1
00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:02,800
Speaker 1: It's the song that became the anthem of the civil

2
00:00:02,880 --> 00:00:29,120
Speaker 1: rights movement. Come we Sha, Come We Show. The words

3
00:00:29,200 --> 00:00:32,400
Speaker 1: became a rallying cry for the movement. As Martin Luther

4
00:00:32,600 --> 00:00:35,600
Speaker 1: King explained in a speech four days before his death,

5
00:00:36,400 --> 00:00:40,280
Speaker 1: deep in my heart, I do believe we shall overcome.

6
00:00:41,320 --> 00:00:44,840
Speaker 1: No John hands often with students and others behind tail

7
00:00:44,920 --> 00:00:48,960
Speaker 1: bass singing it, we shall overcome this. Sometimes we've had

8
00:00:49,080 --> 00:00:51,760
Speaker 1: tears and eyes when we dawned together to sing it,

9
00:00:51,960 --> 00:00:55,880
Speaker 1: but we still decided to sing it. You probably assumed

10
00:00:55,960 --> 00:00:59,080
Speaker 1: that song belongs to the public, but it didn't until

11
00:00:59,200 --> 00:01:02,040
Speaker 1: last week. A New York federal judge struck down the

12
00:01:02,080 --> 00:01:05,440
Speaker 1: copyright for the first verse of the song. Joining Me

13
00:01:05,520 --> 00:01:07,920
Speaker 1: is the attorney who won that judgment. It's leading the

14
00:01:07,959 --> 00:01:10,880
Speaker 1: class action against the music publishers who claimed to hold

15
00:01:10,880 --> 00:01:14,199
Speaker 1: the copyright. If we shall overcome? Mark Rifkin, a partner

16
00:01:14,200 --> 00:01:18,160
Speaker 1: at Wolf halden Stein, Mark, why did your clients decide

17
00:01:18,200 --> 00:01:22,120
Speaker 1: to challenge the copyright June? For them, this was such

18
00:01:22,120 --> 00:01:26,120
Speaker 1: an important song, such an iconic song, and so important

19
00:01:26,120 --> 00:01:27,920
Speaker 1: in the freedom struggle and in the story to tell

20
00:01:27,959 --> 00:01:32,080
Speaker 1: about the freedom struggle that they believed the song had

21
00:01:32,120 --> 00:01:34,399
Speaker 1: to be put back in the public domain where it

22
00:01:34,440 --> 00:01:39,120
Speaker 1: began in the nineties before before Ludlow filed a copyright

23
00:01:39,160 --> 00:01:41,440
Speaker 1: for the song and tell me who your clients were,

24
00:01:41,720 --> 00:01:44,560
Speaker 1: So we represent We represent two clients in the case.

25
00:01:44,680 --> 00:01:48,520
Speaker 1: The first is UH though we shall Overcome Foundation, a

26
00:01:48,520 --> 00:01:52,600
Speaker 1: nonprofit organization that was producing a movie and still will

27
00:01:52,680 --> 00:01:55,920
Speaker 1: release the movie about the song, the history of the song,

28
00:01:56,560 --> 00:01:59,320
Speaker 1: and to use the song in the movie, they had

29
00:01:59,360 --> 00:02:04,040
Speaker 1: to pay a royalty to Ludlow Music to be able

30
00:02:04,080 --> 00:02:06,840
Speaker 1: to do that. And our other client in the case

31
00:02:07,680 --> 00:02:12,120
Speaker 1: is Butler Films. They produced the famous movie Lee Daniels

32
00:02:12,160 --> 00:02:16,360
Speaker 1: The Butler and and they too had to pay a

33
00:02:16,400 --> 00:02:18,880
Speaker 1: fee to use the song and in fact only use

34
00:02:18,960 --> 00:02:20,760
Speaker 1: the song for a couple of seconds in the movie

35
00:02:20,800 --> 00:02:25,240
Speaker 1: because of the amount of money that was demanded by

36
00:02:25,840 --> 00:02:28,720
Speaker 1: Ludlow to use the song. The song has been traced

37
00:02:28,760 --> 00:02:33,400
Speaker 1: back to spirituals how to get copyright protection in the

38
00:02:33,400 --> 00:02:37,840
Speaker 1: first place, The song has its origin as at least

39
00:02:37,880 --> 00:02:42,560
Speaker 1: here in this country as a Negro spiritual and UH

40
00:02:42,919 --> 00:02:45,120
Speaker 1: we were able to date the song at least back

41
00:02:45,240 --> 00:02:49,160
Speaker 1: to the turn of the twentieth century, so early nine hundreds.

42
00:02:50,280 --> 00:02:55,160
Speaker 1: It was published by a magazine that was owned in

43
00:02:55,240 --> 00:03:00,840
Speaker 1: part by Pete Seeger as we Will Overcome, with virtually

44
00:03:00,880 --> 00:03:04,600
Speaker 1: the same lyrics and virtually the same melody, but without

45
00:03:04,600 --> 00:03:10,160
Speaker 1: a copyright. In nineteen sixty, the music publisher Music decided

46
00:03:10,200 --> 00:03:12,680
Speaker 1: that it would copyright what was otherwise a public domain

47
00:03:12,720 --> 00:03:16,400
Speaker 1: work on the basis of a couple of tiny and

48
00:03:16,760 --> 00:03:20,880
Speaker 1: insignificant changes that they identified in the song. And we

49
00:03:21,000 --> 00:03:25,800
Speaker 1: challenged the ability UH to copyright the the trivial and

50
00:03:25,800 --> 00:03:32,120
Speaker 1: insignificant changes. So what was the defendant's argument about those changes. Well,

51
00:03:32,160 --> 00:03:37,040
Speaker 1: there there are two lyric changes. In the famous verse

52
00:03:37,120 --> 00:03:42,040
Speaker 1: we will overcome became we shall overcome, and the lyric

53
00:03:42,440 --> 00:03:45,200
Speaker 1: U down in my heart became deep in my heart.

54
00:03:45,360 --> 00:03:49,040
Speaker 1: So the word will was changed to shall somewhere along

55
00:03:49,040 --> 00:03:53,040
Speaker 1: the line, and the word uh deep was changed to

56
00:03:53,240 --> 00:03:56,240
Speaker 1: down somewhere along the line. And they say they were

57
00:03:56,280 --> 00:03:58,720
Speaker 1: the most important changes to the song. We say they

58
00:03:58,720 --> 00:04:03,760
Speaker 1: were the kinds of changes that don't entitle anybody to

59
00:04:04,520 --> 00:04:07,760
Speaker 1: a copyright. And we also said, in this case, there

60
00:04:07,840 --> 00:04:10,720
Speaker 1: was no conclusive proof who made those changes in the

61
00:04:10,760 --> 00:04:16,560
Speaker 1: first place. So the judge agreed with you. And but

62
00:04:16,760 --> 00:04:20,680
Speaker 1: just about the first verse, Well, the first verse and

63
00:04:20,720 --> 00:04:23,240
Speaker 1: the fifth verse are identical. There's eight verses to the song,

64
00:04:23,600 --> 00:04:25,960
Speaker 1: and and on the first verse and fifth verse, the

65
00:04:26,000 --> 00:04:29,760
Speaker 1: same verse that everybody recognizes. Judge Code ruled that the

66
00:04:29,920 --> 00:04:34,080
Speaker 1: changes to the lyrics that I just mentioned, and a

67
00:04:34,080 --> 00:04:36,600
Speaker 1: couple of tiny little changes literally an eighth note or

68
00:04:36,640 --> 00:04:41,240
Speaker 1: a quarter note in the melody were not sufficiently original

69
00:04:41,960 --> 00:04:46,080
Speaker 1: to warrant copyright protection. And that means that Judge Code

70
00:04:46,120 --> 00:04:49,840
Speaker 1: agreed with us and with our musicologist that the changes

71
00:04:49,880 --> 00:04:52,160
Speaker 1: were the kinds of changes that any musician might make

72
00:04:52,320 --> 00:04:55,559
Speaker 1: in performing a song, and that doesn't create a new work,

73
00:04:56,080 --> 00:04:58,760
Speaker 1: and so she struck down the copyright for the for

74
00:04:58,800 --> 00:05:03,400
Speaker 1: the melody and for the famous lyrics on that basis.

75
00:05:03,800 --> 00:05:07,360
Speaker 1: So what happens with the rest of the song now, Well,

76
00:05:07,360 --> 00:05:09,200
Speaker 1: we have a couple of arguments to make. There's a

77
00:05:09,480 --> 00:05:13,960
Speaker 1: there's a trial that will begin sometime in December of

78
00:05:14,000 --> 00:05:16,839
Speaker 1: this year, and we intend to prove two things. First,

79
00:05:16,920 --> 00:05:19,600
Speaker 1: we intend to prove that the four authors that were

80
00:05:19,640 --> 00:05:24,320
Speaker 1: identified in the copyrights didn't write those lyrics. But but

81
00:05:24,400 --> 00:05:28,039
Speaker 1: as importantly, we intend to prove that Ludlow committed a

82
00:05:28,040 --> 00:05:31,159
Speaker 1: fraud on the copyright office and disguise the origin of

83
00:05:31,160 --> 00:05:33,479
Speaker 1: the song to claim copyright when they really had no

84
00:05:33,600 --> 00:05:36,160
Speaker 1: right to it, and the judge made said that she

85
00:05:36,440 --> 00:05:40,279
Speaker 1: had nothing to say about those two issues in her ruling.

86
00:05:40,839 --> 00:05:45,360
Speaker 1: Um tell me about Pete Seeger's connection with it, because

87
00:05:45,440 --> 00:05:49,840
Speaker 1: it gave it a certain um authenticity when you hear

88
00:05:49,880 --> 00:05:51,680
Speaker 1: that he was one of the people with the copyright.

89
00:05:53,040 --> 00:05:56,520
Speaker 1: What what we have discovered is that Seeger introduced the

90
00:05:56,560 --> 00:06:00,719
Speaker 1: song to Ludlow, to the publisher in the late nineteen fifties,

91
00:06:01,080 --> 00:06:05,240
Speaker 1: fifty or nineteen fifty nine. He was not on the

92
00:06:05,279 --> 00:06:09,560
Speaker 1: original copyright that was filed in nineteen sixty although the

93
00:06:09,640 --> 00:06:15,640
Speaker 1: only work that Ludlow ever specifically attributed to any particular

94
00:06:15,720 --> 00:06:20,520
Speaker 1: author was the two lyrical changes that they attributed to Seeger.

95
00:06:21,520 --> 00:06:25,400
Speaker 1: We have a theory about why Seeger wasn't on the copyright,

96
00:06:25,440 --> 00:06:28,240
Speaker 1: and we will prove that at the trial in December.

97
00:06:28,760 --> 00:06:31,600
Speaker 1: But he was not on the copyright even though he

98
00:06:31,680 --> 00:06:34,320
Speaker 1: introduced the song to Ludlow, and and he was the

99
00:06:34,320 --> 00:06:39,680
Speaker 1: one that Ludlow says made those changes. Now you introduce

100
00:06:39,760 --> 00:06:44,440
Speaker 1: you sued and one over another iconic song, the Happy

101
00:06:44,440 --> 00:06:49,320
Speaker 1: Birthday Song, that another song that everyone thought was copyright protected.

102
00:06:50,000 --> 00:06:53,120
Speaker 1: Were there similarities in the two cases or in the

103
00:06:53,120 --> 00:06:56,640
Speaker 1: way you investigated it? Or what you found out. Similarities

104
00:06:56,680 --> 00:06:58,560
Speaker 1: in both cases and certainly in the way we went

105
00:06:58,600 --> 00:07:02,840
Speaker 1: about investigating them in in either case, the songs really

106
00:07:02,880 --> 00:07:07,080
Speaker 1: were public popular songs to begin with, and a publisher

107
00:07:07,440 --> 00:07:09,440
Speaker 1: claimed a copyright and work that had been in the

108
00:07:09,480 --> 00:07:13,680
Speaker 1: public domain long before the copyright applications were filed, and

109
00:07:13,800 --> 00:07:17,040
Speaker 1: similar in the way they were investigated. My partner Randy

110
00:07:17,080 --> 00:07:21,880
Speaker 1: Newman is an absolute genius at at ferreting out the

111
00:07:22,000 --> 00:07:26,200
Speaker 1: real facts and and spent months and months in both

112
00:07:26,200 --> 00:07:30,520
Speaker 1: cases delving into the historical record before we filed either case.

113
00:07:32,080 --> 00:07:38,040
Speaker 1: It's it's amazing the similarities between these two songs in

114
00:07:38,120 --> 00:07:40,640
Speaker 1: that so many people, I mean, I think that most

115
00:07:40,680 --> 00:07:43,880
Speaker 1: people would think that these songs were in the public domain,

116
00:07:44,000 --> 00:07:47,080
Speaker 1: and especially I'm a Happy Birthday and you've heard this

117
00:07:47,160 --> 00:07:49,880
Speaker 1: as a civil rights anthem for so long and in

118
00:07:50,800 --> 00:07:55,200
Speaker 1: so many places. Yeah, I think the common thread here

119
00:07:55,320 --> 00:07:58,360
Speaker 1: is that they are both public works, they are original

120
00:07:58,440 --> 00:08:03,240
Speaker 1: to uh the public really um and and what we

121
00:08:03,320 --> 00:08:06,160
Speaker 1: have is a misuse of copyright. We're going to hear

122
00:08:06,160 --> 00:08:09,640
Speaker 1: more about this or taking it to trial. That's Mark Rifkin,

123
00:08:10,200 --> 00:08:13,520
Speaker 1: he's a partner at Wolf holden Stein. That's it for

124
00:08:13,560 --> 00:08:16,400
Speaker 1: this edition. Of Bloomberg Law thanks to our producer David

125
00:08:16,440 --> 00:08:20,600
Speaker 1: Suckerman and our technical director Reginald Bazil. Coming up next

126
00:08:20,640 --> 00:08:25,120
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Markets with Carol Masser and Corey Johnson. I'm June Grossa.

127
00:08:25,240 --> 00:08:28,080
Speaker 1: You've been listening to Bloomberg Law. This is Bloomberg