Men at work in Court for the hit down under

[Strawb]

In today's heraldsun
Was 80s classic hit Men at Work's own?


Lisa Davies

June 25, 2009 12:00am

ONE'S a pub classic, belted out loud by tipsy patrons around closing time.

The other is a more dignified favourite of youth choirs and choral groups.

Now, as unlikely as it seems, the children's ditty Kookaburra and the Men At Work hit Down Under are the focus of a court battle amid accusations the rock anthem is a rip-off.

Music publishing company Larrikin owns the Kookaburra song and claims the melody that accompanies the line "Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree" is reproduced in Down Under. The case is due to start in full within days.

But a fresh battle erupted yesterday, with lawyers for Down Under songwriters Colin Hay and Ron Strykert, and music giants Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Sony DADC Australia, EMI Songs Australia and EMI Music Publishing claiming Larrikin don't actually have copyright to Kookaburra -- the Girl Guides do.

In 1934, a Toorak college teacher, Marion Sinclair, wrote the song for a Girl Guides jamboree in Victoria.

A year before her death in 1988, she signed over the song's copyright to the Libraries Board of South Australia.

A tender process was undertaken by the public trustee after her death, with Larrikin ultimately buying the copyright of Kookaburra.

But in a new twist, lawyers for the music industry heavyweights contested this "chain of title", alleging it was not Ms Sinclair's copyright to sell.

Barrister David Catterns, QC, presented the original competition entry form from the Victorian Girl Guides, which includes the words "All material entered will become the property of the Guides Association".

The hearing is set to begin next week, with Larrikin Music seeking compensation for breach of copyright and for unpaid royalties.

[southee]

Why the hell wasn't this brought up in 1981??????

[CK]

Realistically, with music going for so many years, it would be hard to find a song written in the last 30 years that didn't either purposely, subconsciously or accidentally borrow at least an element of another song. Even on casual thinking, Queen's "Breakthru" sounds awfully like Don Henley's "Boys of Summer" in parts. Wouldn't be hard to think up a pretty long list of songs that resemble other ones.

[Bully]

what a load of crap. this song was made so long ago and now they say this. cant people get a life, yes if they had have brought this up in the same century that this song was made then maybe but FFS not 30 years later

[Interceptor]

Unbelievably, Men at Work have lost the case:

Men at Work ripped off Kookaburra for Downunder

Katelyn Catanzariti

February 04, 2010 10:21am

BREAKING: AUSSIE pop group Men at Work ripped off an Australian folk tune in their 1980s smash hit Down Under, a federal court judge has found.

Justice Peter Jacobson said the famous flute riff from the pop hit was unmistakably the same as the children's tune Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree, penned more than 75 years ago by Toorak teacher Marion Sinclair for a Girl Guides competition.

"I have come to the view that the flute riff in Down Under in the 1979 recording and 1981 recording infringes on the copyright of Kookaburra because it replicates in material form a substantial part of Ms Sinclair's 1935 work," Justice Jacobson told the court on Thursday.

The judge said publishing firm Larrikin Music, who was suing EMI and Down Under songwriters Colin Hay and Ron Strykert, had succeeded in their bid to recover unpaid royalties and losses by proving the similarities between the songs.

But he said a Qantas advertisement, which also used a small similar section of the riff, was not in breach of copyright laws.

The parties will meet again on February 25 to discuss the findings and begin discussions about costs.

Larrikin Music's lawyer Adam Simpson says EMI and Down Under may be forced to hand over as much as 60 per cent of their earnings from the international hit record.

"It's a big win for the underdog," Mr Simpson told reporters outside the court.

When asked how much Larrikin would be looking for, he replied: "Obviously, the more the better but it depends - anything from what we've claimed, which is between 40 and 60, and what they've suggested which is considerably less."

AAP

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26676562-952,00.html

[westozfalcon]

Why the hell wasn't this brought up in 1981??????

It was actually the panelists on the ABC show Spicks and Spicks in 2007 who first pointed out the tune similarity. It seems nobody noticed it until then. That's what initiated the legal proceedings.

[Rik E Boy]

Unbelievably, Men at Work have lost the case:

Larrikin Music's lawyer Adam Simpson says EMI and Down Under may be forced to hand over as much as 60 per cent of their earnings from the international hit record.

"It's a big win for the underdog," Mr Simpson told reporters outside the court.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26676562-952,00.html

What a load of shit. It's a big loss for the underdog. A lawyer wins again while an Aussie music act has lost 60 percent of it's earnings for one of it's biggest hits. We are talking Men at Work here, not The Rolling Stones or U2. Copyright law is ridiculous. The original composer owns the work for life plus 70 YEARS after they die. What a crock.

regards,

REB

[Leaping Lindner]

Why the hell wasn't this brought up in 1981??????

It was actually the panelists on the ABC show Spicks and Spicks in 2007 who first pointed out the tune similarity. It seems nobody noticed it until then. That's what initiated the legal proceedings.

The irony of Spicks and Specks pointing out the similarity with anything. Never mind The Buzzcocks ring a bell????

[Interceptor]

Larrikin are as undeserving for royalties as you can get.

They bought the rights to the song when they became available in the pubic domain some time again.
Also today I read that they are backed by a large British publishing firm.
The underdog tag is pure propaganda.

Whilst technically within their rights, the principle and greed behind their actions is reprehensible.