[johnjay]

Men at Work flautist Greg Ham has conceded he may have "subconsciously referenced" the melody of the Australian children's song Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree when he composed the flute riff to the iconic pop song Down Under.

The Federal Court in Sydney was told yesterday that Ham was looking to reference "quintessentially Australian icons" during the composing process for Down Under, which has come to be known as an unofficial anthem.

A company that owns the copyright for the folk song Kookaburra, composed by Toorak schoolteacher Marion Sinclair for a Girl Guides competition in 1934, is suing Men at Work band members, EMI Songs Australia and Sony BMG, claiming royalties were collected and commercial deals struck without any recompense to the copyright owner, Larrikin Music Publishing.

The case rests on whether two bars of Kookaburra form a substantial part of a particular section of Down Under's flute riff, and whether in turn that flute riff forms a significant part of the whole song.

The lawsuit was sparked after a question on the music quiz show Spicks and Specks that asked contestants to identify the original song that was referenced in the Down Under flute riff.

EMI's barrister, David Catterns QC, said yesterday the fact that contestants had not been able initially to identify Kookaburra on the quiz show proved that the melody of the children's folk song was not precisely replicated in Down Under.

"The notes are different, the harmony is different, they are in different parts of the musical sentence, the key is different," Mr Catterns said.

The court heard Ham acknowledged that he knew the song Kookaburra from his childhood, and conceded that Down Under referenced Kookaburra.

However, Mr Catterns said any referencing was a case of "subconscious copying".

Larrikin's counsel Richard Lancaster alleged the distinct and recognisable flute riff was a large part of the reason that Down Under had become such a huge hit.

The flute riff had functioned as a musical symbol or motif, a "hook" by which listeners' musical memory was snared, Mr Lancaster said.

"These kinds of motifs can and do propel a pop song into popularity and commercial success," Mr Lancaster said.

Damages will be awarded depending on whether the judge presiding over the trial, Peter Jacobson, believes that section of Down Under's flute riff comprises a distinctly recognisable part of the song. The trial continues.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-16947,00.html

Saw it on channel 7 news

[Spectrum]

It'll be interesting to watch the outcome of this, especially as Men At Work have supposedly sung the 'Kookaburra' words during performances of 'Down Under' which totally frames themselves for personally recognising the exceptional similarity, coincidence or not.

[toilet trained]

its not coincidence at all, before all this furore im sure Men at work would have been happy to admit they took it as a knowing nod to the song.

the thing is Men at work thought the song (being a 1934 nursery rhyme) did not have copyright attached to it, as the person who made the song officially donated it to the Girl Guides all those years ago.

it turns out there was a lot of legal wrangling initially before the company that now claims copyright actually were certain they held it. this is why it has taken so long for anything to go to court

i hope men at work win, this is nothing more than a grubby money grabbing exercise by the company. it wont benefit either the family of the person who made it, nor the girl guides, hence fuk em

[Jude May]

Quote:

Originally Posted by toilet trained

i hope men at work win, this is nothing more than a grubby money grabbing exercise by the company. hence fuk em

yep, totally agree,
and suggest that it should be our national anthem

[machina]

Quote:

Originally Posted by toilet trained

i hope men at work win, this is nothing more than a grubby money grabbing exercise by the company. it wont benefit either the family of the person who made it, nor the girl guides, hence fuk em

i agree - this is litigation of the worst kind - protecting the interests of absolutely nobody.
For sure there is something to be said for artists being protected for intellectual property via copyright etc, but this is serving no purpose other than to try a make a quick buck for a company that had nothing to do with either song, the artists involved, and fell arse backwards into owning the copyright 70 years after the song was written... its very possible that larrikin music will win and is 'technically' right but logically, morally, ethically they should be thrown out of court and get a swift kick up the arse for being fuckwits.

[Acoustic Warfare]

Heres the news story: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCyB2l5wqLE

[Lee Michaels]

Quote:

Originally Posted by machina

i agree - this is litigation of the worst kind - protecting the interests of absolutely nobody.
For sure there is something to be said for artists being protected for intellectual property via copyright etc, but this is serving no purpose other than to try a make a quick buck for a company that had nothing to do with either song, the artists involved, and fell arse backwards into owning the copyright 70 years after the song was written... its very possible that larrikin music will win and is 'technically' right but logically, morally, ethically they should be thrown out of court and get a swift kick up the arse for being fuckwits.

Bingo! It's a money grab...booooooo! Where's there's a hit, there's a writ!

[we88]

sucks big time.. there are quotes everywhere in music and it's certainly not a copy.

[Marky]

ahh money... the sooner the concept be done away with, the happier a world it will be.

[bassling]

Shouldn't Men At Work be able to claim that using the Kookaburra tune was 'fair use' in a song that drops shitloads of Aussie references?

[Spectrum]

Has this been laughed out of court yet?





/ dad joke