When the Australian band Men at Work sang the lyric "Do you come from a land down under? Where women glow and men plunder?" it is unlikely they expected said plundering would haunt them.

 

The federal court in Sydney ruled today that the group's best-known track Down Under plagiarised a campfire song about the penchant of a native bird, the kookaburra, for eating gum drops and counting monkeys, written more than 70 years ago by the late Marion Sinclair, a teacher and girl guide leader.

 

Men at Work's 1983 hit – which tells the story of an Australian backpacker's trip around the world – reached number 1 in the Australian, UK and US charts in the 1980s and was played at the closing ceremony of the 2000 Sydney Olympics.

 

The court ordered that compensation should be paid by Men at Work's songwriters Colin Hay and Ron Strykert, and by the band's record companies Sony BMG Music Entertainment and EMI Songs Australia, to Larrikin Music, the company which owns the rights to Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree.

 

"I have come to the view that the flute riff in Down Under … replicates in material form a substantial part of Ms Sinclair's work," the federal court justice Peter Jacobson said.

 

The parties will reconvene in court on 25 February to work out an agreement.

 

Larrikin Music's lawyer, Adam Simpson, said outside court the company may seek up to 60% of the royalties earned by Down Under, an amount that could total millions.

 

Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree was penned by Sinclair in 1932.

 

She reportedly introduced it at a world scouting jamboree in Victoria in 1934, and it quickly spread among guiding associations.

 

Men at Work lead singer Hay told ABC News that the flautist Greg Ham used two bars from Kookaburra, but said the flute bits were added to Down Under after it was composed.

 

"When it was written, there was no Men At Work," he said. "There was no flute in the band at all and so when you talk about Down Under, that's what Down Under is to me. I'll go to my grave knowing Down Under is an original piece of work.

 

"When I wrote that with Ron, we took nothing from anybody and it was a musical accident that happened."

 

Source: The Guardian

 

Funny thing about this is , Down Under was released in 1983, now 27 years later thay decide it copies part of an old song, why such a long wait. Surely if it copies it now, it did in 1983.

The reason it took so long to reach court is because it wasn't until recently that Larrakin Publishing bought the publishing rights to 'Kookaburra'. The original publisher didn't care about the similarities, which are trivial at the very best.

 

My biggest worry about the case is that it will set a new prescident for plagiarism cases, where even the slightest similarities could see the band lose their hard earned royalites. 'Where there's a hit, there's a writ' indeed.

I always thought that part sounded like the kookaburra track and just assumed it was intentional. Can't believe that somebody would really feel they deserve to earn money through this just because they bought the rights. Disgraceful really, I mean it's hardly on a par with Elastica's penchant for plagiarism is it?

The reason it took so long to reach court is because it wasn't until recently that Larrakin Publishing bought the publishing rights to 'Kookaburra'. The original publisher didn't care about the similarities, which are trivial at the very best.

 

My biggest worry about the case is that it will set a new prescident for plagiarism cases, where even the slightest similarities could see the band lose their hard earned royalites. 'Where there's a hit, there's a writ' indeed.

 

Agreed. I've heard this discussed on Radio 2 with Paul Gambaccini who in as many words describe the verdict as a travesty and a joke.

 

They sound nothing alike in my opinion; and the riff in question is only a motif and not a significant amount of the songwriting in the first place; so for the judge to award 60% of the royalties is quite simply ludicrous.

 

 

I mean the current UK#1 rips off Toto's 1983 smash hit Africa far more than Men At Work have ripped off an old girl guides song IMHO.

I listened to the two samples given on the article i read, and didn't see the similarity at all.

 

I also think they don't really sound alike.

there should be an american style 'statute of limitations'... 27 years later is utterly ridiculous whether they sound the same or not.

I can't hear any similarity at all ... but 27 years later?

 

I bought that Men At Work album though ... and I must say ... that Down Under and Overkill were the only two decent songs on it. Other than that I wish I hadn't wasted my money ... I'm sure there was something else I needed more at the time.

 

And I preferred Overkill anyway.

 

Norma

Edited February 8, 201015 yr by Norma_Snockers

I can't hear any similarity at all ... but 27 years later?

 

I bought that Men At Work album though ... and I must say ... that Down Under and Overkill were the only two decent songs on it. Other than that I wish I hadn't wasted my money ... I'm sure there was something else I needed more at the time.

 

And I preferred Overkill anyway.

 

Norma

 

 

Erm... Overkill isn't on that album (Business As Usual), it's on the follow up, Cargo.

 

Who Can It Be Now? was the other (minor) hit from the album

Agreed. I've heard this discussed on Radio 2 with Paul Gambaccini who in as many words describe the verdict as a travesty and a joke.

 

They sound nothing alike in my opinion; and the riff in question is only a motif and not a significant amount of the songwriting in the first place; so for the judge to award 60% of the royalties is quite simply ludicrous.

 

I heard about this, though unlike Kylie covering “It’s A Fine Day” by mistake, you would have thought that the other Australian song would have become part of the public domain by now, especially with all the worry in the press about The Beatles’ recordings and the ‘50 year rule’.

 

I do not know all about the legalities surrounding the case and I think the ‘50 year rule’ is just to do with recorded music in the EU, with different timeframes for published music to become public domain in each territory that has copyright law [i would expect some ‘failed’ states still to have none] but it still seems slightly unfair as none of the people who wrote either songs will benefit. I read in the press that the publishing of the earlier song had been sold to another company and it was these new owners who had decided to take Colin Hay the courts. I do not think the previous publishers or the songwriter will actually see any royalties, especially since I think the copyright was bought out by this new company on the death of the writer.

 

I am unable to make a comment of the similarities as I cannot see or hear the link you may have embedded into the post, as I have turned off all the ‘added’ interactivity just to have the site function at the most basic level over lunch.

 

I think that it would have been a good discussion on Paul Gambaccini’s show, I never listen but I should because he is a very good broadcaster, though I normally listen to Absolute 80s/Classic Rock on Saturday nights and I am not too keen on all the TV personalities who have shows prior to Gambaccini on Radio 2 [excepting Dale Winton with Pick Of The Pops].

 

As for Men At Work, I prefer “Overkill” and “Who Can It Be Now?” as well and have got their hits collection on CD, but as far as ‘Antipodean’ music goes, now I have finally finished the Greatest Hits of Mental As Anything on DVD [which turned out to be about three hours long], I think I will be moving on to a Split Enz collection next.

 

Erm... Overkill isn't on that album (Business As Usual), it's on the follow up, Cargo.

 

Who Can It Be Now? was the other (minor) hit from the album

 

I stand corrected ... that's the one ... in that case ... one decent song per album! Judas Priest ... I wasted more money than I first thought!

 

Norma

 

I honestly had to stare at my calendar to make sure it wasn't April 1st when I heard about this one.... Absolutely the most ludicrous thing ever....

 

 

I honestly had to stare at my calendar to make sure it wasn't April 1st when I heard about this one.... Absolutely the most ludicrous thing ever....

 

I think the reason it has taken 27 years to 'discover' the 'similarity' is that this Larrikin company has had researchers out for decades just scouring for something that may, may, even the tiniest little bit sound like something they have on their books so that they can sue. You know ... the recording industry's equivalent of 'compensation culture'. Their people are probably out there now ... scouring for other multi-million selling songs that have a bar or two that sound similar.

 

That's what I think anyway.

 

Norma