Comments, Suggestions, Discussions > Ausrock Forums

Men at Work only to pay 5 per cent royalties

(1/3) > >>

Rosie125:
Still 5% too much IMHO but...
Gotta agree with the judge here:
"In his decision, Justice Jacobson said it was "difficult'' to detect the similarities between Kookaburra and Down Under unless pointed out."

--- Quote ---A MUSIC company's cash grab to share the royalties from Men at Work's iconic song "Down Under'' has been slammed by a judge as being "excessive, overreaching and unrealistic.''

In a long-running Federal Court court battle, Larrikin Music Publishing, owner of the rights to the folk song "Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree,'' asked for between 25 and 50 per cent of royalties earned from "Down Under.''

This morning, Justice Peter Jacobson awarded the company just five per cent of future earnings and past earnings limited to a period of six years.

Justice Jacobson last year ruled that the flute riff in Down Under was a rip-off of the melody of the children's folk song.

In evidence, Men at Work lead singer Colin Hay denied he or his fellow band members knew they were breaching copyright when they included the flute riff in their 1981 hit.
The breach only came to light through the ABC's music quiz show Spicks and Specks in 2007, which drew attention to the similarity between the two songs.

Larrikin's director, Norm Lurie, saw the program and launched legal action to recover lost royalties.

Lawyers for Mr Lurie argued the flute riff was a significant part of  "Down Under" and was "evocative of the Australian national identity."

The company also presented comparisons of various other copyright agreements between artists, including the likes of Paris Hilton, who pays a third of all royalties earned for her song "Stars are Blind'' which features a part of the reggae hit "Kingston Town.''

In his decision, Justice Jacobson said it was "difficult'' to detect the similarities between Kookaburra and Down Under unless pointed out.

Looking at the portion of Kookaburra reproduced in the whole of Down Under, he said the "most generous approach'' open to him was to award an amount of five per cent in past damages dating back to May 2002.

He said this figure should also be applied to future earnings from the song.

"I consider the figures put forward by Larrikin to be excessive, overreaching and unrealistic,'' he said
--- End quote ---

motcher76:
Yes, it should never have gotten to this but at least (hopefully) it's the end of this shabby saga. Larrikin should feel lucky to get 5%, but retrospectivity to 2002 seems overly generous IMO. 

The judge describes Larrikin's claim for between 25% and 50% of royalties as "excessive, overreaching and unrealistic". As far as I'm concerned that just about sums up Larrikin's conduct and actions from the very beginning. Utter tools :P

Cheers

Austwiz:
yup, 0.05% would possibly have been closer.

Considering it took a comment on Spicks&Specks for them to even realise there might be a connection they shouldn't have gotten ANYTHING in my opinion...

mixin:

It took them nearly 30 years to work out that it sounds similar?  Can't be too bloody obvious then can it!

I reckon there should be a 7-10 year statute of limitation in cases like this.

7-10 years is more than enough time to work out if someone plagiarised a piece of music, and take legal action. 
After that they should be told to get stuffed.

Lego:
I think it's only from 2002 onwards to now, not at the peak time of release when it was #1 in Oz and the US.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page