Jury finds Pharrell, Thicke copied for 'Blurred Lines' song

[bolophonic]

Not trying to get too specific as to the legal in's and out's of this scenario, but Robin Thicke is straight-up donkey piss.

 

[crg123]

I agree there's really not enough similarities to be consider plagiarism :/.

XredactedX I mean how the heck did Vanilla Ice get away with it and this doesn't. XredactedX

Edit: I need to learn to do my research . It was just the first thing that popped into my head.

 

[Stranger Danger]

I hate this song with a passion but disagree that it's plagerized

Maybe but I do think it was plagiarized

 

[GregC]

Did they set out to borrow the feel/vibe of Gaye's "Got to Give it Up"? Yup. Pretty clearly.

Is there enough evidence based on the letter of the law to side with Gaye's estate? Not in my opinion.

The lyrics and melody aren't the same, which is where the ruling should be made. Overall it sounds like what it is, a song that borrows from Gaye without copying him. At least not legally. I am a huge Marvin fan and I never liked "Blurred Lines" but I don't see this ruling surviving an appeal. And IMO it shouldn't.

It's a bit odd to me which songs go to court for copyright infringement and which don't. For instance, this to me seems like a much more cut and dried example. The Weeknd asked permission to sample Portishead's "Machine Gun" and when they were denied, created a nearly identical beat at a faster tempo. Yet, I don't think this one's going to trial.

I agree, Jared. I don't think the correct verdict was reached here. The above example probably didn't go to court because both songs are far more lower-profile.

That said, I don't think (as some have speculated) that this is going to "throw the doors wide open" for a bunch of lawsuits. This case was fairly unusual, in my opinion, simply because the beats and backup vocals are such a big part of both songs. The chord changes are, frankly, difficult to notice in each song unless you're listening through headphones or high-quality speakers with the low end turned up. So I think the jury was wrongly influenced by the recordings and incorrectly ruled in the plaintiffs' favor, but I can sort of understand why.

 

[georgiagoodie]

Breaking Bad theme song composer should get money from Taylor Swift for "Shake IT OFF".

 

[BBox Bass]

Sounds more like some old Prince song from the mid '80s. I certainly hear a similarity in the songs, but it sounds more like "inspired by" rather then "ripped off from" to me.

If you're talking about Prince's Kiss, I thought the same thing. I was unfamiliar with the Marvin Gaye song at the time.

 

[Space Pickle]

There is a lot of armchair lawyering going on in this thread.

Have we heard from Music Attorney yet?

 

[gt96g]

Okay here is my 2 cents. I feel like these cases being decided by a jury is totally ridiculous. Copyright cases in music should be ruled on in arbitration by a panel of 3 people with an understanding of music. My guess is had that jury box been full of musicians this case would not have ended up this way.

I just think that there is a fine line between songs that sound similar due to like chord progressions and rhythms vs blatantly ripping off a songs lead hook or melody and I feel the finer points of that would be lost on non-musicians. Most pop songs today utilize the same basic progressions anyway.

This was a situation of similar chords and rhythms creating similar feel to the songs vs. the Sam Smith Tom Petty situation which was a more cut and dry situation, thus the out of court settlement.

 

[David Jayne]

There is a lot of armchair lawyering going on in this thread.

Have we heard from Music Attorney yet?

Not yet but I can't wait.

 

[hrodbert696]

I agree there's really not enough similarities to be consider plagiarism :/.

I mean how the heck did Vanilla Ice get away with it and this doesn't.

He didn't. He settled out of court, sensibly since he obviously had not a leg to stand on.

Invalid Link Removed

You can't claim copyright on the "spirit" of a song. That's too vague to be meaningful at law. You can't claim copyright on common-domain musical devices that every musician in the world knows, like a I-IV-V or a blues turnaround or a country-western root-fifth bass line played over a chord progression. You can't claim copyright on a chord progression or a drumbeat. There are only so many notes and so many beats and various ways of combining them are the shared pool of musical technique for composers and performers. Nobody owns them.

What you CAN claim copyright on is a specific, original, unique piece of music that you created; usually a melody (even if, as in Good Times, that melody is played by a bass). It existed in the Vanilla Ice case, and in the Sugar Hill Gang case, and others. It doesn't exist here. The jury clearly decided on the basis of vague impressions and their emotional reactions to the two sides, not on the facts of the case. If it's upheld, it will mean no one can create new music at all legally, because anything you do will "resemble the spirit" of some other song and we'll all just have to play in cover bands.

 

[AaronVonRock]

I mean how the heck did Vanilla Ice get away with it and this doesn't.

He didn't. From the interwebs:
Van Winkle later paid Queen and Bowie and as a result, Bowie and all members of Queen have since been given songwriting credit for the sample.

I remember reading an interview with Brian May and he talks about being in a London club and hearing Ice Ice Baby come on for the first time. He called his manager that night to find out what was going on and subsequently got paid.

Edit: Yeah, what the guy above me said.

 

[DWBass]

Okay here is my 2 cents. I feel like these cases being decided by a jury is totally ridiculous. Copyright cases in music should be ruled on in arbitration by a panel of 3 people with an understanding of music. My guess is had that jury box been full of musicians this case would not have ended up this way.

I just think that there is a fine line between songs that sound similar due to like chord progressions and rhythms vs blatantly ripping off a songs lead hook or melody and I feel the finer points of that would be lost on non-musicians. Most pop songs today utilize the same basic progressions anyway.

This was a situation of similar chords and rhythms creating similar feel to the songs vs. the Sam Smith Tom Petty situation which was a more cut and dry situation, thus the out of court settlement.

Somebody gets it!!

 

[noeinstein]

Here's what I remember about blurred lines: Emily Ratajkowski.

yeah

 

[nutdog]

 

[Richland123]

I don't get this one either. Sam Smith, James Napier, and William Phillips recently reached an agreementand with Tom Petty and Jeff Lynne that conferred songwriting credit on Smith's song, "Stay With Me," which resembled Petty's hit "I Won't Back Down."

 

[DWBass]

I don't get this one either. Sam Smith, James Napier, and William Phillips recently reached an agreementand with Tom Petty and Jeff Lynne that conferred songwriting credit on Smith's song, "Stay With Me," which resembled Petty's hit "I Won't Back Down."

Really? This went to court? And Sam lost? What in the world!!!! SMDH! Not the same song!

 

[Big Hoss]

This is downright scary. If this level of similarity can be held up as Plagarism and copyright infringement, then innovation and advancement in the arts is doomed.

 

[Whousedtoplay]

Here is more to it.
("Blurred Lines = "Sexy Ways". It's too much even for me)

Invalid Link Removed
"The "Blurred Lines" legal drama began in August 2013, when Thicke, Williams and T.I. responded to threats of legal action by the Gaye estate and publisher Bridgeport Music by preemptively suing them, along with Funkadelic, claiming "Blurred Lines" was "strikingly different" than "Got to Give It Up" and the latter group's "Sexy Ways." "The intent in producing 'Blurred Lines' was to evoke an era," Thicke's lawyers wrote in the suit. "In reality, the Gaye defendants are claiming ownership of an entire genre, as opposed to a specific work, and Bridgeport is claiming the same work." ("Sexy Ways" was dropped from the lawsuit last March after the parties reached a mutual agreement.)
Funkadelic - Sexy Ways

 

[wintremute]

Another interesting article with the point of view that this is a dangerous verdict:
Invalid Link Removed

The author writes in a style similar to the people who post here, so it may be more digestible for some.

 

[Big Hoss]

Another interesting article with the point of view that this is a dangerous verdict:
Invalid Link Removed

The author writes in a style similar to the people who post here, so it may be more digestible for some.

To quote from that article...

"You can only surmise that this was a case decided less on derivation than douche-iness. (Sorry to use the D-word, but Google it together with “Robin Thicke” and you’ll see the voluminously unflattering results.)"


I just about wet myself laughing...