# Men At Work guilty of plagiarism. Well, a little...



## RiffWraith (Jul 6, 2010)

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/ ... own-under/

Interesting.


----------



## Udo (Jul 6, 2010)

They're (incl. EMI) appealing ... and so they should. The riff is nothing but a little quote of a tiny part of the melody of a children's song. It's of no significance to the impact/saleability of the song. Musically, that riff is nothing special (in fact it's rather bland). It's only there to include something "typically Australian".


----------



## bdr (Jul 6, 2010)

Udo @ Wed Jul 07 said:


> They're (incl. EMI) appealing ... and so they should. The riff is nothing but a little quote of a tiny part of the melody of a children's song. It's of no significance to the impact/saleability of the song. Musically, that riff is nothing special (in fact it's rather bland). It's only there to include something "typically Australian".




Bland is I think not the point. It's recognisably Australian (at least to Australians) and only a small motive therefore the smaller amount of royalties seem appropriate. Why should anyone be allowed to take even a small fragment of someone elses composition and freely make money off it?


----------



## autopilot (Jul 6, 2010)

because bdr - it's Fair use! Fair Use! Fair Use! 

It was only "recognisably australian" to Larrikin after it was pointed out on Spicks and Specks! It had been in the public domain for over 20 years until this greedy money grabbing publisher got into the act. 

Using it COMPLETELY recontextualises Kookaburra. It's not Kookaburra - it's got a new harmony, it's broken up between two other riffs. It has no lyrics. Yes it's a playful quote but so what? All music from all genres does it, and this is a cash grab from a publisher who had to have it pointed out on a game show what plenty of us had been enjoying for years anyway! 

5% is complete and utter crap. That's 10% of the musical component of the work. (50% beng for lyrics) The publishing company (the ironically named larrikin) wanted 60-70% for god sake ! The judge told them this was unrealisitic! Even this is being appealed and should be thrown out of court. 

Should Ella Fitzgerald be sued for quoting "Tisket a Tasket"? Using Kookaburra is the very definition of fair use - humorous, ironic, playful.


----------



## choc0thrax (Jul 7, 2010)

Damned 80's hits. I want to sue Nik Kershaw for this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN04vtNcrek

which has been playing in a big loop in my head for many years. It's been chipping away at my sanity for too long.


----------



## bdr (Jul 7, 2010)

autopilot @ Wed Jul 07 said:


> because bdr - it's Fair use! Fair Use! Fair Use!
> 
> It was only "recognisably australian" to Larrikin after it was pointed out on Spicks and Specks! It had been in the public domain for over 20 years until this greedy money grabbing publisher got into the act.
> 
> ...



I probably don't know enough about 'fair use' to have an accurate discussion. Are we talking about copyrighted songs or folk tunes? And maybe (probably very likely!) the publisher is an evil money grabbing tycoon. But to me that's not the point. I'd like protection if it happened to me.

On a tangent...is 'tisket a tasket' based on a song or an old nursery rhyme? Funny you should mention that, a few weeks ago while visiting LA I went to a great arranging seminar by Bill Ross and was seated next to a very dapper elderly gent. Turns out it was Van Alexander, a legendary Hollywood arranger. I asked him what he considers to be his most well known work. He said 'oh, I wrote this tune with Ella Fitzgerald once called 'A Tisket A Tasket'"


----------



## Synesthesia (Jul 7, 2010)

Its utterly ridiculous.

Colin Hay was performing this song in clubs for 2 years before Men at Work even existed.

So now the writers of a song are liable if in *ANY RECORDING* of that song a session player throws down a riff that vaguely resembles something else..?

Brave new world.


----------



## JohnG (Jul 7, 2010)

they have always been liable for that. If your session guy quotes, "Somewhere Over the Rainbow," you have to get the rights or do another take without it.

See relevant thread:

http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtop ... o=1#225242


----------



## Synesthesia (Jul 7, 2010)

Mike Connelly @ Wed Jul 07 said:


> Udo @ Tue Jul 06 said:
> 
> 
> > They're (incl. EMI) appealing ... and so they should. The riff is nothing but a little quote of a tiny part of the melody of a children's song. It's of no significance to the impact/saleability of the song. Musically, that riff is nothing special (in fact it's rather bland). It's only there to include something "typically Australian".
> ...



Really Mike? What lyrics are sung in the MaW song to the tune of the flute riff?

Just for interest, here is what Hay has to say about it:



> A STATEMENT BY COLIN HAY
> 
> 4 Feb 2010
> 
> ...


----------



## Mike Connelly (Jul 7, 2010)

Synesthesia @ Wed Jul 07 said:


> Really Mike? What lyrics are sung in the MaW song to the tune of the flute riff?



Sorry I wasn't clear, I meant the riff made up about half of the melody to Kookaburra.

Thanks for the post from Hay, it's very interesting. Since the riff isn't part of the song he wrote, he should be able to record and perform the song without the riff going forward and not have to share any of the royalties on any versions that don't include it.


----------



## JohnG (Jul 7, 2010)

Synesthesia @ 7th July 2010 said:


> This song existed before Men At Work.
> 
> It happens that the singer in Men At Work wrote the song. But what if that was not the case?
> 
> ...



Hi Paul,

Whether or not the song had existed previously, I don't think it affects the question of whether or not Men at Work violated the copyright of the Girl Guides song. The court ruled that there was a violation and even if the song had existed in some other form I doubt that would have any bearing.

Personally, I thought the resemblance was actually remote, for the reasons the songwriter gave -- different key and context, and really just a fragment. 

Finding "bright line" rules in copyright law remains very challenging. A friend who's working on a parody film right now is passing every cue past a lawyer before it goes in the picture. It's still judgement.


----------



## Narval (Jul 8, 2010)

... also, Spice Girls (00:44) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCBLVgHa ... re=related

It is a public domain melody, no copyright should be attached to it.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Jul 8, 2010)

Not sure if you're kidding, but neither of those are particularly close to that melody.

There's no question that there are a million permutations of those notes with different rhythms that would be different enough...problem is men at work's version matches note for note, exact same rhythm.

And saying something is public domain doesn't make it so - the only argument for that is to find a tune that predates Kookaburra with the same melody, and they haven't managed to do that.


----------



## Narval (Jul 9, 2010)

[quote:5706411fc4="Mike Connelly @ Thu Jul 08, 2010 11:59 am"]Not sure if you're kidding, but neither of those are particularly close to that melody.

There's no question that there are a million permutations of those notes with different rhythms that would be different enough...problem is men at work's version matches note for note, exact same rhythm.

And saying something is public domainòì   ÛQì   ÛRì   ÛSì   ÛTì   ÛUì   ÛVì   ÛWì   ÛXì   ÛYì   ÛZì   Û[ì   Û\ì   Û]ì   Û^ì   Û_ì   Û`ì   Ûaì   Ûbì   Ûcì   Ûdì   Ûeì   Ûfì   Ûgì   Ûhì   Ûiì   Ûjì   Ûkì   Ûlì   Ûmì   Ûnì   Ûoì   Ûpì   Ûqì   Ûrì   Ûsì   Ûtì   Ûuì   Ûvì   Ûwì   Ûxì   Ûyì   Ûzì   Û{ì   Û|ì   Û}ì   Û~ì   Ûì   Û€ì   Ûì   Û‚ì   Ûƒì   Û„ì   Û…ì   Û†ì   Û‡ì   Ûˆì   Û‰ì   ÛŠì   Û‹ì   ÛŒì   Ûì   ÛŽì   Ûì   Ûì   Û‘ì   Û’ì   Û“ì


----------

