Men at Work vs. Marion Sinclair

My friend Mike just brought this to my attention via an AP news report.

I’m not sure I even agree with these similarities but the judge has ruled. Australian rock band Men at Work has plagiarized the Australian nursery rhyme ”Kookaburra Sits In The Old Gum Tree“.

SYDNEY (AP) – A judge ordered Australian band Men at Work on Tuesday to hand over a portion of the royalties from their 1980s hit “Down Under,” after previously ruling its distinctive flute riff was copied from a children’s campfire song. . . “Kookaburra” was written more than 70 years ago by Australian teacher Marion Sinclair for a Girl Guides competition, and the song about the native Australian bird has been a favorite around campfires from New Zealand to Canada…

The following “Kookaburra” recording is from this collection of nursey ryhmes.

“Kookaburra Sits In The Old Gum Tree” (1934)
Men at Work – “Down Under”  (1981)
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
Some Ads here...Conversation about this post below..

18 Responses to “Men at Work vs. Marion Sinclair”

  1. Raphael says:

    Linkin Park’s Shadow of the day (2007) vs U2′s With or without you (1987)

    [Reply]

    Keith Reply:

    Ah, great one! I’ll be sure to add it.

    [Reply]

    dxman Reply:

    And both have the same chord progression as…Down Under! (And about a zillion other songs.)

    [Reply]

    Keith Reply:

    If I’m not mistaken, the U2 bass line is good ‘ol “Pachelbel’s Canon”.

  2. John says:

    Wow. That’s one ridiculous judgmental. I easily hear the connection (though I never noticed the flute melody at all before!), but it’s much of more of a fleeting reference to song of national identity than it is copyright infringement. The Sinclair estate lawyers must be awfully good or Men At Work’s awfully bad.

    [Reply]

  3. Dissonance says:

    It’s rare for a song to still be under copyright after 70 years, though maybe copyright laws are different down under.

    [Reply]

    Suzanne Reply:

    The copyright is from the time it was written until 70 years after the death of the original writer. Originally in Australia it was 50 years after death but changed to 70 to comply with US copyright laws.

    [Reply]

  4. Mina says:

    Oh God, this is the answer! I always thought “Down Under” sounded like something I’d heard before, but could never figure it out, and anyone I asked just dismissed me, thinking it sounded familiar because it was a popular song… at last! Vindication!

    Great site, by the way– glad I stumbled upon it!

    [Reply]

    Keith Reply:

    Glad to be of service Mina!

    [Reply]

  5. Devon says:

    The people who sued were actually not the Sinclair estate. Marion did not care that the melody was the same and both Marion and Men at Work poked fun at the similarity (or, “identical-ness”) in their performances. When Marion died, her family still didn’t care. When they sold the rights to the song, though, the company that bought them did so purely so they could sue Men at Work, which they did, and that’s where the judge’s ruling came from not. NOT from the Sinclairs.

    [Reply]

    Keith Reply:

    Thanks for the info Devon! Do you have a source for any of this info you can share?

    [Reply]

  6. michael says:

    sound like electric eel from mgmt to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmZexg8sxyk

    [Reply]

  7. Dissonance says:

    I composed a children’s suite for woodwind quintet. I intended to arrange Kookaburra for one movement. After several months, Music Sales Group was going to grant me permission with restrictions. The restrictions, however, were so strict that the piece could never be performed. I tried to explain to them how classical music works, then they stopped communicating with me.

    [Reply]

    Keith Reply:

    That’s crazy! Do you have any other information about this you can email me?

    [Reply]

    Dissonance Reply:

    Keith, I have the correspondence that was meant for me. Is there a reason you would like to see it?

    [Reply]

    Keith Reply:

    I’ve been getting more and more “inside” information from various artists lately. I will most likely be developing some more editorial to go along with my normal posts. If there’s anything you’d feel comfortable sharing for publication that would be great. Otherwise, no big deal!

    Dissonance Reply:

    Keith, is there a way I can respond to your privately?

  8. Travis says:

    about a nursery rhyme infringement
    this one was a bit of a stretch

    but with this one theres no denying

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cUXj3zb_UY#t=0m20s

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrr2F3seAGU

    [Reply]

Leave a Reply