"Blurred Lines" Verdict Upheld by Appeals Court in Win for Marvin Gaye Family
- Thread starter Doobie Doo
- Start date
I can't believe ANYONE would side w/Thicke and/or Pharrell. Suing the very family you stole from is bad enough, but suing the heirs of one of the greatest soul singers alive? That's taking caccing to new heights.
And the best part of it? Pharrell - Mr. "Anyone Who Reads Music Can See This Is Bullshyt" Williams - can't read music after all.
Pharrell Williams' Contentious 'Blurred Lines' Testimony Unsealed (Exclusive Video)
It's kind of hard to explain what's going on to the brehs here who don't know music theory, but musically speaking, Pharrell is basically saying he can read, but can't identify letters in the alphabet. It's hysterical.
Lawyer: What are the letters on this page?
Pharrell: (looking at C-A-T) I'm not comfortable with this...
I think of it as he can identify letters, but not words or phrasing. Either way, he tried playing the interloping game and lost big time. He is clever and skilled enough to recreate samples from scratch and modify to an extent, but it is musical dishonesty not to clear or try to clear a sample.
I say keep it original musically, but that paints me as anti-Hip Hop lol
get these nets
Veteran
That's not anti hip hop. I think the Bomb Squad were using samples and sounds in a way that was original*. They created collage of sounds that was genuinely something different,but if any of the original artists ask for credit or money....give to Marvin what belongs to Marvin.
* I catch samples from "Fear of Black Planet" even to this day and am amazed by how it was all woven together.
get these nets
Veteran
UPDATE FROM DEC 2018
Pharrell and Robin Thicke Must Pay Marvin Gaye's Family $5 Million Over 'Blurred Lines': Reports
After a five-year-long legal back-and-forth, a judge has determined that Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke must pay the family of the late Marvin Gaye $5 million for "Blurred Lines"
By Maura Hohman
December 13, 2018 08:45 PM
FB Twitter
Robin Thicke; Pharrell Williams
Cindy Ord/Getty; Mark Sagliocco/WireImage
After a five-year-long legal back-and-forth, a judge has determined that Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke, the artists behind the 2013 mega hit “Blurred Lines,” must pay the family of the late Marvin Gaye $5 million, multiple outlets report.
The pair was sued for copyright infringement because of the song’s similarities to Gaye’s “Got to Give It Up” from 1977, CNN reports. In 2015, a judge ruled Williams, 45, and Thicke, 41, owed Gaye’s estate $7 million, but after they appealed, the judgment — from U.S. District Judge John A. Kronstadt in California on Monday — was reduced to $4,983,766.85, Billboard reports.
Thicke, Williams and Williams’ publishing company owe $2.9 million combined, plus an additional $1.7 million from Thicke and some $357,631 from Williams and his company. Gaye’s family will also earn 50 percent of “Blurred Lines” royalties in the future.
A rep for Williams had no comment, while a rep for Thicke did not respond to PEOPLE’s request for comment.
RELATED: Pharrell Williams on ‘Blurred Lines’ Verdict: ‘There Was No Copyright Infringement’
In 2015, a judge first ruled that Williams and Thicke copied Gaye’s song.
“While we respect the judicial process, we are extremely disappointed in the ruling made today, which sets a horrible precedent for music and creativity going forward,” Williams’ rep said in a statement at the time. “Pharrell created ‘Blurred Lines’ from his heart, mind and soul and the song was not taken from anyone or anywhere else. We are reviewing the decision, considering our options and you will hear more from us soon about this matter.”
A day earlier, Williams acknowledged the singles had a similar “feel,” and his lawyer said conflating that as copyright infringement would hold grave consequences for the music industry.
“No one can claim they own the style or the genre of Marvin Gaye,” attorney Howard King said at the time, according to the Associated Press. “There are no virgin births in music. … Let my clients go forth and continue to [make] magic.”
RELATED: Pharrell Williams & Robin Thicke Found Guilty of Stealing Marvin Gaye’s Music for “Blurred Lines”
Williams also talked to Access Hollywood about the verdict, calling it “shocking … I think, when you look back at it, I think the jury voted on emotion … This is my opinion – I feel like the verdict was based on emotion and not the real true issue, which was copyright infringement … There’s no copyright infringement.”
The “Happy” singer continued, “If that verdict stands, people can’t be inspired by anything, companies can’t be inspired by anything, or else they’re liable for suit.”
RELATED VIDEO: Robin Thicke and Girlfriend April Love Geary Expecting Their Second Child
You Might Like
Gavin Rossdale and Girlfriend Natalie Golba Make Their Red Carpet Debut at 'John Wick 3' Premieres
Woodstock 50: Court Allows the Beleaguered Music Festival to Proceed But New Funding Is Required
The trial led to some eccentric testimony from Thicke, who performed a piano medley in court and argued that, despite taking credit for the success of “Blurred Lines” in multiple interviews, he didn’t actually write the song, blaming his lies on substance abuse and his split from then-wife Paula Patton.
T.I., who added his raps to the track after it was first recorded, was also named in the suit and found guilty, the AP reported at the time.
Pharrell and Robin Thicke Must Pay Marvin Gaye's Family $5 Million Over 'Blurred Lines': Reports
After a five-year-long legal back-and-forth, a judge has determined that Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke must pay the family of the late Marvin Gaye $5 million for "Blurred Lines"
By Maura Hohman
December 13, 2018 08:45 PM
FB Twitter
Robin Thicke; Pharrell Williams
Cindy Ord/Getty; Mark Sagliocco/WireImage
After a five-year-long legal back-and-forth, a judge has determined that Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke, the artists behind the 2013 mega hit “Blurred Lines,” must pay the family of the late Marvin Gaye $5 million, multiple outlets report.
The pair was sued for copyright infringement because of the song’s similarities to Gaye’s “Got to Give It Up” from 1977, CNN reports. In 2015, a judge ruled Williams, 45, and Thicke, 41, owed Gaye’s estate $7 million, but after they appealed, the judgment — from U.S. District Judge John A. Kronstadt in California on Monday — was reduced to $4,983,766.85, Billboard reports.
Thicke, Williams and Williams’ publishing company owe $2.9 million combined, plus an additional $1.7 million from Thicke and some $357,631 from Williams and his company. Gaye’s family will also earn 50 percent of “Blurred Lines” royalties in the future.
A rep for Williams had no comment, while a rep for Thicke did not respond to PEOPLE’s request for comment.
RELATED: Pharrell Williams on ‘Blurred Lines’ Verdict: ‘There Was No Copyright Infringement’
In 2015, a judge first ruled that Williams and Thicke copied Gaye’s song.
“While we respect the judicial process, we are extremely disappointed in the ruling made today, which sets a horrible precedent for music and creativity going forward,” Williams’ rep said in a statement at the time. “Pharrell created ‘Blurred Lines’ from his heart, mind and soul and the song was not taken from anyone or anywhere else. We are reviewing the decision, considering our options and you will hear more from us soon about this matter.”
A day earlier, Williams acknowledged the singles had a similar “feel,” and his lawyer said conflating that as copyright infringement would hold grave consequences for the music industry.
“No one can claim they own the style or the genre of Marvin Gaye,” attorney Howard King said at the time, according to the Associated Press. “There are no virgin births in music. … Let my clients go forth and continue to [make] magic.”
RELATED: Pharrell Williams & Robin Thicke Found Guilty of Stealing Marvin Gaye’s Music for “Blurred Lines”
Williams also talked to Access Hollywood about the verdict, calling it “shocking … I think, when you look back at it, I think the jury voted on emotion … This is my opinion – I feel like the verdict was based on emotion and not the real true issue, which was copyright infringement … There’s no copyright infringement.”
The “Happy” singer continued, “If that verdict stands, people can’t be inspired by anything, companies can’t be inspired by anything, or else they’re liable for suit.”
RELATED VIDEO: Robin Thicke and Girlfriend April Love Geary Expecting Their Second Child
You Might Like
Gavin Rossdale and Girlfriend Natalie Golba Make Their Red Carpet Debut at 'John Wick 3' Premieres
Woodstock 50: Court Allows the Beleaguered Music Festival to Proceed But New Funding Is Required
The trial led to some eccentric testimony from Thicke, who performed a piano medley in court and argued that, despite taking credit for the success of “Blurred Lines” in multiple interviews, he didn’t actually write the song, blaming his lies on substance abuse and his split from then-wife Paula Patton.
T.I., who added his raps to the track after it was first recorded, was also named in the suit and found guilty, the AP reported at the time.
get these nets
Veteran
You called it.
Advertising, Marketing & Promotions:
6th Edition: Trends in Marketing Communications Law
Music >> What’s Going On? Another Marvin Gaye Lawsuit Tests the Limits of Copyright Protection
July 10, 2019
Just when you thought it was over, another copyright infringement lawsuit involving a Marvin Gaye song is set for trial. The dust had barely settled on the infamous “Blurred Lines” case when a second suit, this time targeting world-famous pop star Ed Sheeran, took another step closer to trial. Similar to the prior case, the battleground being fought over is the “feel” and “style” of the song — elements that were long presumed to be unprotectable from a copyright standpoint. These recent developments have found many artists and content creators — including marketers and their agencies — concerned that musical ground long considered “safe” may now be off-limits.
The suit against Sheeran claims that his hit “Thinking Out Loud” infringes Gaye’s classic “Let’s Get It On.” In January 2019, a court ruled that there were enough similarities between the two songs for the case to proceed to a jury trial. The ruling came less than a month after Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams were ordered to pay Gaye’s estate $4.9 million as the final step in a years-long saga that reached its crescendo when a jury found “Blurred Lines,” the worldwide hit written by Thicke and Williams, had infringed Gaye’s “Got to Give it Up.”
As in the “Blurred Lines” case, it will be up to a jury to decide if the similarities between “Thinking Out Loud” and “Let’s Get It On” constitute infringement. The most hotly contested issues at trial will again likely involve what elements of the songs may be compared for purposes of determining infringement. The analysis of whether a song has infringed the copyright in another song has long focused on whether any of the lyrics, melodies, harmonies or similar elements had been copied. Stylistic similarities such as similar drums, tempo, instrumentation and other stylistic factors that are used to create a certain vibe or feel were not typically considered sufficiently original to warrant protection. The “Blurred Lines” case seemed to represent a shift in those long-held presumptions. If the judge in the “Thinking Out Loud” case determines that elements such as percussion and “aesthetic appeal” may also be considered, the landscape will be altered even further.
Another common element in both of the Marvin Gaye cases is that Sheeran, like Williams before him, made a high-profile, public connection between his song and the Gaye song at issue. Williams, in an interview, had specifically credited “Got to Give it Up” as the inspiration behind “Blurred Lines.” Sheeran took it one step further by transitioning directly from “Thinking Out Loud” into “Let’s Get It On” at a live performance, making the connection undeniable. The judge cited footage of the performance as something with which the jury might be “impressed.”
For content creators, the unsettled landscape in copyright protection may mean additional risk when commissioning new music. Using a new musical work that was “inspired” by the “style” of an underlying source and which shares similar elements may no longer be as safe as it once was. A careful analysis of all of the factors — musical, stylistic and the overall sound and feel — will be more important than ever.
Key Takeaways:
- Two recent high-profile copyright infringement cases involving Marvin Gaye songs may end up expanding the boundaries of copyright protection. Elements such as the “style” or “feel” of a song, which were long-presumed to be “safe” to copy, may now qualify for copyright protection.
- Owners of original music that serve as the source of inspiration for the “feel” or “vibe” of newly created musical works may be emboldened to take legal action.
- Marketers and their agencies should exercise caution when commissioning original musical works in the same “style” or “feel” as pre-existing music and when publicly discussing the source of the musical inspiration.
get these nets
Veteran
