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. ||||| More than two years after a documentary filmmaker challenged the copyright to the simple lyrics of the song "Happy Birthday," a federal judge ruled Tuesday that the copyright is invalid. 
 
 The result could undo Warner/Chappell's lucrative licensing business around the song, once estimated to be $2 million per year. The company is likely to appeal the ruling to the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. 
 
 US District Judge George King held that the two sisters who authored the song, Patty and Mildred Hill, gave the melody and piano arrangements to Summy Co., which was eventually acquired by Warner/Chappell. But King wrote that there's no evidence they ever transferred a copyright on the words. 
 
 "Defendants ask us to find that the Hill sisters eventually gave Summy Co. the rights in the lyrics to exploit and protect, but this assertion has no support in the record," King wrote. The idea that any of the Hill sisters' deals with Summy resulted in a transfer of the copyright on the lyrics is "implausible and unreasonable." 
 
 Good Morning To You 
 
 The lyrics of "Happy Birthday" are based on an earlier children's song called "Good Morning To You." There's wide agreement that the Hill sisters sold "Good Morning To You," along with other songs, to Clayton Summy in 1893. 
 
 "Good Morning To You" has the same tune as "Happy Birthday." Its lyrics are: 
 
 Good morning to you Good morning to you Good morning dear children Good morning to all. 
 
 The origin of the "Happy Birthday" lyrics is unclear, but they were written after "Good Morning To You." Newspapers reference the singing of a Happy Birthday song in 1901 and 1909, and "Happy Birthday" appeared in a songbook in 1911, without crediting anyone with the lyrics. 1920's songbooks similarly published the work without a credit, with one exception. 
 
 Further Reading Filmmakers fighting “Happy Birthday” copyright find their “smoking gun” 
 
 Who's the real author? 
 
 Lawyers representing plaintiffs, including filmmaker Jennifer Nelson, who made a film about the "Happy Birthday" song, challenged "nearly every aspect of this narrative," the judge noted. Nelson and her lawyers said the lyrics could have been written by someone else, the common law rights had been lost from repeated publications, and there was never a proper transfer to Summy. 
 
 King found merit in multiple prongs of the plaintiffs' argument. In his view, it isn't clear what was copyrighted in 1935, since the "new matter" mentioned a piano arrangement—so the Copyright Office may not have seen Summy as trying to copyright the song lyrics at all. 
 
 "[T]he registration is flawed in any event," wrote King. "Given this facial and material mistake in the registration certificate, we cannot presume (1) that Patty authored the lyrics or (2) that Summy Co. had any rights to the lyrics." 
 
 As to the authorship matter, King thought the situation was muddled enough that a trial might be appropriate. The 1911 and 1920s songbooks were copyrighted by other authors, and Patty Hill never publicly claimed she had written "Happy Birthday" until she was deposed in a 1935 copyright lawsuit. One possibility is that Hill wrote the song, and then waited 40 years to take credit for it. 
 
 On the other hand, "a reasonable fact finder could also find that the Happy Birthday lyrics were written by someone else... and that Patty’s 1935 claim to authorship was a post hoc attempt to take credit for the words that had long since become more famous and popular than the ones she wrote for the classic melody," King wrote. 
 
 King also ruled that the 1927 songbook that plaintiffs called a "Smoking Gun," called The Everyday Song Book, wasn't the slam dunk they thought it was. "As Defendants point out, there is no direct evidence that the Hill sisters had authorized Summy Co. to grant permission for the publication of the lyrics in The Everyday Song Book." 
 
 Three Agreements 
 
 The Hill sisters, and later their foundation, struck three deals with the Summy Co. The Second Agreement, described only in pleadings from a 1942 lawsuit, is what allegedly transferred the rights of "Happy Birthday." 
 
 The First Agreement didn't include rights to movies or dramatic performances, since at the time of that deal "sound motion pictures were unknown commercially." The Second Agreement remedied that, giving Jessica Hill, sister and heir to Patty and Mildred Hill, an entitlement to 50 percent of revenue from performance of the works worldwide. 
 
 From what little is known about the Second Agreement, the idea that it related to the lyrics "is not supported by any explicit description of the agreement" and is "implausible," King wrote. Warner/Chappell's argument that the lyrics could have been transferred in the Third Agreement is "circular," he concludes. The Third Agreement is in the court record and "contains no reference to the transfer of the 'Happy Birthday' lyrics." 
 
 That means Summy Co. never got the rights to the lyrics, and they're now in the public domain. 
 
 The lawsuit also has requested restitution of the millions in licensing fees paid by various companies and individuals over the years. A spokesperson for the plaintiffs told The Associated Press that issue will be resolved at a later time. 
 
 "We are looking at the court's lengthy opinion and considering our options," Warner/Chappell told AP in a statement. 
 
 Jennifer Nelson had to pay a synchronization license of $1,500 to Warner/Chappell to include the song in her movie. Another artist who was added as a named plaintiff later, musician Ruypa Marya, told AP she had to pay $455 to include "Happy Birthday To You" in a live album in which her bandmates sang the song to her. 
 
 "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," Marya told the newswire. ||||| 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.
– 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.