[LINK] "Men at work" up a gum tree
Jan Whitaker
jwhit at melbpc.org.au
Fri Feb 5 11:09:48 AEDT 2010
At 06:51 AM 5/02/2010, Roger Clarke wrote:
>229. Moreover, although the question of quantity is secondary to
>that of quality, it is worthwhile noting that two of the four bars or
>phrases of Kookaburra have been reproduced in Down Under (or 50% of
>the song).
and this from Philip:
>As I commented yesterday, the fact that a substantial part of a four bar
>song is embodied in a much larger work does not lead to the conclusion that
>the damages will be substantial in % terms because the judge has already
>noted that the hook of Down Under was NOT the hook of Kookaburra and that
>the flute riff was not part of the original composition.
It's NOT 50% of the song. The original is 8 bars long in the hand of
Sinclair one assumes. The two bars copied [keep in mind the
transposition issue] is 25% of the full melody. Another Error by the judge.
Yes, melody -- the single line, unsupported by chords, is called a melody.
As for the time to be claimed, someone in the comments of the
news.com article pointed out that Larrikin can only claim from time
of purchase, and that was in the 90s??
Craig makes a good point about the difference in public domain tunes
and the words. They are two different things. If anyone has contact
with EMI or Hays' lawyers, they should include this in the appeal if
possible. But probably it's too late to do that.
Jan
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
jwhit at janwhitaker.com
blog: http://janwhitaker.com/jansblog/
business: http://www.janwhitaker.com
Our truest response to the irrationality of the world is to paint or
sing or write, for only in such response do we find truth.
~Madeline L'Engle, writer
_ __________________ _
More information about the Link
mailing list