Members Cry Logic Posted February 5, 2010 Members Share Posted February 5, 2010 John Sayers mentioned this in my other post,(Australian ISP wins Piracy case against Film Industry!)But I thought it deserved it's own thread. This is about Men at Work being sued for copyright infringementover their worldwide smash hit "Down Under". They were sued by Larrikin Records who own the copyright toan old Australian Folk song called "Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gumtree"or just plain "Kookaburra".For those who don't know, a Kookaburra is an Australian Native birdof the Kingfisher family, known for their crazy "laughing" call.More like a cackle really .... but I digress. The case revolved around the flute riff in "Downunder".more specifically, the 2nd 1/2 of the flute riff.It was alleged that the melody was plagiarised from the "Kookaburra" song.The original song didn't include the flute part.It was written by the Singer and Guitarist of Men at Work andthe flute part was added later. The case was recently found in favor of the plaintiff. Below are YouTube clips of each song.What do you think of this decision?Do you think the judge got it right? [YOUTUBE]DNT7uZf7lew[/YOUTUBE] [YOUTUBE]l1Uq6AB_4hM[/YOUTUBE] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MrSAI Posted February 6, 2010 Members Share Posted February 6, 2010 Expired Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Billster Posted February 6, 2010 Members Share Posted February 6, 2010 That's the dumbest thing in the world Colin Hay replies Read the whole thing, but... ...a song, namely Down Under, which was created and existed for at least a year before Men At Work recorded it. I stand by my claim that the two appropriated bars of Kookaburra were always part of the Men At Work "arrangement", of the already existing work and not the "composition".It was inadvertent, naive, unconscious, and by the time Men At Work recorded the song, it had become unrecognizable. It is also unrecognizable for many reasons. Kookaburra is written as a round in a major key, and the Men At Work version of Down Under is played with a reggae influenced "feel" in a minor key. This difference alone creates a completely different listening experience. The two bars in question had become part of a four bar flute part, thereby unconsciously creating a new musical "sentence" harmonically, and in so doing, completely changed the musical context of the line in question, and became part of the instrumentation of Men At Work's arrangement of Down Under. The copyright of 'Kookaburra' is owned and controlled by Larrikin Music Publishing, more specifically by a man named Norm Lurie. Larrikin Music Publishing is owned by a multi-national corporation called Music Sales. I only mention this as Mr. Lurie is always banging on about how he's the underdog, the little guy. Yet, he is part of a multi-national corporation just like EMI Music Publishing. It's all about money, make no mistake, It is indeed true, that Greg Ham (not a writer of the song) unconsciously referenced two bars of 'Kookaburra' on the flute, during live shows after he joined the band in 1979, and it did end up in the Men At Work recording...When Men At Work released the song 'Down Under' through CBS Records (now Sony Music), in 1982, it became extremely successful. It was, and continues to be, played literally millions of times all over the world, and it is no surprise that in over 20 years, no one noticed the reference to 'Kookaburra.' Mr. Lurie claims to care only about protecting the copyright of Marion Sinclair, who sadly has passed away. I don't believe him. It may well be noted, that Marion Sinclair herself never made any claim that we had appropriated any part of her song 'Kookaburra,' and she wrote it, and was most definitely alive, when Men At Work's version of 'Down Under' was a big hit. Apparently she didn't notice either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rudolf von Hagenwil Posted February 6, 2010 Members Share Posted February 6, 2010 I must assume that Down Under is a banana republic, and the judge is a cousin of the composer of the "Kookaburra" song. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Coaster Posted February 6, 2010 Members Share Posted February 6, 2010 this is beyond ridiculous. the judge should have sent the plaintiff to jail for being a selfish ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John Sayers Posted February 6, 2010 Members Share Posted February 6, 2010 I also think it's ridiculous but there's another aspect to this story. apparently EMI sued Larrikin over a Tom Waits song Larrikin published where the words of Waltzing Matilda were narrated over the end and EMI held the copyright of Waltzing Matilda.. "Tom Traubert's Blues" Chorus now the dogs are barkingand the taxi cab's parkinga lot they can do for meI begged you to stab meyou tore my shirt openand I'm down on my knees tonightOld Bushmill's I staggered, you buried the dagger inyour silhouette window light to gowaltzing Matilda, waltzing Matilda, you'll go waltzingMatilda with me EMI won the case and Larrikin had to pay EMI 5% of the Royalties. It's been suggested this is payback time! BTW - my avatar is a Kookaburra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members deanmass Posted February 6, 2010 Members Share Posted February 6, 2010 Ridiculous... Almost all music is derivative of something...It is unconscious...I don't see the connection here...Too bad for MAW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rasputin1963 Posted February 6, 2010 Members Share Posted February 6, 2010 I confess, I DO hear it, and I suspect Men At Work (or their mix sweeteners) were indeed seeking to give their tune an "Australian flavour" by subtly quoting that folk tune. From the beginning, MAW capitalized on their "Down Under"-ness to sell their image on MTV and elsewhere. No crime in that. That particular song lyric contains numerous references to things which are popularly thought to be strictly Australian. But to be fair, they were probably 100% convinced that "Kookaburra" was such an old folk tune, that it surely must be within the Public domain by now. Like, how we Americans would imagine a Stephen Foster tune to be today. I mean, how many of us know that "Happy Birthday (To You)" is still under copyright? Plagiarism suits have been lost over nonsense even subtler than this. I'm thinking of the way Bette Midler sued.....and won.... when a car commercial featured a girl singing "Do Ya Wanna Dance?" slowly and sexily. Midler claimed that her "style had been appropriated". Not her song, her "style". What's the world coming to if you can't imitate somebody else's "style" ? As we know, Huey Lewis's "I Want A New Drug" was successfully sued by Ray Parker, Jr., when it was alleged that Lewis's tune USED THE SAME CHORD CHANGES as Parker's "Ghostbusters". We're not even talking melodic plagiarism here.... but rather, merely using the same set of chord changes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members elmertfudd Posted February 6, 2010 Members Share Posted February 6, 2010 Huey Lewis sued Ray Parker, Jr first as "I Want a New Drug" was written first. Huey got sued by Ray because he mentioned the suit-not supposed to talk about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostbusters_%28song%29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Coaster Posted February 6, 2010 Members Share Posted February 6, 2010 i just heard two country songs with 1,4,1,5 in them same style, same chord progression, similar crappy content, someone should sue! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rudolf von Hagenwil Posted February 6, 2010 Members Share Posted February 6, 2010 ... someone should sue! I missed the chance 40 years ago to compose the two dozen melodies usually found in later pop songs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John Sayers Posted February 6, 2010 Members Share Posted February 6, 2010 It has been suggested that the Kookaburra song was taken from an old Welsh folk song. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Cry Logic Posted February 6, 2010 Author Members Share Posted February 6, 2010 It has been suggested that the Kookaburra song was taken from an old Welsh folk song. This is probably the greatest threat to musical creativity in our time IMHO.How can music grow and move forward if people are too frightened to use, as inspiration, what has gone before for fear of being sued? They've managed to extend copyright waybeyond the original concept till it's reducedmusic to monetized chunks to be owned,bought and sold, fought over ...... Not what music is s'posed be about. It's even more disturbing that this particularfracas may be a simple payback for EMI originally suing Larrikin over 3 lines fromWaltzing Matilda! The musicians are are caught in the crossfireof the shootout between the business men.And yet without the musicians, there would be no"Music Business". It's beyond comprehension to me that a tunelike Waltzing Matilda or Happy Birthday canbe "owned" by some faceless corporation who holds the copyright. That's not copyright to me .. it's copywrong! This way of thinking has directly contributed to the rampant piracy that is blamed for the downfall of the music business.People justify piracy to themselves by rationalizing thatthey're not stealing from the musicians but from thesoulless, greedy corporate executives. It's all wrong and a terrible tragedy for music and musicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John Sayers Posted February 6, 2010 Members Share Posted February 6, 2010 I agree mate - I stated it was ridiculous from the start - I was just informing everyone of the other aspects to the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Cry Logic Posted February 6, 2010 Author Members Share Posted February 6, 2010 I agree mate - I stated it was ridiculous from the start - I was just informing everyone of the other aspects to the story. I know you do John. My rant wasn't aimed at you in any way. More inspired by your observation thatthe Kookaburra song may itself have beeninspired by an earlier work .And how that process is being killed offby the shortsightedness and greed of corporationsand people who control and/or work for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John Sayers Posted February 7, 2010 Members Share Posted February 7, 2010 personally I expect it to be overturned in the high court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 Lawyers At Work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John Sayers Posted February 7, 2010 Members Share Posted February 7, 2010 Lawyers At Work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jotown Posted February 7, 2010 Members Share Posted February 7, 2010 As we know, Huey Lewis's "I Want A New Drug" was successfully sued by Ray Parker, Jr., when it was alleged that Lewis's tune USED THE SAME CHORD CHANGES as Parker's "Ghostbusters". We're not even talking melodic plagiarism here.... but rather, merely using the same set of chord changes! it was much more than the chord changes. It was the beat, the bassline, and Ray Parker even inverted the sax line from the Lewis song. The kicker was that the producers actually had "I Want a New Drug" in the rough cut of the film and when they told Parker that they wanted something like this (I Want a New Drug) he just copied it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Billster Posted February 7, 2010 Members Share Posted February 7, 2010 I recall that Charles Mingus had a song called "Gunslinging Bird" and the subtitle was Or, if Charlie Parker were a gunslinger, there'd be a whole lot of dead copycats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members kurdy Posted February 7, 2010 Members Share Posted February 7, 2010 I've known that Kookabura song since 4th grade, and even I've never noticed the snippet in "Down Under". It clearly is the same melody, but used so subtley--I probably would never have noticed had it not been pointed out. In fact, I've heard the song come on the radio several times since hearing about that lawsuit, and even then, I wasn't able to pick it out until now. The Beatles did a similar thing, using part of Glenn Miller's "In The Mood" at the end of "All You Need Is Love", and I believe they ran into some trouble for it. So even the Fab Four weren't immune to that sort of thing. This is somewhat off-topic, but first time I remember hearing "Down Under", I thought the guy was Jamaican. Anyone else have that experience? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Cry Logic Posted February 8, 2010 Author Members Share Posted February 8, 2010 Colin Hay's Acoustic version of Down Under. A little bit of stand up from Collin at 1st.Song kicks in at 1:19 [YOUTUBE]owAPNHiRXOg[/YOUTUBE] .. and here is his is response to the judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rudolf von Hagenwil Posted February 8, 2010 Members Share Posted February 8, 2010 + 9'500'000 AU$ royalties "Down Under"- 1'100'000 AU$ two bars Kookabura flute= 8'400'000 AU$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John Sayers Posted February 8, 2010 Members Share Posted February 8, 2010 Someone suggested that Men At Work re-release the song without the flute and all royalties go toward paying off Larrikin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members claveslave Posted February 8, 2010 Members Share Posted February 8, 2010 Stick that up on gearslutz. There's an author there who thinks he's an author. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.