[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