Blog with The Bunch
Who's Laughing Now?
Dan The Internut 4 February, 2010 - 8:40 AM
News in that legendary Australian group Men at Work lost their court case against a Kookaburra that once sat in an old gum tree.
It's well known that Kookaburra's are known for laughing, they might fall out of the tree when they see how much money they could be getting soon. 60% of total royalties for a massive international hit, over 29 years is a lot of money.
What do you think. Are they the same? Should Men at work have to hand over half of their royalties to a Kookaburra?
(pics Getty Images / sxc.hu)
(40)
-
Harry says
Are you kidding me? What a joke
Posted Thursday 4 February, 2010 8:49 AM -
Roger says
if that's the case, then John mayer has a case to answer for copying "Stuck In A Moment" by U2 - they're the exact same chords
Posted Thursday 4 February, 2010 8:50 AM -
Gail says
They shouldn't have to pay back royalties, it is so un Australian. Why has it taken "Kookaburra" so long to sue, did they just find out a way to get some quick cash, sour grapes if you ask me.
Posted Thursday 4 February, 2010 9:43 AM -
Michael says
A one of a kind classic song that gives me shivers ever Australia Day.
Leave them alone, I like to think they have given us something special for everyone.
Posted Thursday 4 February, 2010 9:43 AM -
sami says
I think it sucks, there needs to be some sort of a time frame for this sort of thing. Not fair on Men At Work at all.
Posted Thursday 4 February, 2010 9:46 AM
'Kookaburra' is a song children sing in the Kindergarten and 'Down Under' was a chart topper that was almost a national anthem, the songs are not in the same league and I think the guy who owns the rights to Kookaburra should be ashamed of himself!! -
yvette Congreve says
Oh I have heard everything now,,, for one why didn't they say something if they thought that whne the song first came out?? Just proves to me how much aussies are under theyanky influence of being like them,, and I'm just thinking that theymust be hard up for money to do that ,.so pathetic you should be ashamed of yourselves,,,,,
Posted Thursday 4 February, 2010 9:55 AM -
Steven says
This is rich (or rather, Kookaburra is upset they haven't won Lotto yet - then again, this amount of money is *way* more than most Lotto wins).
I think that there should be a sunset clause with copyright claims of about 7 years. I think it is poor form to wait so long just so you can get $50 or $100 million in cash for your retirement fund, at a time when the original makers of the song or work have long since spent the money! Fine (or at the least, more tolerable) if you claim percentage of the royalties shortly after the work became a hit, and then the copyright money gets paid as the royalties are earned. But I think it is highly morally questionable to wait TWENTY-NINE-YEARS just so you can catch someone out and possibly bankrupt the original makers of the song/work, when (arguably) most of the credit does not come from Kookaburra anyway!
I vote for a sunset clause for copyright claims such as this, similar to other areas of law. If it is obviously beneath you to make a copyright claim within, say, 7 years of the hit song/work etc., then you do not deserve *any* money.
This is Australia. Fair go mate! Or in other words, natural justice rather than blatant opportunism.
What do others think?
Best regards,
Posted Thursday 4 February, 2010 10:02 AM
Steven. -
Nicole says
What a load of bollocks. Surely this cant be the case. So whats he want next - a royalty every time a kindy kid sings Kookaburra song - give me a break you fool!
Posted Thursday 4 February, 2010 10:14 AM -
Anne says
Why has it taken so long before going to court. Come on. 29 yrs later. I believe in protecting creativity and originality but this is ridiculous. It should have been sorted out over 28 years ago.
Posted Thursday 4 February, 2010 10:18 AM -
megan says
its a little late if there was going to be a lawsuit about this why didn't it come about back when down under was a smash hit.
Posted Thursday 4 February, 2010 10:20 AM
