Comments on: Kookaburra sits in the courtroom

By: Richard

Richard — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 05:50:08 +0000

Judge finds EMI guilty of copyright infringement:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/entertainment/music/articles/2010/02/04/1265151932588.html

By: Ray Girvan

Ray Girvan — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 20:17:10 +0000

Oops - sorry, the spacing was supposed to line up. Anyhow, the equivalent MP3: here.

By: Ray Girvan

Ray Girvan — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 20:10:52 +0000

if the song’s been around for 20 years, what does that say about ‘instant’ recognition…?

It’s an interesting one, in the sense that it seems hidden in plain sight. I’ve known the song that long, and never noticed it. The melody is faithfully quoted, but it’s strongly disguised by arranging it in the relative minor. “Kookaburra” is conventionally written in C major, with the first line and chord backing so:

G-G-G-G A A-A G E G E
C…….F…..C……

The “Down Under” quote does this:

G-G-G-G A A-A G E G E
Amin……….F…G..

Same melody, but remarkably different effect.

By: Kim

Kim — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 23:45:09 +0000

Thanks for that cropped version Ray. I suspect you could sing some of the children’s song to that particular part of the riff. But Ben’s point about the delay raises quite an interesting issue when it comes to the cases on ‘substantial part’, doesn’t it?

Old cases like the Colonel Bogey march case (Francis Day & Hunter) talked about the fact that a substantial part was taken in part on the basis that anyone seeing the film would instantly recognise the tune. Now, if the song’s been around for 20 years, what does that say about ‘instant’ recognition…?

By: Ray Girvan

Ray Girvan — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 10:41:18 +0000

I can’t hear much similarity. Not surprising; they've started in the wrong place, and the children sing it in a different key. I made an MP3 cropped to remove the framing riffs: here.

By: Pete

Pete — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 05:47:54 +0000

This news report plays both songs together at 0.45.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCyB2l5wqLE

I can’t hear much similarity.

By: Ray Girvan

Ray Girvan — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 11:48:34 +0000

LG: it reproduces just 3 or 4 notes of the song

Rather more than that; it quotes first line … short riff … second line from Kookaburra, twice. It’s at 0:53 and 1:55 in the YouTube video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNT7uZf7lew

By: MP

MP — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 08:56:42 +0000

So, are you implying that it is likely that some sort of laches argument will be raised should infringement be established?

By: LG

LG — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 05:01:05 +0000

I haven’t been following this one particularly closely, but I at least know the Men at Work song, and aren’t the plaintiffs going to have a hard time with demonstrating that the riff constitutes a substantial part of the original work? From memory, it reproduces just 3 or 4 notes of the song, and the intro is somewhat altered.