Today Justice Peter Jacobsen described Larrikin’s compensation request [60%] as “excessive, over-reaching and unrealistic”.

“Although the quotation from Kookaburra in the 1981 recording is – in my view – sufficient to constitute an infringement of copyright, other factors are to be taken into account in assessing the percentage interest payable in a hypothetical licensing bargain,” he said.

Justice Jacobsen ordered Men At Work frontman Colin Hay, fellow songwriter Ron Strykert and EMI to pay Larrikin 5 per cent of future profits, as well as royalties dating back to 2002.”

I wonder how much that actually is?

d

It would be far too time consuming to research all the lesser known songs you have mentioned. So, focus will be placed only on “Can’t help falling in love with you” by Elvis Presley.

Please be informed that the correct title of the song that “Can’t help falling in love with you” by Elvis Presley copies is “Plaisir d’amour” and not “Chagrin d’amour” as you have quoted. The music for “Plaisir d’amour” was composed in 1780 by Johann Scwartendorf (also known as Jean Paul Egide Martini, sometimes also known as Giovanni Martini) who died in 1816. The lyrics for the song was based on a poem by Jean de Florian (1755-1794) whereas Hector Berlioz (1803-1869) was responsible for only the musical arrangements.

When the song “Can’t help falling in love with you” was released by Elvis Presley in October 1961, the copyright in “Plaisir d’amour” had already expired 95 years prior to this release. Copyright in these days lasted for the entire life time of the author/composer plus 50 years after his/her death. Therefore,1816 plus 50 = 1866 and 1961 minus 1866 = 95. This is why there was no legal action initiated against Elvis Presley and/or his people for infringement of copyright at that time.

Even though Elvis Presley only made a reference to “Plaisir d’amour”, it is factual that many other people also recorded that original song in its entirety (with both the same music and lyrics) even though in some cases the lyrics were translated into other languages. To name a few : Joan Baez in 1961, Marianne Faithfull in 1965, Nana Mouskouri in 1997, Karrin Allyson in 1999 etc.

Now – “Can’t stop falling in love with you” copying “Plaisir d’amour” has two conspicuous similarities with the “Kookaburra” case. (1) Only two out of four bars of the chorus (repeated throughout the original song from start to finish) have been copied by the Elvis Presley song. (2) The catchy tune (for its time) of “Plaisir d’amour” was still in existence (but dormant) in the subconscious mind of people until awaken by “Can’t help falling in love with you” when it was released in 1961.

The VITAL difference between the two cases is : Marion Sinclair died in 1988. This means that when legal action was started in 2007 by Larrikin Music, the copyright had another 31 years to go before expiration.
1988 + 50 = 2038. 2038 minus 2007 = 31.

Meh, I think my hypothetical of lawyers glassing each other was less sinister than your hypothetical preemptive removal of bogan/bolshie lawyers by military force to prevent a hypothetical civil war over copyright law reform. However, that is an awesome plotline for a movie.

But srsly, the criticisms made above of the existing laws – primarily that its duration is extensive and the lack of fair use inhibits creativity and it has not adapted to suit the current technological age; are real and valid and perfectly understandable from a lefty blog.

The law can’t help itself; but we can change it.

For an example of how the law impacts a remix artist; check out Hugh Atkin’s art and blog. And this EFF submission covers alot of the broader issues as well (pg 13 onwards).

“Glassing each other in bloody revolution over copyright law reform” – “glassing” … this is exaggerating things a little – isn’t it? Can we detect a paradox here?

After so much hype about the prospects of millions of dollars being paid to Larrikin Music by E.M.I. as a result of the Kookaburra judgment, suddenly copyright law reform becomes trivia.

“I’m under the impression that since the Berne 1989 Convention – all written works are copyrighted” :–

Has rum-rebellious given any thoughts to the fundamental principle of copyright law that requires the name of the author and the date when the original work is completed, as well as the copyright logo, be affixed to the subject matter for copyright to exist? How difficult is it for a prospective plagiarist to affix on his/her stolen subject matter or manuscript, a date that has been backdated several years?

“I don’t think publishing actually matters when it comes to establishing copyright in a written work”

And what if the genuine author of an original work dies (or is murdered) and his/her manuscript is stolen before it is published? Who is going to know that the plagiarist/murderer is not the genuine author of the original work? I thought that somebody (a few comments back) had already contended (for the same reason) against the lack of security involved in terminating the existence of copyright at the death of the author.

“And yes, I think the law is an arse” :–

Is the law really an arse? To be accurate; you will certainly agree that the arse does not excrete the stinkers – but the anus does! So, would it be fair to say that it is only SOME administrators of the law (viz : some bogan/bolshevist lawyers) who are at the epicenter of the miscarriages of Justice that are caused by the corruption in the legal system? These dishonest and unscrupulous lawyers who manipulate and distort the interpretation of the law to suit their own arguments, in an attempt to realize their fraudulent claims, cannot accurately be described simply as the Law, but to be accurate can be said to be the anus of the Law.

I wanted to break it to him/her/it gently as it’s clear there is much that is not obvious to Guru FairThread.

Once they sell the film rights – they’d be set for life (plus 70 years or whatever). It would be spectacularly entertaining television. Can’t believe the Axis and Allied powers didn’t think of that. Imagine the money still coming in if you took the Hiroshima mushroom cloud footage.

“An original story in short story form that is original in nature, unique in concept, complete in continuity but still unpublished (or awaiting imminent publication) could also be alleged to be a ‘mere IDEA’ allegedly with no financial value.”

Look I aint no lawyer, Barrack/Bogan or otherwise, but I’m under the impression that since the Berne 1989 Convention – all written works are copyrighted. Including your comment above. So as far as I am aware, I don’t think publishing actually matters when it comes to establishing copyright in a written work. And yes, I think the law is an arse.