Printable View
It seems Men at Work plagiarised Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree. They did this while writing the song "Down Under" and it was proved becuase a flute bit sounds similar. What other stupid flamin laws/rules do we have in this country?
I'm really incredulous and am having trouble writing a cogent sentence about it:((
It's crazy. All they did was slip in a musical mention of Australian childhood. All musicians do this sort of thing especially jazz musicians.
What really gets up my nose is I don't think the people claiming copyright actually wrote the tune they said was plagiarised.
Cheers,
Jim
How long will it be before there is a plethora of similar claims?
How many consecutive notes the same constitutes plagiarism?
Having listen to both songs overlaid against each other, I feel it is an extremely long bow to draw to say that Men At Work ripped off the tune.
The original writer of the song Kookaburra.... didn't even recognise it, it is only the person who acquired the rights to her song after she died that seems to think it has been copied.
How he is even able to bring a law suit is beyond me. His claim is that he is doing it for her - she is dead, what benefit will there be for here or her estate? The answer is none, he will gain all the benefit. A greedy grubby little man.:((
Colin Hays' response to the judgment.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/men...-1225826917098
Next owners of Vegimite taking them to court for using the brand name, then a counter suit for the free advertising and millions it brought into their coffers.
I am finding it hard to write something without sounding like the other posts. The video clip in question has a band member in a tree with a koala near by. They knew what they were doing but back then never figured that 25 years down the track there would be some greedy people ready to pounce. I hope they dont give in, let the country be the jury.
Given that most art is referential to some degree this opens a can of worms for all artists and musicians. When do you have to pay the estate of Leonardo for having your model sit in the same pose as the Mona Lisa? What is going to happen to all the remixers? How do you make social or historical comment?
Absurd stupid judgement. The law is an ass.
I've since found mention that the kookaburra song is a rip-off from an old welsh tune. My mum's welsh. Perhaps I should put in a claim on her behalf:D
Even Advance Australia Fair is reminiscent of Landlord Fill the Flowing Bowl.
Absolute madness especially when you think of all the advertising jingles based on classical music.
cheers,
Jim
I heard the current copyright owner (of Kooka..) being interviewed yesterday and admitted they paid around $6500 to buy the copyright only a couple of years ago. Nice little earner. :cool:
Isn't there another side to this? I seem to remember the original LRB band members don't own the LRB name anymore, and I guess they don't get the royalties from the song either.
It must be really painful to hear kids singing it in the streets without any financial recompense.:D
Any jingles by ad agencies must first, if they use other original material with copyright, obtain permission and pay a rights managed fee for the the term of the use and application, even if it contains samples of the original content.
That out of the way, the story is complete bs from my point of view. How many songs on the radio right now have samples of classic songs? Too many to list.
It's going to open the floodgates. Don't write music with an A sharp and B flat :wink: next to them, otherwise some lawyer for X records will claim copyright for infringing their client's copyright. :grumble:
I understand that quite a few people drag out an old exercise book and say that some author who has penned a best seller stole an idea they had in grade three.
I'm exaggerating of course but similiar cases have gone to court.
Cheers,
Jim
If my understanding is correct - copyright is for the life of the author/artist etc + 70 years.
Someone is going to make [lots of] quids out of this one.
I must be deaf - have heard the bits - but to say 1 is a copy of the other - I can't hear it.
As Geoff Dean said earlier, the floodgates could be open now. I wonder how many lawyers have decided to give up ambulance chasing and start getting into music copyright law:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Bob38S
I'm going off topic here but I reckon a number of manufacturers ought to be sued. Imagine using logos that over the years became symbols of reasonable quality to stick on crap.
Jim
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbur
Lawyers can be just as inventive about copyright as they can about negligence.
I hope there is some sense made of this when it (hopefully) goes to appeal. It's always harder to convince several judges than just one of something so tenuous.
The plaintiff stated that he bought the rights to "Kookaburra" to make money and to many of us this is all that this is about, rather than a genuine grievance.
Well said - I guess it hasn't happened because who no-one will pay the lawyers six figure sums to sue them. Apparently they will for copyright - however dubious the premise may be.Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbur
If this is true how can they clam any money as the Men at Work song was made years before he paid for the song the person who made the song (Kooka) should have done some thing about this some time ago. It's like if you had a car and some one hit it and you do stuff all about it and sell the car the new owner wont chase up the person who hit the car to pay for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzzie
They need to get a life and get over it.
David
HE probably bought it with the intention of suing them.
Makes you wonder doesn't it??:?:?:?
Was a similar case overseas where one of the big rock bands was sued for "subliminal" use of a few notes!! Utter Shyte!!!
Apparently, neither he nor anyone else noticed the similarity until it was brought up on Spics 'n' Specs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gingermick
If taken to its extreme it would see an end to the recording of live music especially jazz where improvisation is the norm. When the mood takes a jazz player he/she will use anything they've ever heard.
Lawyers would have to listen to every note before the final release of any recording.:?
Cheers,
Jim
Personaly, I think copyright should go back to the original seven years - none of this 50 years after the death of the original creator nonsense - if they want to make more money, come up with something new.
I don't think the industrial revolution would have taken place if they had copyright BS like this at the timeQuote:
Originally Posted by Master Splinter
Correct, but apparently the Kookaburra tune is used extensively in teaching music in the USofA and they had already made substantial royalty settlements there for its use. $$$+++Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexS
Now about all those pieces composed by Anonymous, such as Scarborough Faire, Elizabethan Seranade, Greensleeves etc.
And what about Waltzing Matilda. The version most of us use was omposed by Mary Cowan. There were other versions around before she got to work.
Enough to make you change your name to anon.Quote:
Originally Posted by artme
As for Waltzing Matilda, saw this in Wiki:
Although no copyright applies in Australia, the Australian Government had to pay royalties to Carl Fischer Music following the song being played at the 1996 Summer Olympics held in Atlanta
Jim
There have been major legal cases in the past where songs have been obvious copies i.e. Huey Lewis (I want a new drug) vs Ray Parker (Ghostbusters) and George Harrison (My sweet lord) vs ???:doh: but this is ridiculous. It comes down to two bars improvised (not written) by the flute player in a different key, different rythm and different tempo. Why should greed ruin two iconic aussie songs?
:(