the Los Angeles Times. The judge ruled that a copyright filed in 1935 and acquired by Warner in 1988 only covered specific piano arrangements of the tune and not the lyrics, the BBC reports. The song started out as "Good Morning to All," written by a Kentucky schoolteacher and her sister in the 1890s, and the judge found that there was no evidence that the sisters had even written the better-known lyrics, Ars Technica reports. Warner wasn't in the habit of sending lawyers to raid birthday parties, but it did expect to get paid whenever the song was used in ads, movies, or any other profit-making enterprise. Plaintiffs in the long-running lawsuit included the makers of a documentary about the song and singer Rupa Marya, who had to pay $455 for including it on a live album. "I hope we can start reimagining copyright law to do what it's supposed to do—protect the creations of people who make stuff so that we can continue to make more stuff," she tells the AP. Lawyers say they now plan to make the suit a class-action one to force Warner to pay back some of the royalties, the Times reports.