Order of Kilopi
On the BBC
Aussie band 'Men At Work' has lost a plagiarism case involving their song "Down Under", which is supposedly a copy of the traditional song "Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree".
Well, I just heard an excerpt of the traditional song featured on the BBC story, and it seems that the controversial passage spans only one [the initial] bar. Here in my country it requires 4 bars to characterize plagiarism [based on past cases].
What do you [especially the Aussies] think?
Order of Kilopi
Not an Aussie, but I don't think it'd be fair to call plagiarism over a single bar of music. Particularly for two different songs in completely different genres.
I wonder if I could move to the land down under, and copyright the use of the C scale? :-P
Established Member
If the song is "traditional", who owns it and how?
Order of Kilopi
Well, maybe 'traditional' is an exaggeration on my part [in fact I´ve heard the term on the Brazilian media - this word is not part of the BBC story]. It was written by Marion Sinclair in 1934. Anyway, it would be public domain by now.
Order of Kilopi
Could be. I believe family members [edit: or other rights holders, like corporations] have the right to renew copyrights though, and it only becomes public domain after someone fails to, or no longer exists to, extend these. I could be wrong. And I certainly don't know how it works in Australia.Originally Posted by Argos
Established Member
Last I checked...and it has been many years, Australia conformed to international copyright agreements. A song written in 1934 would very likely not be in the public domain. IIRC (and I am not sure about the details), a song written then would have had 28 years to be renewed, at which time it would have been good for another 67 years. And I am pretty sure even that could be renewed under recent changes (prompted by Disney). Works now are copyrighted for the life of the author, plus 70 years.
George Harrison lost his plagiarism suit over 3 notes...the standard now is higher.
Order of Kilopi
I saw that headline.
The theme to Hogan's Heroes sounds note-for-note exactly like an old hymnal [probably penned in the late 1800s]. I think its title is "Whosoever Surely Meaneth Me."
I'm surprised they didn't get slapped with a lawsuit. Seriously, you can sing that hymn's "chorus" to that theme.
Don't let your reality checks bounce. ~MeI'll tell you in the next life, when we are both cats.
Order of Kilopi
Again, it depends on who owns copyright.
Order of Kilopi
Makes sense Daffy; I'm more familiar with it through my (limited) use of public domain literature. I've noticed that you typically don't find anything much newer than first-decade 1900's, though there's always exceptions.
Order of Kilopi
This thread, and this quote in particular, reminds me compellingly of Spider Robinson's short story Melancholy Elephants.
(The link takes you to full text hosted on Robinson's own website. The whole story spans three webpages. I think it's an interesting read, if anyone has a little time to spare.)
Grant Hutchison
Established Member
I am a huge SR fan, but have never read that story. I'll check it out!
Established Member
It's definitely a gray area...I have released songs under the "Trad., Arr." moniker, but there is always a nagging worry that someone will have copyrighted it under their own name!
Order of Kilopi
Rod Stewart lost his "Do Ya think I´m Sexy" case against a Brazilian composer [Jorge Ben - The Song Taj Mahal and the famous refrain] in the early 80´s over 4 bars.
Order of Kilopi
Huey Lewis sued Ray Parker, Jr, on the grounds that "Ghostbusters" was plagiarized from "I Want a New Drug."
I never noticed the similarity before reading about the lawsuit, which, IIRC, was settled out of court.
Order of Kilopi
Man, they'll have to sue a lot of girl scouts for not paying royalites, then.
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.
Order of Kilopi
Thank you for that, Grant, it was one of the more enjoyable things I've read in a long while.
Established Member
Well, the chords are pretty much identical. What I never understood was the fact that about 100,000 (rough estimate) rock songs use the same chords. Although if you listen closely, the melody is kinda similar...I dunno; I'm on the fence with that one.
Order of Kilopi
Pleasure.
It has stuck in my mind for a few decades, so I was pleased to find an on-line version I could point people at, in response to this thread.
Grant Hutchison
Established Member
it seems that there are many many cases in the music industry where artists have taken lyrics from another band/artist and reworked the music to fit their own..
one example i can think of off the top of my head is Lake of Fire origionally written by The Meat Puppets in 1984 then rearranged 10 years later by Kurt Cobain in Nirvana's Unplugged in New York Album..
although i should point out that Kurt gave cretit to The Meat Puppets at the beginning of the song.
there are many examples of music that has been rearranged throught history... Huddie Ledbetter "Lead Belly" is a good example, his work shows up in many modern mucisc rearrangments.
his most famous is "House of the Rising Sun".
It is interesting that most people do not realize that the modern version(s) are adaptions from his old folk song...
(yes, i am aware that copyrights run out)
i just wonder if adaptions and rearrangments of music constitute copyrigh violations...
Order of Kilopi
That's a "cover", done with the permission of the original artist. In fact, the Meat Puppets played it with them in that show. There's a handful of covers on that album. "Jesus don't want me for a sunbeam", "Lake of fire", "Man who sold the world", "My girl" . . . probably others that I can't think of off the top of my head.
And you could technically say that the rest were acoustic covers of their own songsBut that has nothing to do with copyright.
Order of Kilopi
What annoys me about this case is that the people doing the suing are not the original writer or her descendants.
The people suing are a company that bought the rights to the song about 20 years after the alleged infingement.
(And the company only sued another 7 years or so after they bought those rights.)
(And the "borrowing" occured about 45 years after the original was written.)
Something just doesn't smell right about all that.
Get up, a get-get, get down.
Bad Post-Doc
Well, hymn--"hymnal" is the book hymns appear in. But if it is from the late 1800s, even by America's stretched copyright laws, it's public domain now.I saw that headline.
The theme to Hogan's Heroes sounds note-for-note exactly like an old hymnal [probably penned in the late 1800s]. I think its title is "Whosoever Surely Meaneth Me."
I'm surprised they didn't get slapped with a lawsuit. Seriously, you can sing that hymn's "chorus" to that theme.
Yup. Covers. Happens all the time.
And, presumably, the liner notes, where it's legally more important.although i should point out that Kurt gave cretit to The Meat Puppets at the beginning of the song.
Lead Belly didn't write it, either. It's a folk song. Regardless of who wrote it or when, the original writer is unknown, so they couldn't collect royalties anyway. Heck, the oldest known recording is from nearly fifteen years before his. No one gets royalties on "Barbara Allen," either.there are many examples of music that has been rearranged throught history... Huddie Ledbetter "Lead Belly" is a good example, his work shows up in many modern mucisc rearrangments.
his most famous is "House of the Rising Sun".
It is interesting that most people do not realize that the modern version(s) are adaptions from his old folk song...
(yes, i am aware that copyrights run out)
There are specific laws covering them. So long as you have permission from the rights holder, and doubtless make arrangements regarding royalties, you're golden.i just wonder if adaptions and rearrangments of music constitute copyrigh violations...
_____________________________________________
Gillian
"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"
"You can't erase icing."
"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"
Established Member
i know that in the music buisness, the writer does not necessarily have or hold all of the copyrights to a given musical song..
the recording company or record label who produced the number is usually the copyright holder.
(unless other arrangments have been made)
http://www.lovemusic.co.nz/index.php...r-or-all-three
There is generally more than one owner of rights in any given track. The people who wrote the tune and the lyrics and/or their publishers own authors' rights, which is the classic copyright. The artist that performs that music has certain 'related rights' as a performer. And a record label typically owns the copyright or producer's related rights in the particular recording of the song. Permission is needed from all of these people who created the music-or those to whom they have assigned their rights-in order to use the music.
Order of Kilopi
And then there's "Fair Use" which is what I believe artists like Weird Al enjoy . . . though from what I hear, Al gets permission anyway. Of course there was the great "Amish Paradise" debacle, where he thought he had permission but didn't. But he wasn't sued over it.
Established Member
if anybody is interested, here is the Copyright Act (circular 73) from the copyright office.
Compulsory License for Making and Distributing Phonorecords
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ73.pdf
Order of Kilopi
On the subject of grammar, is the thread title correct? Or should it be "Men at Work Lose Plagiarism Case"?
Order of Kilopi
Fair enough.On the subject of grammar, is the thread title correct? Or should it be "Men at Work Lose Plagiarism Case"?
Well, as I see it, a rock´n´roll Band is a unity, a single entity.
But good question anyway.
Established Member
a song can only be covered legally with premission or if it does not fall under or is not subject to "mechanical licensing" as in the case of "compulsory mechanical license".
so covering a song can absolutly be copyright infringment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_license
Order of Kilopi
I agree with the title as-is. 'Men at Work' is a singular title of a group. Just like you wouldn't say "Metalica lose lawsuit".Fair enough.
Well, as I see it, a rock´n´roll Band is a unity, a single entity.
But good question anyway.
Order of Kilopi
Ok, Fazor, that´s my understanding too, but I just noticed that the BBC presents the title as SeanF suggests. Maybe they [it] are [is] missing what 'Men At Work' is [are] supposed to be.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote