"Men at Work accused of plagiarizing kids' song"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20090626/as-australia-men-at-work/

Nice to know they're this far down the list of pressing problems in Australia. :eyes:



It's been 26 YEARS since that song was released, and 75 years since the Camp Fire Girl's song was written. Don't they have a statute of limitations in Australia?

I can't replicate it because I don't know music, but you can believe me on that.

It's the kind of song they wouldn't teach kids today because they'd snicker at it.

Kookaburra sits on the old gum tree
Merry, merry king of the bush is he
Laugh, kookaburra, laugh, kookaburra
Gay your life must be.

"Heh heh...'gay' his life must be...heh heh."

Edited to add: And then there's the "king of the bush" part. I remember all too well what the boys in my class were like in about eighth grade when they learned a new definition of "bush."

and again nothing like Men at Work

If you took the melody of the phrase "Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree" and made it minor instead of major, you would get part of that flute riff. I can't imagine it was intentional, though.

alike then that.

Edited to add: And it can be justified, given that it's a very traditional Australian song, and how is using a riff from it in a song about Australia all that different from using a riff from, say, "God Bless America" in a new song about America? As a reference, not a ripoff?

Of course, you could say Irving Berlin's estate deserves a cut of that action, and you'd be right. So if they're looking for a cut of the action, songwriting credit, a bit of the royalties, they might get that. But it's not as if the whole song is a ripoff of the kookaburra song.

No kidding. Every time Happy Birthday is used in a movie, they have to pay royalties:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You

The melody of "Happy Birthday to You" comes from the song "Good Morning to All", which was written and composed by American sisters Patty Hill and Mildred J. Hill in 1893.<3> They were both kindergarten school teachers in Louisville, Kentucky, developing various teaching methods at what is now the Little Loomhouse.<4><5> The sisters created "Good Morning to All" as a song that would be easy to sing by young children<6>. The combination of melody and lyrics in "Happy Birthday to You" first appeared in print in 1912, and probably existed even earlier.<7> None of these early appearances included credits or copyright notices. The Summy Company registered for copyright in 1935, crediting authors Preston Ware Orem and Mrs. R.R. Forman. In 1990, Warner Chappell purchased the company owning the copyright for US$15 million, with the value of "Happy Birthday" estimated at US$5 million.<8> Based on the 1935 copyright registration, Warner claims that U.S. copyright won't expire until 2030, and that unauthorized public performances of the song are technically illegal unless royalties are paid to it.




The Kookaberra song was written by written by Marion Sinclair and she should get royalties.

It's the reason people in movies seem to break into "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow" when bringing out a birthday cake alight with candles, which people in real life never do. And the reason why, whenever the wait staff at a chain restaurant brings out a lit dessert to celebrate a patron's birthday, they always sing some song created by the restaurant chain for such occasions.

What I was questioning was whether there's really enough of the Kookaburra melody here in the song as a whole for it to warrant the songwriter to get a cut. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. I guess it's for the courts to decide. I just think it's a bit flimsy a claim. But I'm not an intellectual property lawyer. Go figure.

Their song was all about things uniquely Australian, so it fits.

Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts of America per a foundation set up by Berlin.

So the question again becomes, is there enough of the one song in the other, if there really is any?

Even if it was an intentional nod to a song they knew from growing up, it's sufficiently musically different to pass muster.

But I can see why they'd want to go for royalities.

and the flute riff is a simple tune. Add in a somewhat similar number or beats and they'll sound similar.

I don't see it at all, FWIW. :shrug:

:rofl:

I have the youtube video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phh5S2oOHL8 (starts at 5:07)

http://www.kididdles.com/lyrics/k003.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNT7uZf7lew

from 00:12-00:14

Go away, you stupid copyright whore!
Can't you see that it's late at night?
I listened twice; our songs don't sound alike!

:rofl:

I still can't discern the freakin' similarity...

All three bars of it.

at every break.

i don't see the issue.

If there is a similarity, it's so utterly vague... never mind the misuse of the word "substantial"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XKUA2oDE_M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvB9Pj9Znsw

And I love Coldplay.

or any other artists. The songwriter is DEAD. New artists have given the song a new life. It is used in a parody of sorts here. Art builds on the past. It is not ripping it off. Under such assinine rules, the notes themselves would be copyrighted today and only allowed to be heard if someone paid royalties. The alphabet would be owned. The words in the dictionary off limits to use.

FUCK copyrights beyond the life of the artists. No one should have the right to own work beyond their own lifetimes. FUCK corporate greed!!!

indeed :)

And it's not entirely true that only corporations profit from copyrights. Oftentimes the estates of deceased composers are able to earn some money from the royalties, and in some cases, it's long overdue in the name of fairness.

If you don't believe it, read the fascinating story about how Solomon Linda's family finally, at long last, was able to receive some profit from "The Lion Sleeps Tonight," one of the most popular songs on the planet since he wrote it in 1939--but for which, during his lifetime, he never saw much money at all, due to one thing and another:

http://www.3rdearmusic.com/forum/mbube2.html

Some of the reason was likely greed, some of it confusion, some of it misconception and mistaken belief that it was an old African folk song in the public domain. Pete Seeger deserves credit for trying to help untangle the mess.