Uh oh. It seems that one of the most popular bands in the 1980’s, with one of the most popular songs…may have stolen at least part of that song. Men At Work brought Australia to America with their hit song, “Down Under.” But an Australian judge has just ruled that they ripped off the flute portion of the song from a folk tune owned by Larrikin Music Publishing.
Men At Work may have to pay up to 60 percent of the money they made from “Down Under”, to the Larrikin Music Publishing group. What most people want to know is why did it take so many years for a lawsuit to be filed? “Down Under” became a hit in 1982, the lawsuit was filed in 2009, a whopping 27 years after the song came out. Marion Sinclair's song, “Kookaburra Sits In The Old Gum Tree” is the song the flute riff was alleged to be stolen from. It is a popular children's song in Australia.
The lead singer of Men At Work, Collin Hay, issued a written statement regarding the lawsuit, the ruling and what actually occurred. You can read the full statement here. In part, Hay stated, “I believe what has won today is opportunistic greed, and what has suffered, is creative musical endeavour. This outcome will have no real impact upon the relationship that I have with our song “Down Under”, for we are connected forever."
Hay went on to say this about Marion Sinclair, who passed away in 1988, “It may well be noted, that Marion Sinclair herself never made any claim that we had appropriated any part of her song Kookaburra, and she wrote it, and was most definitely alive, when Men At Work's version of Down Under was a big hit. Apparently she didn't notice either.”
Men at Work won the 1983 Grammy Award for Best New Artist and sold over 30 million albums worldwide. You can see their “Down Under” music video below. Were/Are you a Men At Work fan? What do you think about this lawsuit? All comments and questions are welcome. Subscribe to National Generation X Examiner by adding your email address to the subscribe box above.
Comments
Oh my! I can't believe they waited so long to take legal action.
I always thought it was an obvious riff on Kookaburra --an homage to an Australian classic. If the author doesn't care, no one should. Blatant greed.
Wonder why they took so long to take legal action?
Hi, I saw your post in the Super Examiner Thread. Great article! I have also subscribed to your posts!
No doubt, the melody of the flute solo simulates the folk song's melody. However, being a musician myself, I attest to the fact of one's creativity involuntarily reflecting that of another artist,(past, present,and/or future). The similar melody cannot be proven as ill or criminal intent. Period. I agree that this is just another viscious act of greed on behalf of the cut throat, blood thirsty music executives. Most of those jerks are non talented musicians, who exploit those of us who are.
Some books are 100% plageristic, and have made more money than anyone can phathom. Books of the big religions, are all counterfiet. Ooops. We're not suppose to know that.
Agreed. I'm betting the original composer or arranger may have thought Kookaburra might have been public domain and included it to create an instantaneous Australian "feel". In any case, the suit should have been filed in 1983 by the composer. 27 years later smacks of greed and publicity seeking. Especially since the owners of the song have nothing to do with its composition.
I concur with everyone else
Yes, Why did it take so long to file a suit? I like the group and the song and enjoyed the video. Not really sure legal action should be taken.
Yes, it definitely sounds like greed...
Ft lauderdale Science News Examiner
Space News Examiner
I see ridiculous lawsuits don't only happen in the US!
Yeah, "why did it take so long" was definitely my first though when I started reading this. It's a little ridiculous.
Indianapolis Healthy Living Examiner
Sims Examiner
Man, I remember having that on 45 :)
Dallas Beauty Treatments Examiner & Dallas Volunteerism Examiner
Wonder if Vegemite will be the next to sue?
I thought this was a fairly bad ruling. The flute part sounded to my (most definitely non-musical) ears as an homage to the song, not a copy. At any rate, I hate these parasites who, having nothing to do with the song in question, buy up the rights in order to try and make a score off of it. I hear they're asking for 60% of the royalties from Down Under...way too much!
Good job! Giving you some page love!
Opportunistic greed pretty much says it all!
OK, so I'm reading all these comments about how wrong and greedy this lawsuit is, especially after 27 years. So, are you all going to whine about it, or take action? The only way to send a clear message to big businesses - such as EMI - is to take action that will get their attention. Since EMI made this a case about money/royalties, the rational way to get the message across that this is unacceptable behavior is to BOYCOTT ALL EMI PRODUCTS!!!
And continue boycotting their products until the lawsuit is retracted/dropped. If you're not willing to take action, why bother commenting? I won't buy another EMI product myself until this case ruling is reversed. There's power in numbers - if everyone boycotts EMI, they'll eventually disappear, and the others will get the message. The power of grass roots movements illustrated in "pay it forward" can work if everyone's on the same page.
I agree with Elizabeth. Andy has a point, too. I'll be on the lookout for this EMI outfit.
Opps!
:)
Third culture kids examiner
Seattle stay-at-home moms examiner
I'm with Shakespeare, hang all the lawyers.
not to steal any thunder but EMI music isn't the bad guy...they own "Down Under" ....... the real bad guy is Larrikin Music Publishing, which is owned by a multi-national corporation called Music Sales. the journalist who wrote this article was wrong in saying EMI was suing men at work, they are men at work's publishers
Jared--thank you very much for notifying me. The first info I had was that the group was part of EMI..but you are correct, it was the Larrikin Music Publishing group. I have made the necessary changes. Thanks again!
this lawsuit is ridculous. opportunist greed is the only way to put it. and i here the woman was a girl guide? makes me feel sick i was ever in an association that that woman was associated with. down under is an aussie icon and this is an outrage. even worse i heard she is planning to re-release the song. must be without the lyrics otherwise men at work could sue her. not that any self rightous aussie would buy it
The Cherokee Nation should sue, too
PURE LAWYER CRAP!!!!
Justice prevails the judge ruled 5% of all revenue earned will go to Larrikin
Some what opportunistic of Larrikin who are part of a multi national company Music sales
Men at work new they were using someone elses melody
Mrs Simpsons estate sold the rights to Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree for $6100 to Larrikin publishing who have now earned a pretty penny from it
David--thank you for the update.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!