News 
 National News 
 National 
 General 
 Men at Work's Down Under ripped off Kookaburra: court 

Men at Work's Down Under ripped off Kookaburra: court

04 Feb, 2010 02:39 PM
Men at Work's No.1 hit Down Under reproduced a "substantial part" of the children's folk tune Kookaburra Sits In the Old Gum Tree, infringing copyright in the song, a Federal Court judge found today.

  • LISTEN AND DECIDE YOURSELF

    Larrikin Music, which owns the copyright to the song Kookaburra, is now entitled to recover damages - potentially a huge sum - from band members and their record company.

    Larrikin alleged that the band's famous flute riff came from the children's tune, written in 1934 by school teacher Marion Sinclair.

    The court has heard that Ms Sinclair had entered the competition calling for entrants to submit a song in the round, a short story, a poem or a picture that could be used for a Christmas card. Competition details were printed in a circular and the official Girl Guide magazine Matilda, stating that all material entered would become property of the Girl Guide Association of Victoria.

    Larrikin claims it had won a tender for the copyright for Kookaburra from the South Australian Public Trustee in 1990, after Ms Sinclair died.

    Legal action was launched by Larrikin's managing director, Norman Lurie, in 2007 after the television show Spicks And Specks raised the alleged similarities.

    Larrikin sued songwriters Colin Hay and Ron Strykert and record company EMI seeking backdated royalties and a share of future profits.

    Down Under topped the charts in Australia, the US and Britain and is an unofficial anthem for Australians everywhere.

    After a hearing in the Federal Court last year, Justice Peter Jacobson delivered judgment today.

    "I have come to the view that the 1979 recording and the 1981 recording of Down Under infringe Larrikin's copyright in Kookaburra because both of those recordings reproduce a substantial part of Kookaburra," he said.

    "I am also of the view that Larrikin is entitled to recover damages ... for the infringements.

  • "Nevertheless , I would emphasise that the findings I have made do not amount to a finding that the flute riff is a substantial part of Down Under or that it is the "hook" of the song.

    The judge said Larrikin had succeeded in its bid 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's lawyer Adam Simpson said EMI and the band 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 said outside the court today.

    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 [per cent], and what they've suggested which is considerably less."

    Kim Arlington is a Herald Court Reporter.

    - with Bellinda Kontominas and AAP

    Print
    Increase Text Size
    Decrease Text Size

    comments


    Date: Newest first | Oldest first
    Wait for the appeal. I can't believe they waited 30 years to lodge a lawsuit.
    Posted by Markm, 4/02/2010 3:54:53 PM
    Well men pay up the bucks simple as that.
    Posted by Big Tas, 4/02/2010 4:13:46 PM
    Sounds like Larrikin Music are a bunch of money grabbing tossers. Maybe the Queen should sue the yanks for ripping off her national anthem and putting different words to it 'America' (My country 'tis of thee).
    Posted by ralf, 4/02/2010 6:42:20 PM
    no this is wrong big time!!!! how old is this song its taken them this long to say somethin wake up now this is un australian!!!! appeal it =] its a great song well if i ever have children i wont be teaching them the nursery rhyme!!!!!
    Posted by Tahlz, 4/02/2010 11:29:54 PM
    Actually the term "Kookaburra" is an aboriginal word meaning "giggling bird" which I would say would have had special values to the people who's dialect came up with the term. I certainly feel that all descendants of that particular culture should have some claim to the profits made from both songs.
    Posted by Stan Bouchos, 5/02/2010 7:11:03 AM
    What now . The knack sue Natalie Bassingthwaite for releasing (take me down town) for sounding like My sharona. This is an exact copy you cannot tell the difference until you hear them sing.
    Posted by Markm, 5/02/2010 1:54:19 PM
    Larrikin Music Publishing managing director Norm Lurie is not an underdog; he is just out for himself. Lowlife Dog better describes the way most Australians fell about the opportunistic actions taken against Men at Work. I hope Karma comes his way as the old cliché says "what comes around goes around"
    Posted by Ross, 7/02/2010 2:17:10 PM
    The flak against the recent rulings against infringement of copyright is SHOCKING !! What is the difference between stealing physical property and stealing Intellectual Property ? In Australia, most people seem to consider car stealing to be a very serious crime and yet are totally oblivious when Intellectual Property is stolen – WHY ?? Both properties can be converted into cash when they are sold – can’t they ?? Would it have been considered as fair play if the big Hollywood fat cats had produced the film “Gone with the wind” (which was based on Margaret Mitchell’s best seller novel with the same title) without paying a single cent to this talented author ? What if a hard working Australian person designs a mechanical component that reduces fuel consumption by 60-80 percent when fitted to a regular car’s engine – would it be considered as fair play if the big multi national car makers copy both the blueprint (and text that explains the invention in detail) then exploit it without paying a single cent to the hard working Australian person who had invented such a mechanical marvel ?
    Posted by Common Sense, 12/02/2010 3:18:09 PM
    common sense is completely right, i would like to know the difference personally, intellectual properties and physical property are of similar contents and can be valued as much as one another, so in this instance where is the exact law and ruling to draw this line of what is more commonly known as plagerism, who is to say thats where the line should be drawn, music is simply an art of expression, i believe music is something that should be something to fulfill the art of expression not for money, if you use someone elses music you gotta be able to feel it and deliever the original expression behind it, i dunno about you guys but when i hear down under by men at work, i honestly dont feel 'kookaburra sitting in an old gum tree' =-) cheers big ears
    Posted by logical!, 25/03/2010 1:05:13 PM

    post a comment


    Screen name  *
    Email address  *
    Remember me?
    Comment  *
     
    We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
    Men at Work, pictured in 1982.
    Men at Work, pictured in 1982.

    Most popular articles




    Southern Highland News







    Weather brought to you by:

    Weatherzone

    Front Page

    Current Issue
    Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
     SEND...
     SAVE...
     SHARE...