DarkSim Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12918397 Saw this and wondered what the community's thoughts are (particularly Wacky, as he's an Australian lawyer). Seems a bit ridiculous that anyone actually owns the copyright to a folk song melody written in 1934, let alone can sue for 2 bars' usage in a song like Land Down Under, which, as the Axis of Awesome prove, uses the same chords as over 9000 other songs out there. I'm sure if you dug deep enough you could relate any new song now to any old song that's been written before, so where do you draw the line? Does this set a dangerous legal precedent? Is it just because of the song's popularity that people care enough to pursue this case? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Less Ashamed Of Self Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 I'm reminded of a about the 'amen break' sample. Turns out they never looked to call people out on royalties of the usage of the sample because the task was and is just too insurmountable. The sample is used extensively in several entire genres of music, how are you supposed to hunt singular people down for that.And yet... A generic vinyl of 'original samples' contained it, claimed in the copyright details that the company 'owned' the samples, and sold the sample, unaltered, for a profit. Surely THAT was too far... right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moseph Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 How's it ridiculous that someone still owns the copyright on "Kookaburra"? Just because people think of it as a folk song doesn't mean an actual person didn't write it. If I recall correctly, the circumstances that led to the "Kookaburra" segment's inclusion in "Down Under" were that the flutist originally had used it as an improvisation in the song during live shows, and it sounded cool so he used it when they recorded the studio version, too. And it's not an obscure or disguised use of the melody -- it's very obviously "Kookaburra." I do think that 5% of the royalties is a bit excessive, although admittedly, that flute line is one of the first things that comes to mind when I think of "Down Under." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phalanx Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 I don't really have words for this. Mostly I'm just amazed that someone could get upset over two bars from a tune older than the band members who 'copied' from it, on a song that came out 28 years ago. Just...who cares? Who really cares enough to DO that? Ugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gario Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 Wait, how long to copyrights last? I heard three 25 year renewal periods at most. I can understand back charging from 1983-2009, but... well, perhaps my numbers are off. How long can the average person hold copyrights on a song? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moseph Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 Wait, how long to copyrights last? I heard three 25 year renewal periods at most. I can understand back charging from 1983-2009, but... well, perhaps my numbers are off. How long can the average person hold copyrights on a song? Marion Sinclair, the woman who wrote "Kookaburra," died in 1988, at which point the copyright was sold to Larrikin Music (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8499973.stm). I think Australia uses the writer's death date plus 70 years as the final cutoff, so "Kookaburra" is still definitely under copyright. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Strader Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 Horrible, horrible news. It's only because they're popular. Retroactively paying 5% royalties from 2002 into the future including the 65% they've already dropped is harsh. Also since we're on the topic, check this out: Amazing songs, both of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Less Ashamed Of Self Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 Just...who cares? Who really cares enough to DO that? Ugh. Someone made money. It's that simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shox3 Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 Australian law says that a songs copyright is kept for 70 years after the writer's death. The melody of kookaburra is deemed recognisable enough apparently to sue over. You can't sue over a chord progression obviously, but melodies can be a lot more unique I guess Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickomoo Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 Reminds me of the royalties society that has teamed up with youtube in order to track down "infringements" in music, a lot of people have gotten their vids removed for no reason... and yet >_> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.