Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2013 12:55:59 GMT -5
Robin Thicke's 'Blurred Lines' vs. Marvin Gaye: The War Over Summer's Song movies.yahoo.com/news/robin-thickes-blurred-lines-vs-marvin-gaye-war-050000538.htmlRobin Thicke's 'Blurred Lines' vs. Marvin Gaye: The War Over Summer's Song.This story first appeared in the Sept. 13 issue of The Hollywood Reporter magazine. When Robin Thicke marched into court Aug. 15 seeking a ruling that his summer hit "Blurred Lines" is not a copy of Marvin Gaye's 1977 classic "Got to Give It Up," he renewed a controversy that has simmered since the dawn of pop music. Here was a white musician (albeit with African-American co-writers Pharrell Williams and Clifford "T.I." Harris Jr.) allegedly stealing a black artist's song craft without credit or compensation. Fifty years ago, upon the release of "Surfin' U.S.A.," The Beach Boys were pressured into giving Chuck Berry a writing credit for a song that sounded eerily similar to "Sweet Little 16." Although musical influences can be heard in nearly every song on the radio, such artists as John Lennon, Led Zeppelin and Black Eyed Peas have been brought to court for song theft, which under copyright law means their music is "substantially similar" to another song. In 1976, for example, George Harrison was found to have lifted 1970's "My Sweet Lord" -- "subconsciously," said the judge -- from The Chiffons' "He's So Fine." Nonetheless, for all the instances in which a songwriter extracts something from a similar song -- Madonna had to pull "Frozen" from Belgian radio after a Belgian artist won a plagiarism case -- there are countless disputes that go nowhere. That's due in part to the murky and subjective nature of copyright law -- blurred legal lines, you might say. As Questlove tweeted about Thicke's suit: "Just because a song is derivative that doesn't mean it's plagiarized." Copyright authority includes the ability to control "derivative works." "You can't make 'Hotel California 2' or 'Welcome Back to the Jungle' any more than you could make Star Wars: Episode VII without a license," notes copyright lawyer Eric German. But courts often are left to make subjective evaluations of how much similarity is too much. Just ask the songwriter who sued Kanye West over 2007's "Stronger" and was ridiculed by judges for attempting to "own" a particular rhyme pattern. The plaintiff "cannot claim copyright over a tercet," scoffed an appeals court this year. In fact, in a song theft case, one of the first things argued is what is protectable and what isn't. Musicologists are hired, time signatures are scrutinized, and the measures in a verse become a battleground. An ongoing $10 million lawsuit against Justin Bieber and Usher, for instance, makes the case that "Somebody to Love" took a valuable hook from a Virginia songwriter. "Of course, the lyrics had to change," an attorney for the plaintiff argued in court papers. "But to keep the value of the underlying song, they had to keep the 'hook,' that part ... listeners will sing to themselves in the car or shower ('I … need somebody to loooooove!')." And what do Bieber's attorneys say? "The law is clear that this phrase is too short and cliche to be protected." If the songwriter suing Bieber were more popular, he'd likely have an easier time. Under the "inverse ratio rule," a lower standard of proof of similarity is necessary when a high degree of "access" is shown. Parties also battle over "extrinsic" similarity -- objective measures like chord progression -- and "intrinsic" similarity, or what an ordinary listener might think. Other considerations include whether the artist accused of lifting has made "transformative" use of the original. Digital advances only have confused the legal issues. Websites give artists instant access to millions of previous songs. At the same time, forensic software allows the lesser-known artist to sniff out unlicensed samples, explaining why Madonna is facing a lawsuit over 1990's "Vogue" and The Beastie Boys are fighting over its 1989 album, Paul's Boutique. The preemptive move by Thicke against Gaye's family and Bridgeport Music Inc. (rightsholder for Funkadelic, whose "Sexy Ways" also was named) is a somewhat ingenious gambit: By suing over two allegedly similar songs, Thicke's lawyer Howard King implicitly argues that music can't be plagiarized from a duo of distinct tunes. On the other hand, the Gayes' lawyer, Richard Busch, likely will make the case that the war over the song of summer 2013 isn't much different than the one over the song of summer 1963. Brian Wilson gave Chuck Berry props. Should Thicke do the same for Marvin Gaye? .
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2013 12:56:45 GMT -5
This has been in the news for some time but thought the topic of song-copying would make a good thread topic
|
|
#LisaRinna
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 42,164
|
Post by #LisaRinna on Sept 5, 2013 14:14:35 GMT -5
Marvin's estate is thirsty.
|
|
Chelsea Press 2
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
Daddies home!
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 69,066
|
Post by Chelsea Press 2 on Sept 5, 2013 14:44:53 GMT -5
Marvin's estate is thirsty. Absolutely. They want a nice, thick slice of that Robin Thicke pie. The similarities between "Got To Give It Up" and "Blurred Lines" are there, but they are different enough that it shouldn't be an issue. Robin has always been very honest and open about his influences so it's not like he was trying to be shady and pull the wool over the public's eyes.
|
|
Myth X
Platinum Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 1,163
|
Post by Myth X on Sept 7, 2013 21:12:19 GMT -5
Where were these people when "Give It 2 Me" by Madonna was released? Obviously they didn't care because that song flopped.
|
|
Keelzit
Diamond Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 11,815
|
Post by Keelzit on Sept 7, 2013 21:57:55 GMT -5
This might sound stupid but doesn't the judge have to have a musical background to make a decision for this? Like, why should he know anything about lyrics, melodies, beats, etc.?
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Sept 9, 2013 9:15:15 GMT -5
I like Marvin Gaye but just because something is influenced by the time period doesn't mean it's copying….it makes Marvin Gaye and the people running his estate look bad when they grift.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2013 15:38:59 GMT -5
Marvin Gaye heirs sue 'Blurred Lines' artists By Alan Duke, CNN
Los Angeles (CNN) -- Robin Thicke's summertime hit "Blurred Lines" is an illegal rip-off of Marvin Gaye's "Got to Give It Up," Gaye's children claim in court documents filed Wednesday.
Fans, journalists and music experts immediately recognized similarities between Gaye's 1977 hit and the 2013's summertime smash, Gaye's heirs contend.
The controversy is a high-stakes legal fight involving an alleged conflict of interest with Sony-ATV, the music publisher half-owned by Michael Jackson's estate.
Gaye's heirs not only accuse Thicke and "Blurred Lines" co-writers Pharrell Williams and "T.I." Clifford Harris Jr. of copying Gaye's song, but they also contend Sony-ATV failed to meet its responsibility to protect the copyright.
Robin Thicke heats up the summer charts The Gaye family contracted with Sony-ATV after the singer-songwriter's death to administer his music catalog, but it also represents Williams' songs, according to a counterclaim filed Wednesday in response to a lawsuit filed by Thicke, Williams and Harris.
The publisher, however, refused to sue the "Blurred Lines" writers when the family asked them to do so, the Gaye's lawyer said. As a result they "reluctantly" included Sony-ATV as a defendant in their counterclaim, he said.
The "Blurred Lines" writers filed their pre-emptive lawsuit in August asking a federal judge to declare that their song was not a copyright infringement on Gaye's work amid public rumblings about the similarities.
Thicke's inital lawsuit contends there are "no similarities" between his song and Gaye's "other than commonplace musical elements"
"Being reminiscent of a 'sound' is not copyright infringement," his complaint argues.
The Gaye family counterclaim includes Thicke quotes from an interview with Billboard Magazine published in July.
"Pharrell and I were in the studio making a couple records, and then on the third day I told him I wanted to do something kinda like Marvin Gaye's 'Got To Give It Up,' that kind of feel 'cause it's one of my favorite songs of all time," Thicke reportedly said. "So he started messing with some drums and then he started going 'hey, hey, hey' and about an hour and a half later we had the whole record finished."
The filing also quotes what music journalist wrote about the two songs.
New York Times writer Rob Hoerburger: "And that bass line came right from Marvin Gaye's No. 1 hit from the summer of '77, 'Got to Give It Up'."
Rolling Stone magazine contributor David Ritz: "When I first heard Robin Thicke's 'Blurred Lines,' my reaction was the same as millions of other R&B fans: Hey, that's Marvin Gaye's 'Got to Give It Up.' "
Vice magazine music critic Paul Cantor: "You probably don't feel guilty for liking 'Blurred Lines.' Maybe that's because it was originally a Marvin Gaye song ("Got To Give It Up") and Marvin Gaye is ... awesome."
The filing by the heirs also includes a report from musicologist Judith Finell, who identified a "constellation of at least eight substantially similar compositional features between the two works."
"The signature phrase, vocal hook, backup vocal hook, their variations, and the keyboard and bass lines" are substantially similar and they share "departures from convention such as the unusual cowbell instrumentation, omission of guitar and use of male falsetto," it said.
Gaye's heirs also accuse Thicke of stealing from their father's 1976 hit "After the Dance" when he recorded "Love After War" in 2011. Those tunes "contain substantially similar compositional material in their choruses, including the melodies of their hooks," the Gaye filing contends.
The family suggests that Thicke has a "Marvin Gaye fixation."
"Blurred Lines" stayed at the top of Billboard's pop chart for a record 16 weeks this summer and sold more than 6 million copies, according to court documents.
|
|
Agent Yoncé
Diamond Member
Joined: November 2010
Posts: 24,872
|
Post by Agent Yoncé on Nov 1, 2013 18:39:08 GMT -5
Can't believe this is still going on. Money can drive some people out of their minds.
|
|
Libra
Diamond Member
The One Who Knows Where All the Bodies Are Buried
:)
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 14,376
My Charts
|
Post by Libra on Nov 1, 2013 20:11:25 GMT -5
"Blurred Lines" stayed at the top of Billboard's pop chart for a record 16 weeks this summer and sold more than 6 million copies, according to court documents. Clearly this suit is already not worth the paper it's written on.
|
|
Chelsea Press 2
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
Daddies home!
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 69,066
|
Post by Chelsea Press 2 on Jan 16, 2014 2:22:31 GMT -5
Marvin Gaye family wins victory in 'Blurred Lines' copyright caseLate singer's children settle claims against Sony Music BY MESFIN FEKADU (AP) TUESDAY, JAN 14, 2014 6:32 PM NEW YORK (AP) — Marvin Gaye's children have settled claims against a music company owned by Sony over Robin Thicke's Grammy-nominated hit song "Blurred Lines." The Gayes had accused EMI of not pursuing a copyright infringement case against Thicke because "Blurred Lines" has similarities to Gaye's "Got to Give It Up." A Los Angeles judge on Tuesday granted Nona Marvisa Gaye and Frankie Christian Gaye's dismissal of their lawsuit against EMI, which is owned by Sony/ATV Music Publishing. Documents say the Gayes and Sony have an agreement and claims against Sony can't be brought again. Terms of the settlement weren't disclosed. Dueling lawsuits between the Gaye family and Thicke remain active. Thicke and his collaborators T.I. and Pharrell Williams asked a federal judge in August to rule they didn't copy "Got to Give It Up" for "Blurred Lines," which is nominated for record of the year and other awards at the Jan. 26 Grammy Awards. Their song has sold 6.6 million tracks and was last year's biggest hit. It spent 12 weeks on top of the Billboard Hot 100 chart. Gaye's children accused the performers in October of copying elements of his music for "Blurred Lines." Their lawsuit sought to block Thicke from using elements of their father's music in other songs and claimed Thicke improperly used Gaye's "After the Dance" for his No. 1 R&B hit "Love After War." Representatives for Sony, Thicke and the Gaye family didn't immediately reply to emails seeking comment on Tuesday. Marvin Gaye, whose other hit songs include "Sexual Healing" and "Let's Get It On," was shot dead by his father in 1984. Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Source
|
|
Agent Yoncé
Diamond Member
Joined: November 2010
Posts: 24,872
|
Post by Agent Yoncé on Jan 18, 2014 12:22:06 GMT -5
A mess.
|
|
Kurt
Administrator
#1: Jacob Collier f/John Legend & Tori Kelly – "Bridge Over Troubled Water"
Joined: April 2010
Posts: 22,614
My Charts
Pronouns: he/him
Staff
|
Post by Kurt on Mar 10, 2015 16:33:10 GMT -5
(Is there not a newer thread for this?) The jury in the LA federal trial has ruled in Gaye's favor.
|
|
ILLUSION
5x Platinum Member
Dupe
"casually cruel in the name of being honest"
Joined: October 2012
Posts: 5,944
|
Post by ILLUSION on Mar 10, 2015 17:38:18 GMT -5
This whole scenario yells "desperation" at its finest
|
|
#LisaRinna
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 42,164
|
Post by #LisaRinna on Mar 10, 2015 18:39:00 GMT -5
Did Robin also lose the case about "Love After War"?
|
|
|
Post by Live Your Life on Mar 10, 2015 18:41:26 GMT -5
I'm convinced that "Blurred Lines" is cursed.
|
|
14887fan
Diamond Member
Joined: November 2013
Posts: 11,256
|
Post by 14887fan on Mar 10, 2015 18:57:23 GMT -5
$7.3 MILLION?!
I'm not Thicke or Pharrell's biggest fan by any means, but what a horrendous ruling. This entire thing has been an absolute shitshow, but the fact that Gaye's kids are being handed $7.3 million over this is absurd.
|
|
Mic Technique
Diamond Member
#1 Bayraktar Stan
Joined: February 2006
Posts: 12,376
|
Post by Mic Technique on Mar 10, 2015 19:07:17 GMT -5
Pharrell & Robin Thicke did what countless others do in the name of homage but with impunity, rightfully. I mean, apart from being absurd, the court's decision sets a dangerous precedent. That means you're next, Bruno Mars.
|
|
#LisaRinna
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 42,164
|
Post by #LisaRinna on Mar 10, 2015 19:24:44 GMT -5
This was always a petty lawsuit to me. Money chasing and just thirsty. And I had a feeling Robin and 'em were gonna lose because of their attitude.
|
|
Glove Slap
Administrator
Sweetheart
Downloading ༺༒༻ Possibilities
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 29,481
Staff
|
Post by Glove Slap on Mar 10, 2015 19:32:52 GMT -5
This is very unfortunate for the larger picture. Yes, Thicke and Williams were pompous and tried to act too aloof, but this goes far beyond them. Who will decide where the line is drawn now? Should we expect Bruno Mars or Alicia Keys to be slapped with suits the next time they launch albums?
|
|
Kurt
Administrator
#1: Jacob Collier f/John Legend & Tori Kelly – "Bridge Over Troubled Water"
Joined: April 2010
Posts: 22,614
My Charts
Pronouns: he/him
Staff
|
Post by Kurt on Mar 10, 2015 20:47:12 GMT -5
Did Robin also lose the case about "Love After War"? Yes, but the damages there are "only" $9,375.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2015 1:02:35 GMT -5
I hope Beyonce took notes or someone took notes for her. It's about time borrowing things were checked. I just think its unfair that so many get away with it but Robin and his already rock bottom coked out ass had to pay the brunt of it all.
|
|
Wavey✨️
Moderator
Look...
Positive Vibes🙏🏾❤
Joined: August 2006
Posts: 42,843
Pronouns: He/Him
Staff
|
Post by Wavey✨️ on Mar 11, 2015 8:19:52 GMT -5
I hope Beyonce took notes or someone took notes for her. It's about time borrowing things were checked. I just think its unfair that so many get away with it but Robin and his already rock bottom coked out ass had to pay the brunt of it all. All I saw was "bottom".
|
|
Me. I Am l!nk!nfan815...
Diamond Member
All Lives Can’t Matter Until Black Lives Matter
Joined: February 2008
Posts: 18,330
|
Post by Me. I Am l!nk!nfan815... on Mar 11, 2015 8:41:29 GMT -5
$7.3 MILLION?!!!!
|
|
Caviar
Diamond Member
Queen X
Joined: October 2003
Posts: 30,913
My Charts
Pronouns: He/his
|
Post by Caviar on Mar 11, 2015 10:10:57 GMT -5
|
|
#LisaRinna
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 42,164
|
Post by #LisaRinna on Mar 11, 2015 16:16:54 GMT -5
I hope Beyonce took notes or someone took notes for her. It's about time borrowing things were checked. I just think its unfair that so many get away with it but Robin and his already rock bottom coked out ass had to pay the brunt of it all. All I saw was "bottom". Thirsty
|
|
#LisaRinna
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 42,164
|
Post by #LisaRinna on Mar 11, 2015 16:17:36 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2015 17:07:20 GMT -5
I don't know how I feel about it. I'm listening to this youtube mashup of BL/GTGIU right now and I swear the arrangements are almost indistinguishable from each other, even with the different key settings. I know chord progressions can't be owned but damn, I have to strain to hear where BL finally diverges from GTGIU's line...when the song first came out I know there were some old r&b heads who picked up on the similarities right away and/or even assumed that the song must have been legally sampled. I won't definitively say that I think BL infringes upon GTGIU, but I will say that I wouldn't be surprised if I looked at the sheet music for both songs and saw a similar enough pattern to justify the Gayes' case. With that said, I feel like the ruling and the award had less to do with the music itself than it should have and that is what makes this ruling murky. Robin and Pharrell lost mainly because their attitudes sucked. They literally said themselves that BL was inspired by GTGIU - not just Marvin in general but *that* specific song - then tried to renege on that statement. Pharrell tried to pretend he doesn't know how to read music while at the same time making it obvious he knows something about reading music when he argued that the songs couldn't possibly be the same b/c they're in different keys. Meanwhile, Robin for some reason thought it was a good idea to throw himself under the bus by claiming that his was only a vanity writing credit, and that Pharrell is the one who came up with most of the song. I would have understood his defense more if he was saying that Pharrell did the arrangement and he only wrote the lyrics (the melodies aren't the same at all), but I suppose Robin was too coked out to think that through. On the other hand, I suspect the Gaye family's greed might have actually prevented them from getting even more money than they might have. I could be wrong, but normally when someone successfully sues over copyright infringement, and especially when it involves a big hit like BL was, they get damages, future royalties, and their name attached to the credits. It doesn't look like the family got any royalties or a writing credit for Marvin as part of their reward, and that's interesting. I believe trying to tack "Love After War"/"After the Dance" onto the suit was a giveaway that they were just being greedy. LAW/ATD have fairly strong similarities too, but LAW was such a flop that damages were negligible. Plus that album was three (now four) years old. Why are you going through Robin's catalog looking for s**t to sue over? They're probably at home right now listening to The Evolution of Robin Thicke and trying to figure out what Marvin song "Lost Without You" sounds like. Also keep in mind that this was a jury, not a judge, that reached this conclusion. Juries don't determine the law; they only determine the facts, then apply the law to those facts. If this does open the floodgate for more lawsuits I don't think it points to a flaw in the law as it stands, so much as it does to the flaw in letting your average person off the street make decisions that are probably better off left to experts. That's kind of a pitfall to any trial involving something technical, though. Even if you bring in expert witnesses they have to 'dumb' things down to make sure the jury understands them. That jury was told not to pay attention to the sound of the songs, but I bet you they went into that jury room thinking, 'man, those songs really do sound alike.' Robin and Pharrell should have requested a bench trial. I think the main precedent we should be getting from this is that if you're going to do an homage or be 'inspired by' someone, you either better make some phone calls first or just keep your mouth shut and leave it to everyone else's ears to figure it out. If not that, do like what most people in the industry do and quietly settle that mess before letting it go to court and embarrassing you in public.
|
|
#LisaRinna
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 42,164
|
Post by #LisaRinna on Mar 11, 2015 17:25:25 GMT -5
I feel like the ruling and the award had less to do with the music itself than it should have and that is what makes this ruling murky. Robin and Pharrell lost mainly because their attitudes sucked. They literally said themselves that BL was inspired by GTGIU - not just Marvin in general but *that* specific song - then tried to renege on that statement. Pharrell tried to pretend he doesn't know how to read music while at the same time making it obvious he knows something about reading music when he argued that the songs couldn't possibly be the same b/c they're in different keys. Meanwhile, Robin for some reason thought it was a good idea to throw himself under the bus by claiming that his was only a vanity writing credit, and that Pharrell is the one who came up with most of the song. I would have understood his defense more if he was saying that Pharrell did the arrangement and he only wrote the lyrics (the melodies aren't the same at all), but I suppose Robin was too coked out to think that through. On the other hand, I suspect the Gaye family's greed might have actually prevented them from getting even more money than they might have. I could be wrong, but normally when someone successfully sues over copyright infringement, and especially when it involves a big hit like BL was, they get damages, future royalties, and their name attached to the credits. It doesn't look like the family got any royalties or a writing credit for Marvin as part of their reward, and that's interesting. I believe trying to tack "Love After War"/"After the Dance" onto the suit was a giveaway that they were just being greedy. LAW/ATD have fairly strong similarities too, but LAW was such a flop that damages were negligible. Plus that album was three (now four) years old. Why are you going through Robin's catalog looking for s**t to sue over? They're probably at home right now listening to The Evolution of Robin Thicke and trying to figure out what Marvin song "Lost Without You" sounds like. All of this. Robin and Pharrell's attitudes were dead wrong and they did themselves in suing the estate first.
|
|
Caviar
Diamond Member
Queen X
Joined: October 2003
Posts: 30,913
My Charts
Pronouns: He/his
|
Post by Caviar on Mar 11, 2015 17:34:42 GMT -5
I've said this many times but this lawsuit could have easily been swept under the rug if A) they settled this quietly like most major artists do OR 2) NEVER mention the inspiration behind the song PERIOD. The decision could have been far worse like @antigonerising mentioned.
|
|