The family of South African composer Solomon Linda has reached a settlement in the lawsuit over his world-famous song The Lion Sleeps Tonight.

The South African Government announced this week that Linda's heirs had reached a settlement with U.S. music publishing house Abilene Music — a decision that is "a great victory for the Linda family."

"We're happy to announce that a global agreement has been reached between the heirs of Solomon Linda and the company responsible [for the song's copyright]," South Africa's ministry of culture said in a statement.

"The heirs of Solomon Linda will receive compensation [that takes into account] past and future use of The Lion Sleeps Tonight."

The financial terms of the deal were not disclosed.

Linda composed the song — originally called Mbube (or Lion, in Zulu) — in 1939 in Johannesburg. It became a hit throughout South Africa.

In the 1950s, the tune was adapted and covered by Pete Seeger's group the Weavers, 1960s group the Tokens and then more than 150 artists worldwide. However, Linda and his wife had sold the rights to his song to a local company in 1939 and never benefitted from his song's popularity. He died in poverty in 1962.

Lawyers for the Linda family had argued that according to copyright law in the British Commonwealth at the time, the rights to the song were to revert back to the composer's heirs 25 years after his death.

The lawsuit arose in 2003, after the song was used in Walt Disney's international hit The Lion King, released in 1994. The film was adapted into a massively successful Broadway musical in 1997.

The Lion Sleeps Tonight reportedly earned more than $15 million US worldwide for Disney.

In the lawsuit, Linda's family members had claimed that they were due millions of dollars in royalties from Disney's use of the song.

In July 2004, the family won a court order to attach more than 240 Disney trademarks registered in South Africa — including images of Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck — to their $1.6-million US lawsuit, in order to establish local jurisdiction for their case.

Linda's three surviving daughters and 10 grandchildren live in poverty in Johannesburg's Soweto township. Their lawyers say they have only ever received a one-time payment of $15,000 US for the song.

______________________________________________________________________________________
Remember the ridiculous huffing and puffing that The Richmond Organization spewed over "This Land is Your Land?" Elderly white men have made billions putting their own names on beloved folk tunes. Now it's time to pay the piper. This case for royalties restitution for TRO's "The Lion Sleeps Tonight" is the poster child for stopping the grave-robbing and looting practices of WIPO and international copyright claimants.

PBS is playing the documentary that has the world aflame: "A LION'S TRAIL," directed by Francois Verster.

Find out your local PBS viewing time here, enter your zip code.

see the QuickTime preview video here:
http://files.dmusic.com/video/lionstrail_hi.mov


Solomon Linda's "Mbube, " is one of the world's most beloved melodies - and the focus of one of the world's greatest musical travesties. In 1939, Linda, a migrant worker, recorded "Mbube" in Johannesburg for Gallo Records. Alan Lomax fetched a box of South African demo discs from the office trash can and suggested that Pete Seeger go through them.

Seeger directly copied Solomon Linda's "Mbube" and released it in 1952 as "Wimoweh" - but with its composer now credited as "Paul Campbell", a pseudonym for Seeger and his band, The Weavers. Once Seeger, who thought the song was a "traditional" piece, learnt it was Linda's work, he made arrangements for the South African to receive a share of Wimoweh's royalties.


Then, in 1961, a New York group, The Tokens, released The Lion Sleeps Tonight - for all intents and purposes, Wimoweh with English lyrics. Now the "composers" were Tin Pan Alley songwriters Hugo Peretti, Luigi Creatore and George Weiss. This version topped charts the world over and would come to be recorded by more than 170 artists. It dominated charts again in 1994 with the Disney film The Lion King . All this earned Peretti, Creatore and Weiss millions of dollars. Linda, on the other hand, died penniless in 1962. Over the years, his estate - four daughters, Philda, Delphi, Elizabeth and Adelaide Ntsele - has received an estimated R130 000 in royalties, a paltry amount considering its overall earnings.

A bitter legal battle has now begun over the song - thanks, largely, to the SA writer Rian Malan, who spent months researching Linda's work for the US magazine Rolling Stone.


Herewith the famous (and only known?) photo of Solomon Linda and his Evening Birds 1941. Left to Right: Solomon (Soprano), Gilbert Madondo (Alto), Boy Sibiya (Tenor), Samuel Mlangeni (Bass) and Owen Skakane (Bass). This photo courtesy of The International Library of African Music (Rhodes University) and Veit Erlmann


Rian Malan's article "One of the Great Musical Mysteries of All Time: IN THE JUNGLE."

View as html


Pull up a chair, prime your printer ink and weep. Here's a reading library:

http://www.bobshannon.com/stories/Lion.html
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1197/is_3_47/ai_108313844
http://songsforteaching.homestead.com/PWMMbube.html
http://www.mp3.com/solomon-linda/artists/276341/biography.html
http://www.gallo.co.za/recordc.htm

An extraordinary outpouring of comments here: (this is a must-read)
http://www.3rdearmusic.com/forum/forumjan04/mbubefeedback.html

Hear a version by The Mahotella Queens on African Playground at this link:
http://tombarger.dmusic.com/music/stream/hifi/208852/.4c0cc29e/stream.m3u

Rounder Records has a compilation Ladysmith Black Mambazo, Solomon Linda & the Evening Birds & others
Mbube Roots -- Zulu Choral Music from South Africa, 1930s-1960s

I've listened to it a couple of times now. It's most definitely "The Lion Sleeps Tonight". This IS an open and shut case, right?

What about how the Lion King relentlessy rips off "Kimba, the White Lion?" No lawsuit over that? I guess they changed it just enough.

A true example of those that are always running around hollering, "They're stealing our stuff!"

This isn't the first time this particular peice has come up about this song. Nor is it the first it has come up here. Somewhere in the past is an article of this where Disney was sued over the lack of paying royalties. Just goes to show, if you got enough money for a hoard of legal representation you can almost buy your law or ruling. If not, the chances are never good. If it becomes clear to Disney that they might lose I am sure the first thing they will do is offer some sort of paltry settlement in hopes it will go away. Typical corporation responce if they can't bull and threaten their way out of it.

This is almost a copycat of what the music majors pulled in the 1930's when blues was discovered. An agent went out to save the blues with a recorder, pen, and contracts. For paltry sums, blues musicans who knew no better signed all rights over for the most part. There were a few who did not. That did not stop the record companies who would have up and coming groups listen and then make it their own.

In the same sort of actions today, those using snippets to make it their own in hip hop; the majors want a small fortune for this.

What's wrong with this picture?

An EXCELLENT article Tom.
I hope no one is stupid enough to DELETE YOURS like 3 of mine got deleted!

"As a solid rock is not shaken by a strong gale, so wise persons remain unaffected by praise or censure"
-Buddha

Whose side are we on?

You see, if copyright was limited to something approaching the original intent -- which I thought most of us believe -- Disney would be free to use this, because it would be in public domain. Therefore, we should be on Disney's side. We should use this case to argue for shorter terms of copyright.

Mickey Mouse should be public domain now, and so should this song.

Are we going to let our desire to see a big corporation get the shaft outweigh our principled opposition to excessively long copyright protection?

If you read between the lines autodidact, you'd realize whose side we're on. On the one hand, many who have written classics go penniless, while the corporations (like Disney) who rip them off make millions. Then corporations (like Disney) cry "piracy - they are stealing my music!" and sue 12-year-old girls for merely downloading and listening to the corporations' (like Disney) song. It reeks.

Lover, you didn't answer the question, really. To be on the side of Linda's estate means necessarily to be on the side of excessively long copyright protection. If that's the side you're on, so be it. Personally, I think copyright and patent protection should be the same length of time -- less than 30 years, at least.

And who's to say Linda did not "steal" the tune from someone before him?

Have to agree with Autodidact on this. Yes it sucks that Disney is taking advantage of a South African Composer. But if we can be for allowing a 66 year copyright when the infringer is a large corporation and against it when the holder is a corporation we have a consistency problem. It may be time to try to come to a group consensus on just what constitutes a reasonable copyright duration. I would say 15 years, renewable once, not renewable if the rights are sold otherwise transferred except in cases of inheritance.

I'm not for allowing a 66-year term on copyright, but I am for Disney et. cetera having to pay back at least part of what was kept from the composer in the first place.

Plus it's fun to poke Disney.

I agree wholeheartedly with you autodidact. The reason copyright is so messed up today is that the terms are too long. You've nailed the most important point and purpose for our being here.

I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of RIAA labels actions, that's all. Someone that may have been more deserving of the initial copyright is getting nothing, while RIAA corporations line our politicians pockets to get copyright laws passed that are basically unconstitutional.

We certainly aren't on any RIAA corporations side (Disney included). They have fostered a thought process where people that create copyrightable works are ENTITLED to protection, even after their death and to their estate. This was NOT the intent of our constitution, when it allowed copyrights to exist for LIMITED terms. They must be shortened so that they enter the public domain within an average man's lifetime.

Actually, it appears they are arguing over who owns the copyright....I would say "none of the above". Disney should have no right to claim anything nor should the heirs.

I repeat myself from previously:

Copyright should be non-transferrable and only last as long as the artist is alive.

This would clean up the whole mess and make these types of greed focused actions extinct.

INeedALover, I guess we are in total agreement, because there's no doubt that Disney is guilty of hypocrisy. If there was any way to advocate for punishing them for that double standard without appearing to endorse the long copyright terms, I'd be all for it.

I am so anti-Disney on so many fronts. It irks me that they now own the distribution rights to Miyazake's wonderful animated films. Miyazake doesn't know what a nest of vipers he's dealing with.

I think Disney should always have a Rat as a symbol.
"Mouse no more, hear me roar"

I think Disney should always have a Rat as a symbol.
"Mouse no more, hear me roar"

After seeing this film and how Solomon’s family still lives in a dark poverty it made me think of the all of blues and folk artist right here at home that pass along songs from family to family only to have someone take the song change a few words and make money on it leaving those folks right where they were.
It was good hearing Pete Seeger sing and tell his story as only he can. The one thing Pete has done all along is, if it’s someone’s else’s song he give the credit. His voice is something to hear, patience, soft and strong all at the same time and a damn good story teller.
In some ways this film shows the importance of film and how it can make change things for the better sometimes. Music, art all has done this, in making us stop for a brief time to think in our now very busy life.
Still Pickin’
Bill Hudson

While it irks me to no end, I sort of partially agree with autodidact on whose side we should be on. But Disney is the very reason the copyrights are so messed up today. It was Disney that brought the "mouse in peril" act that extended copyrights to what they are now.

I guess if Disney winds up hoist on their own petard on this one, we can quietly cheer at least.

Yes I agree!

I wonder if I'm gonna still be alive in 2030. Maybe I will get to see some copyrights (like Mickey) enter the public domain. There is no way our judicial system would allow further extensions of the copyright limits without an amendment to our constitution. Most likely, that is what Disney will try to buy next. Wouldn't that be special.

hell naw 4 reel thiz iz crazy yall plain wacT

i think this is more about corporatism than about music. coorporations have all the benefits of a man and none of the conscious. they are an embodiment of the very essence of greed. cooportations would let starve the whole world if it would be fiscally beneficial to them...they are the real transgressers.

Both sides are wrong = Disney for corrupting copyright, and the heirs of Solomon Linda crying for their long lost copyright cashcow. Nothing here to cheer about.

True.

Even if the copyright protection expires after, say, seventeen years, (which it should be) and works automatically become public domain.. unless the composer applies for a twenty year extension (dream on :cloud9), the basic tenet of the law is to prevent precisely this activity!! Fact is, the song was "taken" for "profit" WHILE LINDA WAS STILL ALIVE AND PROTECTED.. that, folks, is theft, and should be persued as such. That is why the artworks stoled during WWII is being battled over, that is why the greek stuff from Getty Museum, and others, should be returned to the original owners.. It is an issue of theft to me, period. All this other legal blathering is to cover up the fact that corporations steal their product for profit. It is a basic rule that predatory capitalism that we so admire exists on a platform of theft.

I mean, if you make money, share the money with them that helped you make it..

That's what OUGHTA happen, for sure.

Mary, in the movie about Jerry Lee Lewis' life (titled "Great Balls of Fire") I seem to recall one segment that shows him modifying a song he heard from several African Americans . . . to make his smash hit "Whole Lotta Shakin' Goin' On".
I just couldn't help wondering if the proper people got royalty in that sort of processing. This was the fifties, and back then it was deemed acceptable for Caucasians to take advantage by "covering" songs performed by "colored folk".

("deemed acceptable" by a large segment of Caucasians in the music industry, I meant to say)

"Fact is, the song was "taken" for "profit" WHILE LINDA WAS STILL ALIVE AND PROTECTED.. that, folks, is theft, and should be persued as such."

Actually, the news account reads:
"Linda and his wife had sold the rights to his song to a local company in 1939 and never benefitted from his song's popularity. He died in poverty in 1962.
Lawyers for the Linda family have argued that according to copyright law in the British Commonwealth at the time, the rights to the song were to revert back to the composer's heirs 25 years after his death."

So, he sold away his rights while he was still alive, and therefore was personally not protected from that point on.

. . . although his heirs apparently are getting the benefit of a kind of delayed "copyright cash cow" that anal-log-hole referred to in his/her post.

OldCodger.. if that is the case then I stand corrected I think that any "law" that deals with anyone after the composer has died, is plain silly. However, it is also common for artist to sign away rights on the promise by the fat cats that money will be made.. but once you're gone, you're gone.. the works become public domain (again, in some cases.) And finally, there are a whole lot of original composers who never saw a penny of royalty or copyright "protection."

Did anyone here actually see The Lion King?
The character Timon only sings one or two lines from the song. And that earned Disney $15 million? Who's doing the math, an RIAA accountant?