Kookaburra vs Down Under?

Subject: RE: Kookaburra vs Down Under?
From: Uke
Date: 10 Feb 10 - 04:56 PM

Meant to add-

Perhaps the reason why nobody has quoted M@W's chorus vocal melody and turned it into a hit song, thereby exploiting their creativity, is that it "obviously" has copyright protection. M@W have benefited from the copyright system implicitly. Such cases are going to keep being tested. As autoharpbob says: this is the law we live by.

Of course, we could always return to the economies and values of pre-industrial societies, where exchange value was worked out informally.

Once a tune was performed, it was like a bird taking wing: it flew away, you couldn't cage it. Like a Kookaburra, that melody would fly away and sit on a branch in people's minds.

Subject: RE: Kookaburra vs Down Under?
From: Joybell
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 04:10 AM

Good on you, Warren. A great idea.

Subject: RE: Kookaburra vs Down Under?
From: Fernhill
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 03:30 PM

I'm a bit out of touch ... in Singapore ... just read about it 2 days ago in an old piece of BBC World news! Australian news only makes the BBC when its something ridiculous - but that's another story. I'm also a 60's folkie from Adelaide and I've been reading about this in many posts in many places since yesterday.

My first thought was that any money anybody makes should go to the Girl Guides (or similar current organisation)as that was the clear intention of the author/songwriter at the time.

Then I read Warren's suggestion and that's OK too.

But I have some questions for the legal eagles out there:

1. Does Patsy Biscoe and all the other people who recorded the song long before Larrikin bought it - have to now pay them? From what date did they have to pay them? Did they have to pay royalties dating back from their first recordings? Or only after the purchase?

2. What is the South Australian State library doing selling off State Property to the highest bidder? I gave the Sate library some photos and documents from my ancestors who arrived before 1840 ... can they sell those? Did they have the right to sell it ... what else have they sold that we should know about?

3. I read in some UK blog - that a musician had been contacted by a music publishing company, without saying who they were! - and asked about the writer of a song that had long been regarded as "traditional". Should we be on to our governments everywhere to list songs and music which are part of cultural heritage and have been sung and played for 50 or more years and whose composers are long gone. Should they be put out of reach of copyright by someone who might rearrange slightly and claim. Has anyone tried to copyright Robbie Burns songs?

Cheers from Singapore
Fernhill

Subject: RE: Kookaburra vs Down Under?
From: Rowan
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 11:31 PM

From what date did they have to pay them? Did they have to pay royalties dating back from their first recordings? Or only after the purchase?

My understanding is that payment to Folkways for the royalties from the piece used by Men At Work has the starting date of 2002. I'm not sure but I suspect this is when Folkways first noticed the "unauthorised" use of material to which they had copyright and requested recompense from M@W.

What is the South Australian State library doing selling off State Property to the highest bidder?

Owners of commodities have the right to dispose of them by approved methods. You and I might not regard such things as commodities but govt institutions that are strapped for cash obviously do.

To answer your question about Robbie Burns' material, check the details in various postings earlier in the thread for different jurisdictions' treatments. Many other Mudcat threads have authoritative comments on such matters, as well.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: Kookaburra vs Down Under?
From: GUEST,Gerry
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 01:10 AM

A link to the Sydney Morning Herald item on the compensation decision: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/06/2945781.htm?section=justin

It says, among other things, "Men At Work have been ordered to pay 5 per cent of royalties for plagiarising part of their 1980s hit Down Under.

"Larrikin owns the rights to the song and had been seeking up to 60 per cent of Down Under's profits as compensation.

"Today Justice Peter Jacobsen described Larrikin's compensation request as "excessive, over-reaching and unrealistic".

"Justice Jacobsen ordered Men At Work frontman Colin Hay, fellow songwriter Ron Strykert and EMI to pay Larrikin 5 per cent of future profits, as well as royalties dating back to 2002."

Subject: RE: Kookaburra vs Down Under?
From: GUEST,Geoff the Duck
Date: 06 Jul 10 - 04:48 AM

Not impressed by Australian Court mathematics.
Kookaburra - 4 line song :-

Bird sits somewhere.
Bird appears to be happy.
Bird makes noise.
Bird must be happy...

Court says ONE line of melody quoted.
I make that a quarter NOT a half.

Quack!
Geoff the (feathered mathematician) Duck.

Subject: RE: Kookaburra vs Down Under?
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 07 Oct 11 - 06:03 PM

I posted an update in the other thread. (Men At Work lost their final case.)

Subject: RE: Kookaburra vs Down Under?
From: GUEST,Gerry
Date: 20 Apr 12 - 01:30 AM

Greg Ham, who played the disputed flute piece, just died. A few quotes from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-20/greg-ham27s-death-not-suspicious-says-police/3962628:

The cause of death is yet to be determined but police say there are no suspicious circumstances at this stage.

This morning Men At Work frontman Colin Hay told ABC Local Radio that Ham had been "hit very hard" by a court's ruling that the band plagiarised the distinctive flute riff in their worldwide hit Down Under.

Friend and local pharmacist David Nolte, who discovered his body, says Ham felt responsible for the copyright controversy.

"He was a very sensitive person. It really cut him apart," he said.

Subject: RE: Kookaburra vs Down Under?
From: GUEST,Greg
Date: 05 May 12 - 01:15 AM

I have perfect pitch and I can tell you that there is not the slightest resemblance between "Down Under" and "Kookaburra".

These tone deaf judges simply took sides.

Subject: RE: Kookaburra vs Down Under?
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 05 May 12 - 05:19 AM

friends were talking about use of tunes & variations & folk process recently & said that if folk musos were witnesses in this case, rather than lawyers, the judgement would have been different.

Subject: RE: Kookaburra vs Down Under?
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jul 14 - 08:22 AM

plagiarism? who went down under all the way from britain and stole a whole CONTINENT from the blacks? whos the real plagiarist here??

Subject: RE: Kookaburra vs Down Under?
From: GUEST,Bird man
Date: 04 Aug 17 - 07:28 PM

Nope

Subject: RE: Kookaburra vs Down Under?
From: FreddyHeadey
Date: 30 Mar 25 - 07:27 PM

The Nursery Rhyme That Ruined a Rock Band
Cautionary Tales with Tim Harford -
“Down Under” was huge. This jokey ode to legendary Australian wanderlust helped Men at Work win a Grammy and was a key part of the band’s creative legacy. It had also been earning “Men At Work” a steady stream of royalties for nearly 30 years, when a game show pointed out the song’s subtle link with an Australian nursery rhyme…

Tim Harford examines one of the most controversial copyright battles in music history. Where does inspiration end and infringement begin?   

Podcast plus a dozen or more links for further reading
https://timharford.com/2025/02/cautionary-tales-the-nursery-rhyme-that-ruined-a-rock-band/

&
BBC radio 4 - February 2025
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0ksrh5b

---

Down Under - YouTube
https://youtu.be/XfR9iY5y94s

---

Songfacts
www.songfacts.com/facts/men-at-work/down-under