The Song Fight Bulletin Board

If anything, the little (3-second?) flute lick is a quotation from the song, but it's such an insignificant part of the whole song that a plagiarism charge seems like a huge stretch. I wouldn't be surprised if it was an intentional quotation, actually--isn't the flute player sitting in a tree in the video when he plays it? AN OLD GUM TREE PERHAPS? But anyway, the Byrds quoted Coltrane in Eight Miles High--that kind of cribbing is almost never disputed. Wait until the Stravinsky people come after JB for that song whose I title I can't remember, but HE KNOWS.

Spud wrote:The judge in the My Sweet Lord / She's So Fine case eventually found that there were a grand total of $2,152,028.00 (US) gross royalties made by Harrison on the song. Many regard this number to be inflated, and that the real number is well under a million.

How could it be that "Down Under" generated enough royalties to justify a 40-60 million dollar settlement?

I am pretty sure that "Downunder" would have been used in movies, commerials, TV shows etc etc etc at lease 20 or 30 times more than "My Sweet Lord" ever was. Bondy's saturation use of the song during the 1983 America's Cup alone would account for most of that. The song is ubiquitous here, and internationally I would guess it would be the 'go to' backing music for any news story about Australia. There is no doubt it would have generated a nice bit of coin over the years.

frankie big face wrote: I wouldn't be surprised if it was an intentional quotation, actually--isn't the flute player sitting in a tree in the video when he plays it? AN OLD GUM TREE PERHAPS? .

Billy's Little Trip wrote: Another thing. It's not helping Men At Work in this case that the guy playing the flute in their music video just so happens to be sitting on a branch in an old tree whilst playing said plagiarized bit about sitting on the branch of an old tree. If it turns out the said tree he is sitting in is a GUM tree, they're going to need some serious damage control.

I can't positively identify the tree from the clip - but I'm pretty sure it isn't a gum tree. Looks more like a large mangrove (Rhizophora sp.) to me. Also, it looks to me like that clip was filmed maybe somewhere on the coast north of Perth - not somewhere where you would normally find a kookaburra. Surely if they wanted to make a visual reference to the bird - the clip would have featured Greg Ham whacking a live snake against a tree and swallowing it whole. Then again, Colin Hay the singer is actually a Scotsman - so who knows?

Billy's Little Trip wrote:

fluffy wrote:Just because your dad wrote a hit song doesn't mean you deserve to keep living off of its profits 50 years later.

I have to disagree with this. If people still like the song and are willing to pay for it, I say they should get the inherited rights to it. Especially if it was left to them in a will.

Having exclusive rights to a single musical riff or lyrical idea prevents those from being used in other works, and creativity suffers as a result, especially when you try to exert rights over things that are merely "similar." Imagine how bereft of music the world would be if the more common chord progressions all had their copyrights enforced by whoever first put them into a song.

frankie big face wrote:If anything, the little (3-second?) flute lick is a quotation from the song, but it's such an insignificant part of the whole song that a plagiarism charge seems like a huge stretch. I wouldn't be surprised if it was an intentional quotation, actually--isn't the flute player sitting in a tree in the video when he plays it? AN OLD GUM TREE PERHAPS? But anyway, the Byrds quoted Coltrane in Eight Miles High--that kind of cribbing is almost never disputed. Wait until the Stravinsky people come after JB for that song whose I title I can't remember, but HE KNOWS.

Air Traffic!

Billy's Little Trip wrote:

roymond wrote:I associate the version of Kookaburra with flute...

why?

Why you...

fluffy wrote:

Billy's Little Trip wrote:

fluffy wrote:Just because your dad wrote a hit song doesn't mean you deserve to keep living off of its profits 50 years later.

I have to disagree with this. If people still like the song and are willing to pay for it, I say they should get the inherited rights to it. Especially if it was left to them in a will.

Having exclusive rights to a single musical riff or lyrical idea prevents those from being used in other works, and creativity suffers as a result, especially when you try to exert rights over things that are merely "similar." Imagine how bereft of music the world would be if the more common chord progressions all had their copyrights enforced by whoever first put them into a song.

Then the law needs to change. I'm referring to a song as a whole. But like this Kookaburra case, it's frivolous and this law needs to be redefined. It's ludicrous.

roymond wrote:

Billy's Little Trip wrote:

roymond wrote:I associate the version of Kookaburra with flute...

why?

Why you...

nice emoticon fail.

I heard the similarity the first time I heard the song. I always thought it was intentional. I also didn't think it was a big deal. It's a musical allusion to a song that exemplifies Australian culture, which is kind of the point of "Land Down Under."

I mean, should Bach and Glenn Miller have sued The Beatles for using parts of Two-Part Invention No.4 and "In the Mood" at the end of "All You Need Is Love?"

Should John Mellencamp sue Jenny Lewis for briefly borrowing the lick from "Pink Houses" in the third verse of Rilo Kiley's "A Man/Me/Then Jim"?

I"m pretty sure these are all used with reverence, plenty brief enough in their respective songs to qualify as "Fair Use," and have a minor enough place in the songs that they cannot be considered pivotal to the songs' successes anyway.

So, yeah, I call shenanigans.

Billy's Little Trip wrote: nice emoticon fail.

OHHHHH!!!

roymond wrote: OHHHHH!!!

nice "dohhhhh!!" fail... (ducks)

Generic wrote:Two-Part Invention No.4 ... at the end of "All You Need Is Love?"

hey, thanks, every time i hear that song i think i should try to figure out what that is and i always forget
-bill

Generic wrote: I mean, should Bach have sued The Beatles for using parts of Two-Part Invention No.4 " at the end of "All You Need Is Love?"

I'd like to see that. All Bach would need to do to win is prove that he hadn't been dead for 50 years.

HeuristicsInc wrote:

Generic wrote:Two-Part Invention No.4 ... at the end of "All You Need Is Love?"

hey, thanks, every time i hear that song i think i should try to figure out what that is and i always forget
-bill

Actually, I got it wrong. It's Two-Part Invention No. 8.