“Obviously, the more the better.”

Here’s the first time I wrote about Larrikin’s lawsuit against Colin Hay and Ron Strykert, and their claim that Down Under had unfairly used Kookaburra Sits In the Old Gum Tree.  Then, Larrikin’s managing director Norm Lurie invoked the spirit of Marion Sinclair, Kookaburra‘s composer, but she didn’t rate a mention yesterday when Justice Peter Jacobson found in Larrikin’s favour.  Instead, it was a mysterious 40 to 60 (not, not millions, but percent) who starred, and Larrikin’s lawyer, Adam Simpson, who gave this post its title.  I’m guessing he’s on a commission.

Jacobson said some odd things.  For starters, he took Men At Work’s flautist Greg Ham to task for plagiarising Kookaburra‘s melody, when Ham is not one of the listed writers of Down Under.  That makes no sense.  He also made the point that Down Under replicates “a substantial part” of Kookaburra, which is not hard to do with a tune that’s four bars long.  The issue, surely, is the other way around: whether those two bars of Kookaburra constitute “a substantial part” of Down Under.  So here’s an experiment:

Sing Down Under to yourself, same words, same tune, and leave out the two bars in the flute riff.  Everything else remains.  Is it still recognisably Down Under?

Now lose everything except the two bars.  You can still have half the flute riff, but no vocals, no “do you come from a”, no vegemite sandwich, no plunder or chunder, and how Down Underish is what remains?  No backing behind it, just the Kookaburra bit.  Is it less Down Underish?  What fraction would you call it?  I’d say about a fiftieth.

Taking the six year statute of limitations into account, I therefore propose the following formula:

(Whatever Greg Ham has been paid, specifically for Down Under, in the applicable six years)/about 50 = what Larrikin should get.

By the way, if Jacobsen’s logic holds for other songs, here’s the situation that prevails:

If you quote a copyrighted work in your arrangement, you’re liable.  Not in your melody and lyrics, where a song lives, but in your arrangement.

So here’s one:  John Lennon’s cover of Lieber and Stoller’s Stand By Me has a guitar instrumental break that quotes Alex North and Hy Zaret’s Unchained Melody.  This is what musos do: we know the two chord progressions are the same, so we play a little raffish quote, and hope John likes it.  I know John recognised the quote, because in the live video version he sings most of Unchained‘s opening line “Oh, my love, my darling”.  It’s not Lieber or Stoller’s words and music, but it’s a copyrighted work quoted in the arrangement, and there’s evidence Lennon knew about it.

By Jacobsen’s logic, Lieber and Stoller should now be sued by North and Zaret’s publishers.  After all, Lieber and Stoller are the listed writers, and the Lennon version’s arrangement makes blatant use of North and Zaret’s copyrighted work.

Makes sense to me.


8 thoughts on ““Obviously, the more the better.”

  1. I am infuriated by this circus.
    HUGE corporations wasting the Courts time over 2 bars,
    and the worst part is that this ning-nong Norm who has taken a salary to protect his employer’s ‘rights’, admits that his friend noticed (AFTER 30 years!!) the riff when watching spicks n specks and phoned him.
    I am gobsmacked by that.
    Firstly, Norm should have been watching the show himself if he was doing his job properly …

    oh it’s all criminal
    Hey! Can You Hear The Plunder?

  2. Thanks for the great coverage of this farce (i mean, case). It makes me SO MAD!!!!!!!!! Logic and common sense will never prevail when there is that much money to be “claimed”.
    Stupid. Stupid waste of everyone’s time and effort and money, just so that guy (and you’re right, forget about the little old lady in the nursing home) can buy a yacht.


  3. Great blog! Well said. Agreed about the 50% of Hams songwriting points going to Larrikin. Oh wait, but his no points = no money, and that’s all this is about.

    Ruin an iconic Australian’s creative legacy and Personal finances so you can make a buck.

    Shame Norm, Shame.

  4. Wikipedia says: Larrikinism is the name given to the Australian folk tradition of irreverence, mockery of authority and disregard for rigid norms of propriety. Larrikinism can also be associated with self-deprecating humour.

    So is Larrikin larrikin by nature as well as by name?

    • I’d say the use of a folky kids’ tune in a reggae-flavoured pop single is an example of larrikinism. Larrikin, the company, may have to change its name to Pedant.

  5. Following this logic, the Beatles owe 60% of the royalties from All You Need is Love to France, and the rest to Glen Miller.

    Men at Work are Larrakins.
    Larrakin are opportunistic arseholes.

    • The Marseillaise is in the public domain, so no money changed hands there (just imagine what would happen to the score of Casablanca!), but yes, that arrangement of ‘In The Mood’ was under copyright, and the two parties agreed on an undisclosed settlement out of court. That’s how gentlemen do it.

  6. Well said Mr Casey.

    I think the “remixer’s manifesto”
    neatly sums up the clash between creativity vs proprietorial control over ideas.

    1. Culture always builds on the past.

    2. The past always tries to control the future.

    3. Our future is becoming less free.

    4. To build free societies you must limit control of the past.”

    from http://films.nfb.ca/rip-a-remix-manifesto/?film=4

    ergo, the law needs to move with the times.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s