Warner/Chappell has submitted a response arguing that it's not quite a smoking gun. Copyright divestment by failing to put a proper copyright notice must happe

Warner/Chappell has submitted a response arguing that it's not quite a smoking gun. Copyright divestment by failing to put a proper copyright notice must happen with the "consent of the copyright owner". The song in the 1922 songbook said, "Special permission through courtesy of The Clayton F. Summy Co." without the appropriate copyright notice. The lack of proper copyright notice would have released it to the public domain (proper notice was included on other songs in the songbook). However, Warner/Chappell claims that Summy didn't own the copyright in 1922: the songbook asked the wrong people for permission. "There is no evidence that the Hill Sisters (Jessica or Patty) granted anyone the right to publish the Happy Birthday to You! lyrics until 1935. The evidence instead shows that Summy sought and obtained a license to publish the Happy Birthday to You! lyrics from Jessica Hill in 1935." As circumstantial evidence, Warner/Chappell also points out that in earlier court battles in the 30s and 40s the copyright holders never indicated that there was any authorized publication before 1935. Warner/Chappell doesn't address the filmmaker's claim that a 1922 publication would put the song into the public domain in 1997. I'm confused here: Would the publication have to be authorized for the 1997 date to hold? Filmmaker's request for summary judgement: http://www.scribd.com/doc/272751583/Birthday-Evidence http://www.scribd.com/doc/272751583/Birthday-Evidence Warner/Chappell's response: http://www.scribd.com/doc/272870978/Warner-Chappell http://www.scribd.com/doc/272870978/Warner-Chappell