[LINK] "Men at work" up a gum tree

[Kim Holburn]

On 2010/Feb/05, at 11:09 AM, Jan Whitaker wrote:

> 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??

In the news last night the bloke from Larrikin said they can only  
claim for the last 6 years because of some statute of limitations.

> 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.

-- 
Kim Holburn
IT Network & Security Consultant
T: +61 2 61402408  M: +61 404072753
mailto:kim at holburn.net  aim://kimholburn
skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on request