Robin Thicke vs. Marvin Gaye - plagarism?

[Deleted]

Are you serious? No, you dumbass, you WANT them to keep performing/playing the song. If your profit sharing suit is successful you will be awarded back payments anyway. How you gonna be money hungry and then block your money??? GIRL BYE.

That said, that article says the jury found TI and the labels not liable, which possibly conflicts with one of the other articles above saying that the family wants to sue them now (i.e. implying that the family didn't sue them before). Was the jury given the option of sticking the labels with a fine (even though they weren't original parties to the suit) and just opted not to?

[Deleted]

'Blurred Lines' Judge Asked to Grant New Trial

Pharrell Williams and the Marvin Gaye family continue their fight in court with new requests.

The newest stage of the copyright battle over "Blurred Lines" has commenced with new motions being presented on Friday (May 1) in a fight that resulted in a $7.4 million jury verdict this past March.

U.S. District Judge John Kronstadt has several options in deciding what to do about Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams' "Blurred Lines," which a jury ruled to be an infringement of Marvin Gaye's "Got to Give It Up."

The best case scenario for the Gaye family is that the judge orders an injunction on the song, forcing the "Blurred Lines" artists to come to the negotiating table, where they'll face demands for hefty ongoing license fees for using the Gaye hit. Additionally, the Gaye family wants the judge to extend liability to various Universal Music record companies, notwithstanding the jury's decision to give them a pass. If the judge grants the Gayes' motions, the penalty for copyright infringement will be climbing much higher than $7.4 million.

But the judge could go in an entirely different direction by trimming the jury's damages award, or even better for the Williams' camp, ordering up a new trial.

Attorneys for the "Blurred Lines" creators are pushing hard for the latter option by telling the judge on Friday that a do-over is warranted because of errors in jury instructions, improper testimony from a musicologist and insufficient evidence to support a finding that "Blurred Lines" is truly substantially similar to "Got to Give It Up."

The motion for a new trial (read here) is built on large part on the judge's pre-trial conclusion that the Gaye copyright for their hit 1977 song was limited to what was expressed by the lead sheet music. If elements like the "groove" of "Blurred Lines" weren't to be considered by a jury, the Williams side asserts it was "prejudicial and irrelevant" for a jury to hear Thicke's statements about his influence in creating the song as well as much of musicologist Judith Finell's opinion on the similarity of the sound recordings.

The point is a very technical one, but one that should be accorded special emphasis for those wishing to understand the dynamics that led to the jury's headline-making decision. During the trial, the judge had to constantly dance with the implications of his earlier decision limiting the copyright to what was found in the sheet music. For instance, the judge wouldn't allow the jury to hear the original "Got to Give It Up" sound recording -- which made the Gaye family at first doubt they'd get a fair trial -- before relaxing somewhat to allow a specially created stripped-down version to play.

Now, the Williams' camp is unhappy about the "mash-up" that the jury heard -- they say it still contained unprotected elements -- but there appears to be a larger concern. During the trial, Williams' side fought hard to hold the judge to his prior word that the Gaye copyright didn't go beyond the sheet music. This was no more apparent than during Finell's testimony, which produced a great number of objections from Williams' lawyers.

What appeared to be the biggest advantage for Team Blurred Lines heading into the trial might have turned out otherwise. (See what Richard Busch, attorney for the Gayes, considers "the other side's biggest mistake.") Here's how the motion for a new trial puts what happened during Finell's testimony:

"Although many of Counter-Defendants' objections were sustained and much of Ms. Finell's testimony was stricken after it was given, the net effect of this cumbersome process was extremely prejudicial to Counter-Defendants: (1) the jury likely concluded that Counter-Defendants were overly concerned by Ms. Finell's testimony or were desiring to obstruct and delay the proceedings; (2) Ms. Finell was able to present to the jury testimony, demonstratives, and music that the jury never should have seen or heard; and, (3) the jury faced an impossible task of having to constantly distinguish between the select parts of what they saw and heard each day that they could consider later in reaching their verdict, and the parts they could not."

The Williams' camp wants the judge to go back over the evidence and find that what was in play doesn't support the verdict. They believe the jury was pushed into its decision with confusing instructions.

And if that argument fails, they want to at least do something about the $7.4 million damage award, which was comprised of $4 million in actual damages (related to lost licensing money for the Gaye family) and $3.4 million in non-publishing profits. The Williams' camp believes the first was "grossly excessive and not supported by any admissible evidence" while the latter was also in error. They point out that the jury awarded twice as much as Williams got in profits while also turning back to the issue that "at most... only a small portion of the copyrighted musical expression of GIVE appears in BLURRED."

Taking into account their own musicologist Sandy Wilbur's testimony that "the elements of GIVE claimed
to have been copied amount to less than 5% of the BLURRED composition," the Williams' camp wants the profits awarded to be appropriately trimmed to no more than five percent of non-publishing profits. In other words, if Williams and Thicke can't get a post-trial vindication nor a new trial, they want to slash the $7.4 million award to under $680,000.

Of course, the Gaye family has a different view.

In one motion (read here), the family argues that the jury shouldn't have been asked to decide whether the record companies were liable for contributory infringement and vicarious liability. The family wants declaratory relief that Interscope Records, UMG Recordings and others should be held accountable.

In another motion (read here), the family wants to stop the continued distribution of "Blurred Lines" and impound works that contain the song. That might sound drastic, but here's the argument:

"The Gayes emphasize that they do not seek to permanently prevent the exploitation of 'Blurred Lines.' Nobody wins if that occurs. Unfortunately, the Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants have not responded to the Gayes' request that the parties agree to reasonable steps to protect the Gayes' rights and interests pending Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants' likely appeal, thus necessitating this motion. In the absence of injunctive relief, Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants will continue to infringe the Gayes' rights."

That's the Gaye family's big ask, but they also have an alternative request if this doesn't occur and they can't negotiate their cut of "Blurred Lines." They want Williams and Thicke to hand over 50 percent of all future songwriter and publishing revenues generated by "Blurred Lines."

Judge Kronstadt will consider these motions at an oral hearing scheduled on June 29. Until then, the two sides will be arguing back and forth on the points presented on Friday. Unless there's a settlement, the judge's forthcoming decision will hardly close the battle. Even if the judge refuses a new trial, the case will be going on appeal. The arguments being made now are as much a foreshadowing of the next stage as the current one. And while the litigation drags on and might fatigue observers, the case has already had a big impact on the industry -- see what happened to this year's biggest hit, "Uptown Funk," as a prime example -- so there's enough at stake to keep this one moving for quite some time.

www.billboard.com/articles/news/6553808/blurred-lines-robin-thicke-pharrell-williams-marvin-gaye-judge-asked-to-grant-new-trial

[Deleted]

“Blurred Lines” Appeal Gets Support From More Than 200 Musicians

Following a jury’s decision that “Blurred Lines” had infringed on Marvin Gaye’s "Got to Give It Up,” several musicians spoke up about the potential legal ramifications of that decision. Today, 212 musicians came together to file an amicus brief in support of Robin Thicke, Pharrell Williams, and T.I., asking the court to overturn the $5.3 million judgment.

Weezer’s Rivers Cuomo, Danger Mouse, the Go-Go’s, Three 6 Mafia, Earth Wind & Fire, Tool, R. Kelly, Tears for Fears, Kiesza, Linkin Park, Hans Zimmer, Fall Out Boy’s Patrick Stump, Frank Ocean collaborator Malay, Jennifer Hudson, Jean Baptiste, and many more are showing their support. Find the full brief below via The Hollywood Reporter.

The artists’ brief, written by Ed McPherson, explains:

“Amici are concerned about the potential adverse impact on their own creativity, on the creativity of future artists, and on the music industry in general,if the judgment in this case is allowed to stand. The verdict in this case threatens to punish songwriters for creating new music that is inspired by prior works. All music shares inspiration from prior musical works, especially within a particular musical genre. By eliminating any meaningful standard for drawing the line between permissible inspiration and unlawful copying, the judgment is certain to stifle creativity and impede the creative process. The law should provide clearer rules so that songwriters can know when the line is crossed, or at least where the line is.”

Musician and writer Damon Krukowski wrote about the “Blurred Lines” decision in a Pitchfork op-ed, “Plagiarize This: A Reasonable Solution to Musical Copyright After ‘Blurred Lines.’”

pitchfork.com/news/67932-blurred-lines-appeal-gets-support-from-more-than-200-musicians/

[Caviar]

The guilty verdict was an overreach but it didn't help Robin lied and acted like a total ass during pre-trial motions.

[Rican@]

That is bull. They need to pay those folks their money and the artists' backing is bull too. It is an obvious rip off and this mess continues to occur without the proper credit. One won a Song of the Year recently with just vocals on a Marvin Gaye's track.

[Gary]

'Blurred Lines' Verdict Upheld by Appeals Court in Win for Marvin Gaye Family

The 9th Circuit won't order a new trial and affirms damage awards against Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams, while reversing an award against rapper T.I.
A jury's 2015 verdict punishing Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams for infringing Marvin Gaye's "Got to Give It Up" to create the international chart-topper "Blurred Lines" was a controversial one in the musical community with some believing that the $5.3 million judgment would chill musical creativity. But Wednesday, a divided panel at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals largely affirmed the verdict in a lengthy decision that provides a huge win for Gaye's family.

The majority opinion from Circuit Judge Milan D. Smith Jr. rejects the Thicke camp's argument that Gaye's copyright is only entitled to "thin" protection, commenting, "Musical compositions are not confined to a narrow range of expression."


Smith looks at the 1909 Copyright Act, which was the law until the mid-1970s and didn't protect sound recordings. "Got to Give It Up" was one of the last songs created before the law was amended, and as such, the trial judge decided that only the sheet music deposited with the U.S. Copyright Office was entitled to protection. The 9th Circuit, however, decides not to resolve the question of whether the scope of Gaye's copyrights was limited to the sheet music.

Nor will the appeals court disrupt the trial judge's decision not to allow the jury to hear the actual sound recording with cowbells and party noises. Additionally, the appeals court affirms the trial judge's discretion in allowing testimony from Gaye's music experts, which the defendants asserted illegitimately incorporated opinions about the similarity of the sound recordings.
Ultimately, the majority opinion (read here) states that the verdict wasn't against the clear weight of evidence and won't disturb fact-finding at trial and second-guess the jury. The affirmation of what happened three years ago is on narrow grounds.

"We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Thicke Parties’ motion for a new trial," writes Smith.
A good part of the appellate discussion is directed at damages where the jury awarded 50 percent of publishing revenue for "Blurred Lines" as actual damages. That amounted to nearly $3.2 million and the appeals court says that testimony from an expert regarding this wasn't speculative. Additionally, the trial judge and jury awarded profits in the amount of $1.8 million against Thicke and $357K against Williams, and the conclusion by the 9th Circuit is that the award wasn't clearly erroneous. The Gayes also will be able to get a running royalty rate of 50 percent.

Where the appeals court differs from the trial court's judgment is with respect to some of the lesser players, including rapper T.I (aka Clifford Harris Jr.), who was cleared by a jury before being punished by U.S. District Judge John Kronstadt.

"Harris and the Interscope Parties contend that the district court erred in overturning the jury’s general verdicts finding in their favor," writes Smith. "We agree. First, the Gayes waived any challenge to the consistency of the jury’s general verdicts. Second, even had the Gayes preserved their challenge, neither Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) nor our decisions in Westinghouse and El-Hakem v. BJY Inc., conferred authority on the district court to upset the jury’s verdicts in this case. Third, as to Harris specifically, the district court erred for the additional reason that no evidence showed Harris was vicariously liable."
Thus, T.I. gets a win today.

The decision offered a sharp dissent from Judge Jacqueline Nguyen and a rebuttal from Smith and Judge Mary Murguia.
Nguyen blasts the outcome.

"The majority allows the Gayes to accomplish what no one has before: copyright a musical style," she writes. "'Blurred Lines' and 'Got to Give It Up' are not objectively similar. They differ in melody, harmony, and rhythm. Yet by refusing to compare the two works, the majority establishes a dangerous precedent that strikes a devastating blow to future musicians and composers everywhere."
She continues by addressing the experts.

"While juries are entitled to rely on properly supported expert opinion in determining substantial similarity, experts must be able to articulate facts upon which their conclusions — and thus the jury’s findings — logically rely," states the dissent. "Here, the Gayes’ expert, musicologist Judith Finell, cherry-picked brief snippets to opine that a 'constellation' of individually unprotectable elements in both pieces of music made them substantially similar. That might be reasonable if the two constellations bore any resemblance. But Big and Little Dipper they are not. The only similarity between these 'constellations' is that they’re both compositions of stars."
Nguyen then runs through guiding principles for copyright law — that expressions are protected but ideas are not, and how this gets applied under the intrinsic and extrinsic tests used to measure similarity.

"The majority begins its analysis by suggesting that the Gayes enjoy broad copyright protection because, as a category, '[m]usical compositions are not confined to a narrow range of expression,'" she writes. "But the majority then contrasts this protected category as a whole with specific applications of other protected categories — the 'page-shaped computer desktop icon' in Apple Computer (an audiovisual work) and the 'glass-in-glass jellyfish sculpture' in Satava (a pictorial, graphic, and sculptural work) — that were entitled only to thin copyright protection due to the limited number of ways in which they could be expressed. That’s a false comparison. Under the majority’s reasoning, the copyrights in the desktop icon and glass jellyfish should have been broad. Like musical compositions, both audiovisual works and pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works can be expressed in myriad ways."
The dissenting judge thinks the majority should explain which elements of "Got to Give It Up" were protectable and doesn't think that just because Gaye's song was widely available, there was a lesser burden to show similarity.
This all picks a fight with Smith and her colleague about procedure given the case is being reviewed de novo (basically with fresh eyes) but without particular trial motions the majority feels are necessary.

"The dissent’s position violates every controlling procedural rule involved in this case," states the majority opinion. "The dissent improperly tries, after a full jury trial has concluded, to act as judge, jury, and executioner, but there is no there there, and the attempt fails."

Essentially, Smith thinks the appeals court is handcuffed from doing much about what the jury found after resolving factual disputes, especially because the defendants failed to make a motion for judgment as a matter of law at trial.

"Two barriers block entry of judgment as a matter of law for the Thicke Parties," writes Smith. "The dissent attempts to sidestep these obstacles: It finds that the Thicke Parties are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, but fails to explain the procedural mechanism by which this could be achieved."

But eventually, the majority gets to the discussion that many in the musical community begged the appeals court to take up given the rash of copyright lawsuits over musical compositions in the time since the verdict. Smith isn't impressed.

"[T]he dissent prophesies that our decision will shake the foundations of copyright law, imperil the music industry, and stifle creativity," comments the judge. "It even suggests that the Gayes’ victory will come back to haunt them, as the Gayes’ musical compositions may now be found to infringe any number of famous songs preceding them. Respectfully, these conjectures are unfounded hyperbole. Our decision does not grant license to copyright a musical style or 'groove.' Nor does it upset the balance Congress struck between the freedom of artistic expression, on the one hand, and copyright protection of the fruits of that expression, on the other hand. Rather, our decision hinges on settled procedural principles and the limited nature of our appellate review, dictated by the particular posture of this case and controlling copyright law. Far from heralding the end of musical creativity as we know it, our decision, even construed broadly, reads more accurately as a cautionary tale for future trial counsel wishing to maximize their odds of success."
This post was originally published by The Hollywood Reporter.

[Caviar]

awful

[#LisaRinna]

Mess.com

[Gary]

At least T.I. was cleared

[Linnethia Monique]

The courts are opening up a whole can of worms with this decision and even they know it which is more sad.

[Deleted]

"The majority allows the Gayes to accomplish what no one has before: copyright a musical style," she writes....Yet by refusing to compare the two works, the majority establishes a dangerous precedent that strikes a devastating blow to future musicians and composers everywhere."

All the head nods to this from the dissenting judge. I will forever be pressed about this verdict - not so much the verdict itself, but the way it was reached. There is a very strong chance that Blurred Lines copied Got To Give It Up's riff, but I believe that based on an actual comparison of the two songs and would be willing to concede being wrong if it turns out Pharrell altered the right number of notes to distinguish BL's riff. There is a difference between imitation and influence, and this decision just blew right past that. Not allowing the jury to hear the two songs against each other is foul af.

Now where I think both majority and dissent got it wrong is that they seemed to believe the only two options here were 'affirm' or 'reverse', so you see the two opinions going back and forth over that. There is a third option, 'remand,' which simply means 'there was a procedural error in the first hearing, so we're going to send this back for a do-over.' The dissenting judge might have been able to win over the others had she simply argued for a remand. I think she overplayed her hand by insisting that BL and GTGIU are not objectively similar.

I also am of the opinion that music copyright lawsuits should receive bench trials as a rule, but that's another matter altogether.

[Glove Slap]

Vile.

Nona Gaye deserves to be placed in a special circle of hell where headphones playing Crazy Frog on endless loop are sewn onto her ears and her nipples are repeatedly ripped off.

[Gary]

Pharrell Williams & Robin Thicke Want Another Shot at Their 'Blurred Lines' Appeal

News

By Ashley Cullins | April 12, 2018 2:59 PM EDT



Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke are asking the 9th Circuit to give its "Blurred Lines" appeal another listen, after the court in March upheld a jury verdict that found the artists infringed on Marvin Gaye's "Got to Give It Up."

The controversial verdict has been a hot-button issue in the music industry, as songwriters, artists and other industry stakeholders chose sides in the legal battle. On Wednesday, attorneys for the duo filed a petition for rehearing en banc, arguing that this case conflicts with the court's prior copyright decisions and presents exceptionally important issues.



Attorney Kathleen Sullivan argues that the majority decision conflicts with precedent that holds courts must "filter out" protectable elements from unprotectable ones in deciding whether a work is entitled to thin or broad copyright protection. Thin protection requires works to be "virtually identical" to establish infringement, while broad protection requires only that they be "substantially similar."


"The panel majority departed from these precedents in setting the breadth or narrowness of copyright protection based upon the medium of expression, as opposed to the scope of protectable elements at issue in the particular case," she writes. "But the panel responded with a sweeping holding that 'the standard of similarity for musical compositions' as a class is 'broad' … thus giving music copyrights supremacy over other forms of copyrighted expression even where (as here) few protectable elements remain after the required filtration."


Sullivan also argues that the decision failed to sufficiently evaluate whether the works are objectively similar enough to give rise to a finding of infringement, and that, given the limited number of notes in existence and the fact that genres of music are defined by their common features, allowing composers to "copyright a musical style" is dangerous.


"Composers have long been free to draw inspiration from previous compositions, and even to copy discrete elements without fear of copyright liability," she writes. "The panel majority's decision threatens to upset the 'delicate balance between the protection to which authors are entitled under an act of Congress and the freedom that exists for all others to create their works outside the area protected against infringement.'"

Finally, Sullivan is concerned about the power this decision gives hired experts.


"Similarly important is the institutional question whether freedom of creative expression should be left to the mercy of jurors' whims and paid musicological experts," she writes. "If a copyright holder can now get to a jury simply by proffering an expert to opine that a song's elements are substantially similar to an accused song, without any objective comparison by the court, no musical work is safe from the prospect of copyright liability."