Surprising what comes back and bites you in the butt.
Pink Floyd I believe ran into a bit of trouble with their old "The wall" album. It seems that the children who assisted in 'that' song are now all grown up and asking why they're not getting a piece of the pie. All the more reason why stuff like this bothers me:
Although I know nothing of the inner workings of this.... I would suggest that the ruling was the result of something slightly deeper than a quick sample over a radio.
I could see this as making more sense if the woman who wrote the song sued (I'm sure she was alive when men @ work make the song, and heard it many times).
This also seems like a great way to make $$ in a rough economy: buy the rights to songs "everybody knows" & then sue people who used it years ago.
I think it's a bad decision. One bar of the flute riff can be regarded as a sort of minor key variation of one bar of the Kookaburra song, which is in a major key, and that's it.
The similarity was never noticed until a question on the "Spicks 'n Specks" TV music quiz a few years ago raised the question, and that's when the company that bought the Kookaburra rights after the composer died started to see $$$$$$$$$$$.
From the article: "The judge decided, however, that a Qantas advertisement, which used a similar section of the riff, was not in breach of copyright laws."
On the surface, this seems like a pretty significant contradiction...
Bummer for Men At Work. Used to really enjoy their music.