|
Re: Nearly 30 yrs later, Men At Work guilty of plagiarism!?!
Originally Posted by UAIOE
(Post 9982451)
How do you sue someone over a song, that you bought the rights to years *after* they wrote it?
|
Re: Nearly 30 yrs later, Men At Work guilty of plagiarism!?!
Originally Posted by porieux
(Post 9984982)
^That preview doesn't work for me, but I doubt it's just one acoustic guitar and a vocal if it has that part represented.
However, I was using those versions to illustrate that the songwriter, when re-recording the song twice, considered that part of the arrangement to be important enough to keep it in both versions. However, I do agree that while it's part of the arrangement, it's not part of the "written" song. Here's an accoustic guitar/vocal version to prove your assertion: <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ikrmUq1EudE&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ikrmUq1EudE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikrmUq1EudE I also did find one of the solo albums version on Youtube, with some odd video montage over it: <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/q9iWO3KcUJ0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/q9iWO3KcUJ0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9iWO3KcUJ0 |
Re: Nearly 30 yrs later, Men At Work guilty of plagiarism!?!
Originally Posted by Jay G.
(Post 9985004)
With copyrights, it doesn't matter when the current copyright owner came into possession of it, only when it was originally copyrighted.
|
Re: Nearly 30 yrs later, Men At Work guilty of plagiarism!?!
someone told me the dumbasses who owned the kookaburra song didn't even realize until the connection was mentioned on the music game show "spicks and specks" there. I bet Men at Work are wishing it never was! :brickwl2:
|
Re: Nearly 30 yrs later, Men At Work guilty of plagiarism!?!
There's a bit of guitar work in the Dio Sabbath song "Lady Evil" that knowingly/jokingly borrows from eternal popster Cliff Richard's "Devil Woman".
I bet Tony Iommi is quaking in his boots! |
Re: Nearly 30 yrs later, Men At Work guilty of plagiarism!?!
Originally Posted by Groucho
(Post 9982061)
"Kookaburra Sits In The Old Gum Tree" is a well-known song associated with Australia, and it's obvious to me it's usage was intentional. No doubt they used it thinking it was in the public domain and they were safe from being sued.
What's ridiculous is that the people suing had nothing to do with the writer of the song. It's not even her family. It's some corporation that bought the rights.
Originally Posted by Graftenberg
(Post 9984438)
"Kookaburra Sits In The Old Gum Tree" is a well-known song associated with Australia, and it's obvious to me it's usage was intentional. No doubt they used it thinking it was in the public domain and they were safe from being sued.
What's ridiculous is that the people suing had nothing to do with the writer of the song. It's not even her family. It's some corporation that bought the rights. |
TANGENT: another example of innocent/minor musical "borrowing"
Originally Posted by Lemmy
(Post 9987480)
Do you have any idea what part of "Lady Evil" that's in? I'm anxious to check it out.
<font color=blue>*EDIT: it kicks in for about four seconds from 2:57ish.</font> |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:18 AM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.