Kookaburra's

[Hybrid88]

Well, the worst thing now is that, assuming they don't appeal, this will now set a precedent for all cases like it to come in Australia -

Nothing will change.
The precedent is already set - if you quote someone else's composition in your own (as Hay now freely admits - big point that) you need to clear it with the original composer before releasing.
The silly thing is, if you clear it first the fee is often going to be tiny.
Who knew 'Land Down Under' was going to be the massive hit it was?

And it might be a sad fact, but song ownership is bought and sold.
Larrakin bought the song and they will seek income from that purchase.

If I buy your old car, should I then let anyone on my street drive it, just because I wasn't the original owner?

Lets not start comparing apples and oranges here, the thing is, music is meant to be shared so many people can get enjoyment out of it, ok so you pay a small investment for this and that's fine. But when you start looking at everything from a "making more money" standpoint, then you are missing the point by a mile - all this red tape and legal stuff is only going to ruin music in the long run if it gets out of hand.

And as far as I know, I've never heard of a case like this over such a very short passage of music actually winning, so it'd be hard to think that no precedant will be set. In the least, people will start to think of jumping on the bandwagon so to speak. This is not your average case.

[ChrisW]

Where has anyone been stopped from hearing, playing or sharing either composition?

It's just about including someone else's work as your own - it's as simple as that.

[heathen]

This is where it is almost amusing, larrikin seems to be trying to do the same thing now, wanting 40-60% of someone elses money for thier hard work is rediculous. If anything they should be lucky to get 1%, if sanity prevails they will get nothing except credit and recognition of ownership of said copyright material. Even if it was a ripped hi res sample of a recorded work it would still amount to stuff all of the song.

Wish i sued the council a few weeks back when i tripped over an unmarked chain in a park walking home from the shop after a few grogs, I was'nt hurt but farout talk about totally traumatised, might have to sue them in 20 or 30 years time when I'm old and miserable and have nothing else to do, lucky i have a witness.

[Chinagraf]

I only posted this thread as a reference to the bizzare set of circumstances through which this came about.
Sure I think Larrikin are dreaming with the amount of royalty they want, and the arrangement argument isn't a bad one, but that still leaves all the unpaid performance and mechanical royalties.
I don't think MAW were deliberate plagurists, I just think they were too lazy at the time to check if it was in public domain or not. Or possibly thought their manager would take care of that sort of stuff. Recording artists didn't have to be quite the bussiness person they need to be today.
Still there is that clause in your recording contract (well it's been in all of ours) that says you as the artist are responsible for all copyright clearance. I also think that the song is really dear to most Aussies so it's being looked at through coloured glasses. I think most of the country would be reacting differently if it had been a big American act that had used the riff in a song.
I love MAW, this is no dig at them. It's just an unfortunate situation, but I'm a firm believer that copyright has to be enforced. I would think most people that make their living from copyright material would agree.

[headman]

I wonder when the Publishers of "Blue Moon" will hit up Bruce, Clapton and Baker for the notes that start the solo in "Sunshine of Your Love".

[Dallas]

Sure I think Larrikin are dreaming with the amount of royalty they want, and the arrangement argument isn't a bad one, but that still leaves all the unpaid performance and mechanical royalties....

There's been some knee-jerk hysterical reaction to this whole case - no, 3-chord wonders are not gonna get sued by old blues musos - song copyright covers the lyrics & melody only. This is where MAW are gonna come undone, they've used a discernable melody in their arrangement.

[rick]

yep dallas welcome onboard always good to have new guys contributing
you gotta to type in your real name to play in the sandpit though :)

[Dallas]

yep dallas welcome onboard always good to have new guys contributing
you gotta to type in your real name to play in the sandpit though :)

Cheers for the welocme guys..... what if my username IS my real name - can I play then please please please huh huh???

[Dallas]

Oops.... just read the sticky.... so here ya go!!

[mylesgm]

Everybody's probably already seen this but if not.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHBVnMf2t7w

[amnesia]

music is always about the notes $$$$

[astrovic]

Update: appeal failed.

http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news ... 1chiq.html

[DarkSky]

Is that what the songwriters are saying or is it purely a coincidence that the melodies match.

I don't believe the songwriters have said that, Angus - so I guess that is a conclusion others have reached on their own...

[Chinagraf]

I believe what they are saying is it was not used out of lazyness or an attempt to steal others work, but rather that is was used along with a bunch of other things in the song as they were Australian icons and the song was about Australia, ie - vegemite sandwich. Although this does not negate the breach of intellectual property.
Tributes (or homage as the French say) have been a common thing in the Jazz world since time began, but they are usually done live, not on recordings, although I'm sure some recordings do have them. I'm sure there's one on a Hank Jones Trio album I have.

[Nigel99]

I think it's fair to warn you forum guys first before I get 'lawyered up'- I have copyrighted this melodic little beat..it goes something like:
boom cha- boom boom cha...
Oh yeah... I use a kik and snare and I have that combo under legal lockdown also. I will post my lawyers contact if any f you need drum beats in your tracks.
Cheers!

[Nigel99]

Seriously though...

Certainly if somebody rips off a living artist they should expect legal proceedings, and likewise sampling a recognisable hook from a major artist is asking for trouble (especially if you are a major artist yourself eg: The Verve vs The Stones). The intent here is different. I don't believe that Men at Work were setting out to cover Kookaburra, they most likely were taking the piss incorporating a funny little folk melody into their patriotic anthem. The copyright landscape was much different to how it is now and I think that needs to be taken into account.

Conversely, if the family or the writer of Kookaburra were launching the case then I would have to agree that they have a right to a slice of the royalties. If the band has admitted they used the melody purposefully then its clear-cut. Do I think that a publisher should be gouging the artist after the fact, just for picking up the rights to the track? No way. I put it in the same bag as cyber-squatting, in this case ultimately the general listening audience would lose out. The song is arguably better with the kookaburra melody included. It has more cultural resonance. There has to be some level of rationality imposed when dealing with copyright issues where the larger cultural conversation is taken into consideration. If its a case of stealing for profit thats one thing...if its honest artistic creation with use of influences within reason, then that is something else.

[ChrisW]

It's pretty basic - you copy someone's melody, you clear it.
And on top of that - if the record starts going gangbusters and you are earning millions of dollars, you absolutely make sure you are legally covered and not open to being sued after the fact.

Men At Work screwed up, whether via naivety or bad advice etc... The riff was a MAJOR element to the hit and is often the only part of the song played in tv shows when referencing Australia.
Because it's instantly recognisable.

[Nigel99]

You're right, they should have known better-it is pop music after all.