Jurors hit Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams with $7.4-million verdict

[Pan Times]

This is non-pan related, but we found it so blatant. Even the deaf could hear that this was a direct rip-off.  What was even more disappointing was that Stevie Wonder lost his mind and sided with Thicke and Williams.

Pan Times

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A federal jury found Tuesday that the 2013 hit song "Blurred Lines" infringed on the Marvin Gaye chart-topper "Got to Give It Up," awarding nearly $7.4 million to Gaye's children.

Jurors found against singer-songwriters Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke, but held harmless the record company and rapper T.I.

The verdict capped a trial that lasted more than a week and focused on the similarities between the song and the legendary soul singer's 1977 hit.

read more

[Andrew Christopher]

Well I have to agree with you, as a musician myself, when I want a certain feel in my music I would listen to other musicians for some inspiration and I do use their rythmatic structure or feel in my music. and you can sample seconds of music legally every musicians did it sometime in their careers even if they use it as template to work with, all music formats started from a form of music style from Blues to Jazz to Fusion, Calypso. to Soca etc we all sample /copy /improved and so and there will always be new style /format in music and the old timers would not like the new style and young not liking the old style of music. In any form no matter what kind of musical instruments it is play with or who is playing the music. I know that all of my topic has nothing to do with Legal action I just had to throw it in

[Cecil hinkson]

The same notes are used in all music so from time to time we WILL hear phrases that sound alike. Just my opinion.

[Noah]

While they clearly were trying to emulate the vibe and feel of Marvin Gaye's song, this is not a legal case of plagiarism. In fact, this has been standard practice in the television/radio industry, when producers of shows and advertisements use a specially commissioned piece that closely imitates a well-known song just enough to evoke it but not to the level of infringement, so they can skirt around paying royalties. That is to say, it is musically similar without having the same melody and/or lyrics. Is it right? Questionable. Is it illegal? No. Stevie Wonder didn't lose his mind, he just understands music and the law better than these jurors whose verdict will probably be overturned on appeal.

[Pan Times]

Thicke said in several interviews that he suggested to Williams that they write something like "Got to Give It Up," and Williams has said he was "trying to pretend" he was Gaye when he wrote it.

Well Noah, they accomplished their mission. Maybe a bit too well. Of course Thicke now says he was high and on drugs when he made that statement.

The singer says under oath that after writing and producing six albums himself, "I was jealous and I wanted some of the credit … I tried to take credit for it later because [Williams] wrote the whole thing pretty much by himself and I was envious of that."

In his deposition (read in full here), Thicke soon gets more specific:

"Q: Were you present during the creation of 'Blurred Lines'?

Thicke: I was present. Obviously, I sang it. I had to be there.

Q: When the rhythm track was being created, were you there with Pharrell?

Thicke: To be honest, that's the only part where — I was high on Vicodin and alcohol when I showed up at the studio. So my recollection is when we made the song, I thought I wanted — I  — I wanted to be more involved than I actually was by the time, nine months later, it became a huge hit and I wanted credit. So I started kind of convincing myself that I was a little more part of it than I was and I — because I didn't want him — I wanted some credit for this big hit. But the reality is, is that Pharrell had the beat and he wrote almost every single part of the song."

Noah Pharrell and Thicke were fortunate the judge only allowed the Gaye's family to use the sheet music and not sound recordings. It could have been much worst for Pharrell and Thicke. The verdict will probably be overturned because the industry needs it to be overturned.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some case points

1. This lawsuit was originally brought by Thicke, Williams and song co-writer Clifford "T.I." Harris Jr. as preemptive attempt to protect "Blurred Lines" from claims of being a rip-off. Following, Gaye's children, Frankie Gaye and Nona Gaye, brought counterclaims that alleged Thicke's "Marvin Gaye fixation" had led to the misappropriation of two songs -- "Blurred Lines" and 2011's "Love After War," which was not written or produced by Williams. 

2. There are supposedly eight "similarities" identified between "Blurred Lines" and "Got to Give it Up," according to the Gayes' expert musicologists. Those are: "(1) the signature phrase in the main vocal melodies; (2) the hooks; (3) the hooks with backup vocals; (4) the core theme in 'Blurred Lines' and backup hook in 'Got to Give it Up'; (5) the backup hooks; (6) the bass melodies; (7) the keyboard parts; and (8) the unusual percussion choices." Meanwhile, the plaintiffs have argued the defendant is attempting to claim ownership of an entire genre.

Related

• 'Blurred Lines' Trial: Robin Thicke Performs Piano Medley in Court
• 'Blurred Lines' Trial Opens As Jurors Hear Dueling Arguments About ...
• Pharrell Williams Camp Ridicules 'Desperate' Appeal Bid in 'Blurred...

3. There are several players who are no longer involved in this lawsuit. Sony/ATV was previously named in the Gaye family lawsuit, under its EMI April subsidiary, for allegedly breaching its obligations to protect the Gaye catalogue. The Gaye family claimed EMI also administered rights on "Blurred Lines" and didn't want Gaye's family getting in the way of the song's ongoing success. The Gayes and EMI settled under private terms. 

Bridgeport Music was listed in Thicke and Williams' initial suit, suggesting that threats were being made by the rights-holder of Funkadelic's song "Sexy Ways." Soon thereafter, George Clinton, who once led Funkadelic and has feuded with Bridgeport over the years, tweeted his belief there was no sample in Thicke's song. An agreement was made and Bridgeport Music was removed from the suit. 

4. In October, Williams and Thicke failed to win the case on summary judgment, but there was a silver lining for the pop stars. In that case, the judge looked to old standards under the 1909 Copyright Act and concluded that the Gaye family hadn't sufficiently shown it made necessary deposits of the "Got to Give It Up" sound recording at the Copyright Office in the 1970s. Only the sheet music compositions are copyrighted and, as such, he said Gaye's copyrights on the song were limited to the sheet music compositions, which do not include many elements of the recording and those above mentioned "similarities." 

5. Now, the Gaye family is not be allowed to introduce the original "Got to Give It Up" recording at trial so a jury can compare it to "Blurred Lines." Since Gaye's songs came out before copyright law changed in 1978, the judge has decided only a stripped-down version of the song can be played in court. 

6. Attorneys on both sides have given some estimation of potential damages. The Gaye family claims Thick and Williams' profits from the track totaled roughly $40 million and that according to general practices for licensing, they are due about half of that. The "Blurred Lines" side responded saying the song was not nearly that profitable and argued that the track's success wasn't due entirely to the music -- noting that the racy video and social media promotions should also be considered.

7. Finally, there's the now infamous deposition where Thicke admitted drug use and lying to the media about the creation of "Blurred Lines." His attorney wants much of this deemed irrelevant and prejudicial. He has stated that Thicke's comments to the press about being inspired by Gaye doesn't mean much since they stipulate to the fact that the singer had access to the song. Still, the Gaye camp isn't likely about to let this go. The family believes that inconsistent comments are "probative of credibility" and that "Thicke has never explained his absolutely contradictory sworn and verified interrogatory responses served in this case." This could lead to an attempt to impeach Thicke on the witness stand.

Robin Thicke - Blurred Lines VS Marvin Gaye - Got to Give it Up

[Noah]

This article pretty clearly and thoroughly breaks down from a musical standpoint how again, while obviously very intentionally similar, the two songs have no identical elements and therefore the latter is not plagiarism or theft. Cheap and unoriginal, yes. But perfectly legal at the time it was created.

However, I do agree that their pre-emptive suit was ill-advised and only functioned as an admission of (non-existent) guilt. 

[Andrew Christopher]

PS that subject really has nothing to do with panorama unless you are trying to tell the producer something

[Andrew Christopher]

I don't know why you people like opening a can of worms the panorama music is being sold and a few bands who are on the CD incorporated other people music (sounds) so keep on opening the can of worms

[odw]

Brother Andrew,

Don't let the fear factor consume you, my comment was a personal response to the story and at the same time looking at the broader implications. Your concerns are quite legit, but it has more to do with the recording industry in the Mecca for Pan and COTT.

My understanding there's a limit to how many seconds of a song you can sample before its consider an infringement, don't know if the rule has changed.

You may want to  start a discussion on Panorama music and sampling, I'm sure it may generate some interesting responses.  On youtube Phase II "Happiness" videos has been climbing in viewership over 20,000 plus, by this time you would think the producer would have threaten Google or the posters with a copyright infringement.  What do you think?  

[odw]

"Even the deaf could hear that this was a direct rip-off."

What's interesting of all the 2015 panorama tunes playing on my cd in the car my 10 year old son will point out to my 8 year daughter the part in Phase II Happiness from Pharrell's "Happy" he doesn't have a clue about the music or arrangement but on this part of the tune he tells her listen to it.

This is a big win for Gaye's kids, with the kind of money these guys making off the song and their record company, its more like "small" change for them to pay. Who knows with creative accountants they most likely write it off as some type of business loss.