'Blurred Lines' jury awards Marvin Gaye family US$7.4m

[webfact]

Jury finds Pharrell, Thicke copied for 'Blurred Lines' song
By ANTHONY McCARTNEY

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A jury awarded Marvin Gaye's children nearly $7.4 million Tuesday after determining singers Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams copied their father's music to create "Blurred Lines," the biggest hit song of 2013.

Gaye's daughter Nona Gaye wept as the verdict was read and was hugged by her attorney.

"Right now, I feel free," she said outside court. "Free from ... Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke's chains and what they tried to keep on us and the lies that were told."

The verdict could tarnish the legacy of Williams, a reliable hit-maker who has won Grammy Awards and appears on NBC's music competition show "The Voice."

He and Thicke are "undoubtedly disappointed," said their lead attorney, Howard King.

"They're unwavering in their absolute conviction that they wrote this song independently," he said.

Thicke and Williams earned more than $7 million apiece on the song, according to testimony.

King has said a decision in favor of Gaye's heirs could have a chilling effect on musicians who try to emulate an era or another artist's sound.

Larry Iser, an intellectual property attorney who has represented numerous musicians in copyright cases, was critical of the outcome.

"Unfortunately, today's jury verdict has blurred the lines between protectable elements of a musical composition and the unprotectable musical style or groove exemplified by Marvin Gaye," Iser said. "Although Gaye was the Prince of Soul, he didn't own a copyright to the genre, and Thicke and Williams' homage to the feel of Marvin Gaye is not infringing."

Gaye's children — Nona, Frankie and Marvin Gaye III — sued the two singers in 2013.

Their lawyer, Richard Busch, branded Williams and Thicke liars who went beyond trying to emulate the sound of Gaye's late-1970s music and copied the R&B legend's hit "Got to Give It Up" outright.

The family "fought this fight despite every odd being against them," Busch said after the verdict, which could face years of appeals.

Thicke told jurors he didn't write "Blurred Lines," which Williams testified he crafted in about an hour in mid-2012.

Williams testified that Gaye's music was part of the soundtrack of his youth. But the seven-time Grammy winner said he didn't use any of it to create "Blurred Lines."

"Blurred Lines" has sold more than 7.3 million copies in the U.S. alone, according to Nielsen SoundScan figures. It earned a Grammy Awards nomination and netted Williams and Thicke millions of dollars.

The case was a struggle between two of music's biggest names: Williams has sold more than 100 million records worldwide during his career as a singer-producer, and Gaye performed hits such as "Sexual Healing" and "How Sweet It Is (To be Loved by You)" remain popular.

During closing arguments, Busch accused Thicke and Williams of lying about how the song was created. He told jurors they could award Gaye's children millions of dollars if they determined the copyright of "Got to Give It Up" was infringed.

King denied there were any substantial similarities between "Blurred Lines" and the sheet music Gaye submitted to obtain copyright protection.

Williams has become a household name — known simply as Pharrell — thanks to his hit song "Happy" and his work as a judge on the "The Voice." He wrote the majority of "Blurred Lines" and recorded it in one night with Thicke. A segment by rapper T.I. was added later.

Williams, 41, also signed a document stating he didn't use any other artists' work in the music and would be responsible if a successful copyright claim was raised.

The trial focused on detailed analyses of chords and notes in both "Blurred Lines" and "Got to Give It Up."

Jurors repeatedly heard the upbeat song "Blurred Lines" and saw snippets of its music video, but Gaye's music was represented during the trial in a less polished form. Jurors did not hear "Got to Give It Up" as Gaye recorded it, but rather a version created based solely on sheet music submitted to gain copyright protection.

That version lacked many of the elements — including Gaye's voice — that helped make the song a hit in 1977. Busch called the version used in court a "Frankenstein-like monster" that didn't accurately represent Gaye's work.

An expert for the Gaye family said there were eight distinct elements from "Got to Give It Up" that were used in "Blurred Lines," but an expert for Williams and Thicke denied those similarities existed.

Gaye died in April 1984, leaving his children the copyrights to his music.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-03-11

[surfinglife]

Could only happen in the US. The jury carefully selected to be absolutely tone deaf.....the two songs are a similar genre but that's where the similarity ends.

[Xonax]

The Marvin Gaye heirs now officially owns all music. For the sake of future music developement please appeal it to the supreme court.

[chickenslegs]

This compilation is interesting...

[Bwanatickey]

So when a baby listens to music, does it record the sound, so when the baby matures and learns a musical instrument, and then one day compose their own melody, to find that this sound , an ancient sound, had been sounded before, but somebody said they own that sound.

[Lissos]

One of the comments in the comment section of the view below, hits the nail on the head (IMO)

so filled with... money right now'

[media[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctM515BeaA8[/media]

[Anthony5]

So when a baby listens to music, does it record the sound, so when the baby matures and learns a musical instrument, and then one day compose their own melody, to find that this sound , an ancient sound, had been sounded before, but somebody said they own that sound.

There are people who make look alike Louis Vuitton bags who use the same excuse

[NeverSure]

There is a set of "rules" that makes each genre of music unique. They can be explained and understood and learned using music theory. Modern jazz sounds the way it does due to these "rules." Blues music uses different "rules" that make it unique. There is no way to create each unique sound without using its known structure.

These rules can be taught and each must be mastered by the user until they become a part of the user.

There is an almost infinite number of sounds including progressions, melodies etc. that can be created within each set of rules. Thus we have different songs within each style.

I wasn't there, don't know the second song that well and haven't analyzed them side by side. But there is a huge difference between copying everyone else's style, and copying the same melody lines and/or chord voicings, progressions, bass lines etc. until the song itself is substantially a copy of another. A jury of non-musicians could be shown side by side uses of the above and understand if one was a copy.

Music theory is a science that's used to make music. Applied harmony is a science. Counting timing is a type of math. The attorneys with the complaint and the defense attorneys would have had their chance to present side by side evidence, and to rebut the other side.

I don't know who's right but I have quite a bit of faith in the jury system.

[neverdie]

There is a set of "rules" that makes each genre of music unique. They can be explained and understood and learned using music theory. Modern jazz sounds the way it does due to these "rules." Blues music uses different "rules" that make it unique. There is no way to create each unique sound without using its known structure.

These rules can be taught and each must be mastered by the user until they become a part of the user.

There is an almost infinite number of sounds including progressions, melodies etc. that can be created within each set of rules. Thus we have different songs within each style.

I wasn't there, don't know the second song that well and haven't analyzed them side by side. But there is a huge difference between copying everyone else's style, and copying the same melody lines and/or chord voicings, progressions, bass lines etc. until the song itself is substantially a copy of another. A jury of non-musicians could be shown side by side uses of the above and understand if one was a copy.

Music theory is a science that's used to make music. Applied harmony is a science. Counting timing is a type of math. The attorneys with the complaint and the defense attorneys would have had their chance to present side by side evidence, and to rebut the other side.

I don't know who's right but I have quite a bit of faith in the jury system.

A music expert too. Is there anything you're not an expert in ?

Plenty of strange decisions come out of courts but I suppose you're an expert on that as well.

[krisb]

Could only happen in the US. The jury carefully selected to be absolutely tone deaf.....the two songs are a similar genre but that's where the similarity ends.

No it happened in Australia with the Men At Work classic Land Down Under.

In one sense perhaps it could be seen as a form of flattery stealing another artists riffs.

[chickenslegs]

Initially, Gaye's family were not aware of the similarity between the two recordings...

They heard it on the grapevine.

Sorry, I'll get my coat.

[GentlemanJim]

Lord help anyone that has written a song with any of the six chords that almost all Beatles songs were written in!

The decision is pants, I hope it goes to appeal and the Lawyer for Williams gets his act together. At the end of the day it is subjective but for the Gaye's lawyer to be calling Thicke and Williams liars when there is no proof of that is a bit much, sure argue the similarities but surely it should stop there.

Hopefully for the music business in general this is not over.

[Chicog]

It's a perfectly reasonable decision, given that Thicke lived up to his name and basically said in an article that they'd written it based on Gaye's music.

And he was then as evasive as hell in the courtroom.

So the jury found he lacked credibility and lied when he said he hadn't plagiarised it.

Tough cookies.

I don't think this merits all the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the music industry, just a one off with more evidence than just the music.

[Soutpeel]

Did Led Zeppelin plagiarize Stairway to Heaven ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcL---4xQYA

or Dazed and confused ? go and listen to Jake Holmes "dazed and confused" recorded 2 years before Zep's version

I am a big Led Zep fan, but even with my limited musical knowledge, even I can hear these tracks or parts of the song were lifted from other artists/songs

Edited March 16, 2015 by Soutpeel

[Soutpeel]

Lord help anyone that has written a song with any of the six chords that almost all Beatles songs were written in!

The decision is pants, I hope it goes to appeal and the Lawyer for Williams gets his act together. At the end of the day it is subjective but for the Gaye's lawyer to be calling Thicke and Williams liars when there is no proof of that is a bit much, sure argue the similarities but surely it should stop there.

Hopefully for the music business in general this is not over.

but the fact is the the "Beatles" ripped those chords and chords progressions off other artists who went before them eg Chuck Berry, Little Richard etc.

Paul McCartney for example got into Noel Gallagher of Oasis and sarcastically asked him when he was going to start writing his own riffs and stop stealing Beatles riff's in his songs

the problem is with these sorts of cases, at what point does a song stop being "inspired by" and become plagiarism ?