 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. 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 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. But King wrote that there's no evidence they ever transferred a copyright on the words. "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. 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. 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." 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. 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 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. "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. 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. 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. "We are looking at the court's lengthy opinion and considering our options," Warner/Chappell said in a statement following Tuesday's ruling. "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.
– 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.