Fancy ripping the girl guides off.

http://new.uk.music.yahoo.com/blogs/...as-ripped-off/

I don't understand how the current holders of the copyright are eligible to any money?

Surely if there was a copyright infringement it's between the 'infringees' and the holder of the copyright at the time of the offence? Failing that, surely they would only be entitled to a cut of the profits since they bought the copyright?

You can sell the IP to any song, just like The Beatles did when they sold their back catalogue to Michael Jackson in the 80s.

The biggest question mark is about to what date do they owe royalties. I believe this is still the case although I know the existing Beatles some time ago were fighting to have this extended but any musical IP becomes property of the public domain after 50 years, meaning that people can cover, ripp off or sample all they like of that song. Now that song was written in 1935 but Land Down Under was written in 1979, so theoretically they only owe back-paid royalties up until 1985 when that 50 year public domain clause comes into effect.

This will definitely be appealed and I wouldn't be surprised if MAW get off this charge.

Ok, I understand that you can sell the copyright - but why wouldn't Larrikin Music's claim only go back to 1990 when they bought it? Or at all, if the 50 year public domain clause applies before that date?

Shouldn't it be the estate of the owner of the copyright prior to 1990 who would have the claim?

I hope that MAW do get off with this.

interesting, not sure. I don't think there is much legal precedence in this kind of thing. My thoughts are that because MAW never paid any royalties whatsoever before 1990 and the original owners never pursued legal action that if Larrikin Music sue MAW then they are entitled to all back-paid royalties, seeing as they are the ones paying for the legal action and are now the IP owners.

Copyright is life (of the longest living author) plus 70 years. Therefore the copyright on Beatles songs written by Lennon and McCartney will continue until 70 years after McCartney's death.

The royalties will probably need to be shared with the owner of the copyright between the date of the song's publication and 1990.

that must be a fairly new ruling though as I know the Beatles were pushing to get it changed a few years back as their back catalogue was beginning to the 50 year old mark

It appears that all countries have different copyright laws. UK is still 50 years from the moment they were written. The US has the more complex version as described by Burbage. God knows what law Aus follows

http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index...S&newsID=16577

I reckon the Girl Guides had a dodgy claim the copyright in the 1st place.

There's only so many ways you can musically string notes and chords together ... and after that it's all theft.

Indeed - the section that caused all the fuss is a 1 bar riff: (very difficult to notate with ASCII alone but imagine a 4 beat bar broken down into semiquavers)

1- - -
CCCC

2- --
D DD

3- - -
C A

4- - -
C

Hardly groundbreaking, and I'm sure you could find those sequence of notes, or that rhytmic sequence in a few places in the musical canon long before 1935...

From: http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/co..._copyright_law

This ruling applies to the writing, ie words and music:

Duration of copyright
The 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act states the duration of copyright as;
For literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works
70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the last remaining author of the work dies.
If the author is unknown, copyright will last for 70 years from end of the calendar year in which the work was created, although if it is made available to the public during that time, (by publication, authorised performance, broadcast, exhibition, etc.), then the duration will be 70 years from the end of the year that the work was first made available.

This rule applies to the recording (ie the Beatles version of Penny Lane):

Sound Recordings and broadcasts
50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was created, or,
if the work is released within that time: 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was first released.


So the words and music are protected until 70 years after paul McCartney's death. The recording of the Beatles playing the music is protected until 50 years after the recording.

In the case of the Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree, it is the written music that's in question, therefore copyright extends to 70 years after the death of the author.

how could they be found guilty when Vanilla Ice's ice,ice baby got away with ripping off Queen & Bowies Under pressure?

Perhaps Vanilla Ice had permission. In fact Queen and Bowie do get royalties.