Should Men at Work Pay - Case Study Example

Should Men at Work Pay? Introduction The 1968 copyrights Act regulates the reproducing of a substantial part of another individuals work without license. It was not until 2007 when Larrikin Music Publishing realized that EMI Songs Australia had actually disregarded the regulation of the copyright law by reproducing the 1981 composition ‘’Down Under ‘’ using two bars which were originally from the Australian iconic piece “Kookaburra. The verdict delivered by Judge Jacobson in favor of Larrikin outlined that the publishing limited was evidently entitled to receiving payment of damages from EMI songs as outlined by the Fair Trading Act (Federal Court of Australia 2010, FCA 29). In deed one would think, why should Men at Work pay a lawsuit declared after the songs popularity has actually faded or rather just a small potion of a flute rift was taken from an old legendary song. In some way, it can be argued that Judge Jacobson verdict was necessary. This is because the aspect of objectivity is actually vital in any particular verdict, in the same sense, verdicts made should be coherent and in line with the evidence given (Mark 2008, 181). In this particular dispute a large extent of evidence given pointed out that the production of the ‘’Down Under ‘song had elements of 1934“Kookaburra’’ flute rifts. Although Larrikin claimed that the allegations of copyright infringement were basically unjustified, all evidence pointed out to the fact that indeed some piece flute bar was integrated within the ‘’Down Under’’ single. For instance the Judge observed that the concept of reproduction for the use of copyright law entails the aspect of first analyzing a resemblance of the actual application of copy right law. The second element involves evaluating the connection between the infringing work and the copyright work. The testimony of a musicologist Gibbs CJ highlighted that there is a casual connection that exists between the ‘defendants’ and the ‘plantiffs’ work, the overall analysis indicated that indeed a substantial part of the copyright was copied by EMI.. Another musical analyst Dr Ford gave much tangle evidence by drawing the courts attention to two notes(‘he’ and ‘tree’) that existed in the ‘’Down Under’’ composition which had been derived from Kookaburra (Federal Court of Australia 2010,FCA 29). The Judge was therefore left with the substantial part of making a verdict of what percent should EMI pay due to the fact that all the evidence pointed out that section 55 of the copyrights Acts (manufactures should not adopt musicals from other works without appropriate legal producer or permission) was infringed (Copyright ACT 1968).From the analysis outlined above on basis of the presented evidence it can be argued that Men at Work should pay, because it is vital for the application of Copyrights law to not be a rhetoric aspect of the policy framework but rather a practical application. Davies and Cave (2010, 56 ) argue that the essence of enforcing such kinds of law is to eliminate chances of fraud and destruction of originality in works of Art, as a result if EMI got away with an infringement that took place several years ago, the possibility of other music production firms doing the same would actually be much greater. Another interpretation that can be used to argue that Men At work should pay Larrikin Music Publishing is based on the mandatory requirement outlined by the Copyrights Acts in section s 36(1A)(c) which highlights that any sort of infringement should not result to compromising of copyright (Copyrights Act 1968).The big question here is whether EMI took up any considerable action to prevent or avoid the infringement or whether they had any idea that making ‘’ Down Under ‘’ sound like Kookaburra evidently amounted to the violation of the copyrights Act. What can actually be described as true is that not until 2007 did the copyrights owner (Larrikin Music Publishing) realize that their exclusive rights ownership had been taken away from them (Itzkoff 2010, 45).If Men at Work were responsible enough to realize that integrating aspects of Kookaburra into their work was actually a breach of the law, they would have attempted to make initiatives of legal accusation of the flute rifts taken from Kookaburra. Therefore basing on this fact Men at Work should pay due to negligence towards the Law can be perceived as authentic. One situation that qualifies as an exception of the application of the copyright law is linked to the notion of fair use(Samuelson, 1995, 28).The regulations of fair use stipulates that certain types of utilization of an individuals works that are protected do not need the authorization of the holders of the copy right. The fair use law is mainly designed to permit the protected works for activities such as news reporting, education, research and commentary. Suthersanen, (2008, 80) highlights that; the use of an individual’s works is only allowed at a minimum level in order to avoid interfering with an individual’s copyrights. In addition if the copied work does not expose any sort of damage to the original works such as loss of potential market and original ownership then the exclusion of copy rights can not be termed as a breach (Sharee, 2007, 122). In addition If the copied aspects are to play significant social roles such as education, research and progression of scientific concepts, violation of copy rights would be allowed. Although the concept of fair use is mostly applicable in the United States it can be used to back the fact that Men at Work violated the copyrights law. This is because the musical ‘’Down Under’’ did not effectively meet the qualifications of fair use, in despite of the fact that the song was an affectionate celebration of Australian culture, it jeopardized the originality that existed in the 1934“Kookaburra’’ production. On the other hand, it can be argued that Men at Work Should not pay the 5% royalties to Larrikin Music Publishing. Flew & Humphreys, (2005, 102) highlights that the features copied must actually be a substantial part of the alleged copyright work. As a result it is vital to make an analysis of the similarities that exist between the two productions in order to have an extensive proof of the infringement. Judge Jacobsen in his conclusion commented that the findings of the case do not effectively prove the fact that the flute rift derived from Kookaburra form a substantial part of the Down Under song which implies that what EMI did was to design their own flute lyrics by adopting the some aspects of the flute rift in the Kookaburra (Davies &Cave 2010, 55). Another basic argument that can be used to back the fact that Men at work should not pay the 5% royalties is that given the length of time taken for Larrikin's to press charges for damages was very long, the copy right loss obtained by Larrikin over the years can be described as a product of its own conduct this therefore amounts to a realistic argument that Larrikin failed to declare its own copyright, by not making an articulation of the claim not until the year 2007. Another basic reason to support the fact that Men at Work should not pay the 5% royalties is based on the notion that Marion Sinclair the original composer of the song did not effectively and substantially reinforce her copyright. As a result the song has over the years been sung without any sort of restrictions. For instance the song is frequently song by children in schools yet they have never been required to pay any sort of royalties (Ulaby 2009, 3). In my own opinion I agree with the judge’s decision. Basing on the ownership of popular musical cultures, the copyright law gives a clear description about the rules that govern the use of another individuals work. Therefore in order to determine what is actually correct in the context of this particular case various aspects of ownership of popular musical cultures can be evaluated. Flew and Humphreys (2005, 144) outline that one factor is that in order to acquire any part of another artist’s works that bears the characteristics of popularity, it is essential to purchase the copyright from the original artist. In 1990 Larrikin Music purchased the copyright of Kookaburra from the Public trustee of South Australia following the 1988 death of Sinclair. According to reports by the media, Larrikin Music paid a good amount for the songs ownership, this explains why they suggested the EMI should compensate them a royalty of 40-60%. Ownership of popular musical cultures requires effective regulatory practices such as effective enforcement of ownership copyrights (Sharee 2007,123).As a result if Men at Work did not take the initiative of buying the copyright of the famous Australian song, just like Larrikin Music did in 1990, then they are evidently entitled to pay the 5% royalties. Conclusion The case concerning Larrikin Music Publishing and EMI Songs Australia is a contentious type of law suite basing on the fact that the realization of copyright infringement occurred just recently while the offence was committed several years ago. However basing on Judge Jacobsen’s verdict, indeed violation of copyright did occur therefore Men at Work have to pay. The big question however is that is the 5% royalties of their earning since 2002 a sufficient amount? And what amount of money is 5%? Bibliographies COPYRIGHT ACT 1968, Commonwealth Consolidated Acts Retrieved Davies, C &Cave, A, 2010, ‘’ Larrikin Music Publishing Pty Ltd v EMI Songs Australia Pty Ltd. Lexology Business Lawyers.p 55-56 . Retrieved Flew, T & Humphreys, S , 2005, “Games: Technology, Industry, Culture” in Terry Flew, New Media: an , Oxford University Press, South Melbourne 101-114. Federal Court of Australia, 2010, Larrikin Music Publishing Pty Ltd v EMI Songs Australia Pty Limited [2010] FCA 29 Retrieved , Itzkoff, D, 2010, ‘’ Judge Rules Men at Work Must Pay Royalties on ‘Down Under’ Arts beat. Culture at large , 45. Retrieved Mark J, etal, 2008, Australian intellectual property law. Cambridge University Press. p. 181 Suthersanen, U, 2008). Global intellectual property. Edward Elgar Publishing. P 78-80 Samuelson, P, 1995, "Copyright’s fair use doctrine and digital data". Publishing Research Quarterly 11 (1): 27–39 Sharee L, 2007, The copyright movement: creative commons licensing. Communication Research Trends. p122-123. Ulaby, N, 2009, "A Kookaburra Causes Trouble 'Down Under' at". Npr.org.p3. Retrieved< http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120984958. Read More