Blurred lines marvin gaye song
Blurred Lines of Copyright
In 2013, Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams co-produced the run-away hit unpartnered “Blurred Lines,” earning them over $16 million in sales and streaming revenues. The music video has been viewed hundreds of millions of times on YouTube and Vevo, and has been parodied numerous times as well. Despite its popularity, the similarity of “Blurred Lines” to Marvin Gaye’s 1977 punch song “Got to Offer It Up” sparked controversy. The family of creator Marvin Gaye was outraged; they believed Gaye’s labor was stolen. Thicke filed a preemptive lawsuit to prevent the Gaye family from claiming any divide of royalties. However, Thicke also stated in common interviews that he was influenced by Marvin Gaye and, specifically, “Got to Give It Up” when he co-composed “Blurred Lines” with Williams.
In response, the Gaye family sued Williams and Thicke. Contradictions were apparent in Thicke’s account. In an interview with GQ, he stated that he co-wrote “Blurred Lines.” But in court he claimed that he was too high in the studio, and that Williams had in fact calm the song, and he had lied earlier in order to get credit. Williams claimed that, although Ga
Robin Thicke, Pharrell Williams copied from Marvin Gaye in Blurred Lines, court confirms
A US federal appeals court has upheld a copyright infringement verdict against Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams over the 2013 hit lyric Blurred Lines, agreeing with lower courts that the anthem illegally copied from Marvin Gaye's Got to Give it Up.
Key points:
- In a split decision, the court affirmed that Gaye's copyright is entitled to broad protection
- The dissenting determine warned the conclusion allowed the Gaye family to copyright a musical style
- More than 200 musicians had backed the appeal, saying the case could wound the music industry
In a split ruling from a three-judge panel, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals dominated the family of the late heart singer was entitled to the $US5.3 million ($6.8 million) it was awarded in a case that has been closely watched in the music industry for its potential effects on copyright and creativity.
Two judges rejected the defence's request to overturn a jury finding or order a new trial, saying Gaye's copyright on the song was entitled to broad protection.
They acknowledged a trial court judge's instructions to jurors to d
Blurred Lines verdict: How influence was governed as stealing
Paddy Gardiner, a music lawyer at Michael Simkins LLP, spoke to Newsbeat when the trial started.
"The difference is between styles of harmony and people existence influenced by other artists," he said.
"And then situations where an designer will deliberately or subconsciously take harmony or lyrics and that's where it can cross the line into a dispute."
Howard King, who represented Thicke and Williams, spoke about how artists needed more creative liberty.
During opening arguments, he told the jury: "We're going to show you what you already know; that no-one owns a genre or a design or a groove.
"To be inspired by Marvin Gaye is an honourable thing."
The judge told the jury they couldn't just monitor to the songs and make a decision.
Sections of sheet music were compared in the court room and also saw Robin Thicke playing a selection of songs on a piano in the hope of proving that the musical structures of the two songs were different.
Rulings can be made if a certain amount of bars in two songs are thought to be too similar.
Did Robin Thicke steal ‘Blurred Lines’ from Marvin Gaye?
[edit: update 12 March 2015]
The case has now been resolved, and the jury found in the Gayes’ favour, despite the copying not entity exact and the musical elements dissimilar, as my original February 2014 post (below) argues. In an interview with the Hollywood Reporter, Richard Busch, the Gaye family lawyer, describes how the Thicke side’s hubris and inconsistency contributed to the jury verdict going against them – but insists that the case was successful because of the characteristics of the music itself. For those who have said that this sets a dangerous precedent for creators (including me – see this MTV news interview), this may be so in terms of discouraging musical homage in arrangements. But in (US) legal terms, a jury verdict is different from a court ruling, so each case is judged on its merits and on the specific evidence presented. Therefore this settlement does not illustrate ‘case law’ (as attorney Brian D Caplan points out in the same MTV feature) but it has certainly made some creators rather uncertain about their future son