• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Men At Work loses copyright infringement

what recently blew away a life long song for me was hearing Spirit's "Taurus" and realizing that Page totally lifted the guitar rift onto "Stairway" ....do a google on spirit and "stairway to heaven" ....leads to a ton of instances and links where Jimmy "borrowed" without giving credit .....interesting note is how the Zepp "originals" were attributed to Plant and Page , but as of the "Greatest Hits" compilations credit on many songs is now "shared" and includes other names : because they were trying to avoid (further) litigation : research "Dazed and Confused' .... not Zepp's song AT ALL ........ these facts really hit me .....really let me down .....anybody have a similar experience?
 
My 75 years is a very long time ago...the public domain statute in Austrailia must very much in favor of the copyright holder, which of course is fine but that seems like an awfully long time....but some artists (or their heirs) have been able to increase their terms of ownership. For example I have heard that in the USA the Beatle catalog does not go into public domain until 2067 but in Europe their earliest works (Please Please Me) will go into public domain in 2012....unless they change the law in the European Union....

If you listen to He's So Fine the main hook (chorus) and middle 8 are similar to My Sweet Lord....I like the latter song much better however.....

and the Stones to their credit always acknowledged the Blues artists who were their idols...sort of unfair statement I think
 
barkerd said:
what recently blew away a life long song for me was hearing Spirit's "Taurus" and realizing that Page totally lifted the guitar rift onto "Stairway" ....
Click to expand...

Just think of all the blues riffs he ripped off.

I wonder if the thousands of artists that used the 12 bar blues progression can get sued?
 
theophile said:
Given the 'Aussie Homage' nature of the song,it wouldn't surprise me if the flute solo wasn't a complimentary tip of the hat,to a schoolyard tune which every Aussie kid learnt.The respect shown via a tiny reference to that tune comes-back to kick them in the teeth.

The farce of it all is that if "Kookaburra Sits in The Old Gum Tree"(the tune which the flute solo refers to)were released on it's own merits worldwide to see whether it could emulate the success of "I Come From A Land Down Under",it would fall flat on it's face garnering no interest whatsoever.

To my mind that is the pertinent point which had to be made when any consideration was being given regarding the concept of infringement of intellectual property.The Men At Work song was an infectious,catchy,tongue in cheek popular success.The children's song was never going to be regarded as being in the same league.

Aussies generally have a cynical view of the court process.Is it any wonder? :nono:
Click to expand...

It has been an absolute disgrace. It was indeed a "tip of the hat" to a classic tune that we all learnt in our first year of school. To be honest though I never drew the connection until I heard about this case going to the courts last year. I wondered at the time whether the music company who bought the rights to "Kookaburra", years after "Down Under" was recorded, did this with the direct intention of making money out of a suit.
 
bhundu said:
It has been an absolute disgrace. It was indeed a "tip of the hat" to a classic tune that we all learnt in our first year of school. To be honest though I never drew the connection until I heard about this case going to the courts last year. I wondered at the time whether the music company who bought the rights to "Kookaburra", years after "Down Under" was recorded, did this with the direct intention of making money out of a suit.
Click to expand...

Yes it is a disgrace and yes I do believe they bought the rights with the intention of making money on it. :thumbsdn:
 
bhundu said:
It has been an absolute disgrace. It was indeed a "tip of the hat" to a classic tune that we all learnt in our first year of school. To be honest though I never drew the connection until I heard about this case going to the courts last year. I wondered at the time whether the music company who bought the rights to "Kookaburra", years after "Down Under" was recorded, did this with the direct intention of making money out of a suit.
Click to expand...
Yeah bhundu,I've had the same thought and can't help but consider that the suit was a blatant cash-grab by those who purchased the rights from the family of the composer of 'Kookaburra'.Your proposal that the purchase from the family was made with an eye to a future legal challenge would seem completely plausible.

A fair judgement would have been that Men At Work pay for 'Kookaburra' to have a world-wide release in order that it should have the same chance of world-wide success as 'Down Under'.Then 'Kookaburra' could stand on it's own merits,sinking or swimming as the market saw fit.

The stupidity of the judgement effectively equates one song with the other based on a few bars of melody,when(as you pointed-out)even a lifetime of familiarity with 'Kookaburra' failed to register the connection when years later millions of Aussies heard 'Down Under'.If the plagiarisation was as blatant or as extensive as the ruling would justify,then millions of us would have noted it at the time and common-talk about the fact would have registered it as common knowledge.

Another victory for minute scrutiny of Laws in one instance,while massive breaches of the application of Law sail blithely by in countless innumerable instances every single day,year after year, decade after decade. :nono:
 
as someone who has always liked music I hear identical pices of songs all the time.
I'm a firm believer in that every musical passage possible has been played.

Being a bass player makes the above even more believeable.
 
When they appeared 'live' on Countdown. I distinctly remember seeing a Kookaburra in gumtree as part of the set.

I thought everyone knew.

Seems the owners of the copyright were slow to catch on... bucks to be had.
 
I'd be willing to bet that that song, or portions of it have been used in many Australian works in the past 75 years, but in those instances, it didn't make money worthy of a legal attack. I doubt that Men at Work even knew of it's exact origins. Compare it to someone being sued in 75 years for using 11 notes from the "The Barney Song" (if it has that many :D). At what point does a songwriter draw the line? I've heard several state publicly through the years that one of their songs was "inspired" by a previous work. Often there are similar passages - is that sueable? or just artistic homage?
Seems a fine line to walk in a subjective art form.
 
bumperboy said:
When they appeared 'live' on Countdown. I distinctly remember seeing a Kookaburra in gumtree as part of the set.

I thought everyone knew.

Seems the owners of the copyright were slow to catch on... bucks to be had.
Click to expand...

bumper,
The very subtle fleeting 'tip of the hat' melodic reference had been noted prior to the court case.The point I was making,was that one never came away from hearing 'Down Under' with the impression that 'Kookaburra' had been lifted holus bolus and plagiarised.The flute solo(which was a motif secondary to the melody of 'Down Under')was changed from the melody of Kookaburra via the insertion of bars of melody provided by Men At Work.The flute solo in 'Down Under'(as it stands in that song),cannot be found as it is,in Kookaburra.It is therefore(at best)a modification of a melodic pattern from Kookaburra as opposed to a repitition of the melody pattern of Kookaburra.

Nobody hears the melody of 'Down Under',(minus the lyrics),and thinks "I am listening to 'Kookaburra Sits In The Old Gum Tree'."

It's obvious that they are listening to a different,different song.They cannot be confused despite the flute solo.That to me should be the acid test.If the lyrics are taken away,do the melodies become interchangeable?If so,there is plagiarism.Where should the line be drawn?

The percentage of 'Down Under' that could be attributed melodically to 'Kookaburra was tiny,did not form a part of the lyrical melody,was not immediately obvious and the flute solo isn't a straight 'lift' but is modified and added to.

I'm certain that if the writers of 'Down Under' hadn't spent the money they earnt on it thirty years in the past,it might be worth their while fighting the judgement.As it is,lawyers/barristers/court costs probably make the effort unviable.

I acknowledge the homage to Kookaburra in the song,I merely find the judgement to be out of proportion to the supposed musical plagiarism implied by the settlement.

I do think that judgements can be bought(read into that whatever you would like).Thus,I feel that this may be another instance of that,no matter what justification may be put forward as the basis in law upon which the case was decided.:smoke:
 
It looked to me that the problem the court had was that the band basically admitted it was lifted, so...what to do?
 
wadeus said:
It looked to me that the problem the court had was that the band basically admitted it was lifted, so...what to do?
Click to expand...

Award damages in proportion to the infringement comitted.

The judgement which was handed-down was excessive,in no way reflecting the extent or manner of the plagiarism.

Perhaps the judge should have considered that consortium who were the purchasers of the song payed the decendents of the originator of the 'Kookaburra' song what they considered was a fair price with prior knowledge of the infringement(since the discussion of the similarity of the flute solo was already in the public domain by that time).Hence their award should possibly have equalled the price they paid for it.
 
They get sued for this, and Led Zep gets away with years of blatant rip-offs, such as "Since I've Been Loving You," which is a Moby Grape song that Jimmy Page copied word for word and note for note, and then changed the song title and stuck" Page/Plant in the songwriing credits. I can't recall the actual song title at the moment, though.
 
The really sad part is this sets a precedent protecting music publishers over individual artists. I'm not sure if either party in this ruling is truly hurting for money, but I am and continue to be in favor of copyright claims dying with their original creators. Why should we be able to buy and sell intellectual property like that? I'm an artist, and architect, and a musician at times and I have to say...it would make me sick to think that when I die (if I ever create anything worth anything) my work could be bought and sold and auctioned off like that. Creativity lives in the mind of the person that made it, no where else.

The only reason I see as valid for a copyright is so that the original creator can benefit from the creativity of his or her own mind...

Makes me wonder about rap, and all the stuff that is "sampled" legally in that genre, sometimes without ANY change at all. A judge hears it and says "whoa this is TOTALLY different" and rules its not infringement...but then a case like this a judge hears rock and can make the jump a little easier and rules the opposite.
 
It just goes to show that if you have any modicum of success, there will always be someone there to screw you out of your money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom