I'm sure they were copying the 75 year old children's song....

Tiny Tim

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2010
Posts
402
Reaction score
2
Does a statute of limitations apply here at all? :wtf: If there are laws that protect criminals who for example steal for real from being arrested for it after so many years why the hell wouldn't a songwriter be protected after that many years! What I've learned today? Stealing valuables, actual property and goods is less of a crime than sounding similar to a song! Epic fail here! :wtf:

Not sure about Australia, but I know in the States you can file for extensions on copy writes. In the states, Happy Birthday to You (copy written in 1935) is still under copy write protection. So if you take your kids to a birthday party at a pizza theater, the restaurant has to pay a fee to cover the guy in the mouse suit singing happy birthday. That's why some restaurants use their own birthday sons.:heheh:

From wiki:
Royalty amounts sought
The Walt Disney Company paid the copyright holder U.S. $5,000 to use the song in the birthday scene of the defunct Epcot attraction Horizons.[citation needed]

The documentary film The Corporation claims that Warner/Chappell charges up to U.S. $10,000 for the song to appear in a film. Because of the copyright issue, filmmakers rarely show complete singalongs of "Happy Birthday" in films, either substituting the public-domain "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow" or avoiding the song entirely. Before the song was copyrighted it was used freely, as in Bosko's Party, a Warner Brothers cartoon of 1932, where a chorus of animals sings it twice through. The entire song is performed in tribute to the title character of Batman Begins, a Warner Brothers film.

In the 1987 documentary Eyes on the Prize about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., there was a birthday party scene in which Dr. King's discouragement began to lift. After its initial release, the film was unavailable for sale or broadcast for many years because of the cost of clearing many copyrights, of which "Happy Birthday to You" was one. Grants in 2005 for copyright clearances [12] have allowed PBS to rebroadcast the film as recently as February 2008.[13]

Many restaurants have original, modern, corporate-developed songs that are used instead of the old-fashioned "Happy Birthday to You" when serving patrons the traditional cake on their birthdays. Originally, these songs were specifically developed to prevent copyright infringement and having to pay royalties. In Mike Jittlov's 1989 film The Wizard of Speed and Time, Jittlov avoided all copyright and royalty problems by using a replacement song, "Merry Birthday to You", which he wrote himself.
 

Soot and Stars

I AM SOOT!
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Posts
16,434
Reaction score
123
Location
Small Town NH, USA
Not sure about Australia, but I know in the States you can file for extensions on copy writes. In the states, Happy Birthday to You (copy written in 1935) is still under copy write protection. So if you take your kids to a birthday party at a pizza theater, the restaurant has to pay a fee to cover the guy in the mouse suit singing happy birthday. That's why some restaurants use their own birthday sons.:heheh:

From wiki:

That makes sense Tiny! I was kind of thinking of it the other way around though as in suing after the song your accusing of stealing has been out for a large number of years. I mean that was not a small song and there should be a statute of how long the song can be sitting on the shelf after "the crime" was committed before someone pops in there #1 Hits of the 80's collection and goes:
Well Jesus Christ on a cracker! That sure sounds familiar! That's my song I'm suing!
 

annie

metal maniac
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Posts
2,264
Reaction score
3
Location
on an island
Copyright law seems to a sure fire way to not getting your song played. How smart is that?
 

annie

metal maniac
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Posts
2,264
Reaction score
3
Location
on an island
Just found this...this is what I meant by it being a harmony, but Colin Hay explains it better.

"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."
 

annie

metal maniac
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Posts
2,264
Reaction score
3
Location
on an island
Here is Colin Hays' complete statement...

The song Down Under is my friend. It has always been my friend, ever since it was born. I have been playing it for over 30 years, to audiences the world over, and will no doubt play it for as long as I am able. We look after each other very well. I co-wrote this song known as Down Under, with Ron Strykert, sometime in the winter of 1978. I remember because we had played the song at the Cricketers Arms Hotel in Richmond one Thursday night, and on the way home to Arthur's Creek, just north of Melbourne, with Ron and my girlfriend Linda in the car, I fell asleep at the wheel, and ran off the road into a ditch. We ended up with the car pointing toward the sky, and we found ourselves staring through the condensation streaked windscreen at the stars above. It was cold, very cold, you know that two o' clock in the morning Melbourne cold, the kind that chills your bones.


The Federal Court ruling of Justice Jacobson regarding Down Under, and Marion Sinclair's song Kookaburra Sits In The Old Gum Tree, came down today. I am as we speak, wading through the 60 page document of his ruling. Clearly, I've had better days.

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. He litigated against EMI Music Publishing, who controls the copyright of Down Under, and Ron Strykert and myself, the writers of Down Under. He alleged that we appropriated a "substantial" part of Kookaburra, and in so doing, infringed upon that copyright, and incorporated it into the flute line of Men At Work's recording of Down Under. 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. What's interesting to me, is that Mr Lurie is making a claim to share in the copyright of 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".


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 twenty years, no one noticed the reference to Kookaburra. There are reasons for this. 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.

Justice Jacobson has ruled, and for the most part, not in EMI's or my favour. What was born out of creative musical expression, became both a technical and mathematical argument. This ruling will have lasting repercussions, and I suspect not for the better.

Mr Lurie is a music publisher, and today Judge Jacobson ruled mostly in his favor. 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.

I believe what has won today is opportunistic greed, and what has suffered, is creative musical endeavor. This outcome will have no real impact upon the relationship that I have with our song Down Under, for we are connected forever. When I co-wrote Down Under back in 1978, I appropriated nothing from anyone else's song. There was no Men At Work, there was no flute, yet the song existed. That's the truth of it, because I was there, Norm Lurie was not, and neither was Justice Jacobson. Down Under lives in my heart, and may perhaps live in yours. I claim it, and will continue to play it, for as long as you want to hear it.

Sincerely, Colin Hay
 

Find member

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
30,728
Posts
1,069,023
Members
6,368
Latest member
bringzip

Members online

No members online now.
Top