Can Warner/Chappell be sued to recover royalties paid to them for the &#39;Happy Birthday&#39; song?
<p>The District Court of California recently ruled that <a href="http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2056&amp;context=historical" rel="nofollow">Warner/Chappell Music do not hold the rights to the 'Happy Birthday' song lyrics</a>.</p>

<p>Assuming that this is not overturned, and given that Warner/Chappell have been pursuing and collecting royalties for the song for some time - a likely reason why, on television and movies, one doesn't hear it very often - are those who paid them entitled to recover the fees that they paid for its use?</p>

<p>And, I suppose it goes without saying, even if they <em>can</em> sue Warner Chappell, what are their prospects of success, based on legal principles, and maybe not so much based on their prospects of succeeding against such a large corporation?</p>

<p>This would be an example of an ex post facto application of a decision, and that's generally not something that occurs in US law.  </p>

united-states copyright