Blurred Lines / Got to give it up

zack

zack

Inspired
Regardless of what you feel about the songs, what do you think about this ruling?

Personally, I am pretty stunned that this verdict was reached - let alone the 'damages' amount!

All I hear is a similar beat and vibe - that's it.... or am I missing something ??

I think there will be a lot of artists cr@pping themselves following this ruling - and the lawyers will be getting ready for a feeding frenzy!
 
Meh. In a mash-up they sound much too much alike.

Same thing with the Satriani v. Coldplay lawsuit. If you rip someone off, expect to pay for it. For Pharrell, $7M is a drop in the bucket...
 
Honestly, I think it's ridiculous. Musicians have been "leveraging" other musicians ideas for millennia. How many guitarists have "stolen" Hendrix's licks? Should they have to go back and pay his family because they copped his licks?

There are jazz musicians that will, while improvising, include an entire well known musical phrase of a completely different song in their solos, just because it sounds cool. If those are recorded and sold, will they have to pay a royalty to the original writer of the song because they played 15 recognizable notes from the song?

This is a dark day for musicians. :(
 
I think this is incredibly stupid and a horrible precedent, personally.

There are numerous songs out there, made without any kind of "theft," that sound even closer than these songs do. Copyright law is a mess, and this is just another example of how.
 
>Honestly, I think it's ridiculous. Musicians have been "leveraging" other musicians ideas for millennia.<

Ideas… yes. Leveraging entire songs? Rarely. And in many of those rare cases, they're taken to court, and found guilty.

>How many guitarists have "stolen" Hendrix's licks?<

Thousands, undoubtedly. And the law finds nothing wrong with that… because "licks" by themselves aren't copyrightable… no matter how recognizable they are.

Also, it's clear that many of those "Hendrix licks" weren't Hendrix' at all. Buddy Guy, Otis Rush and Albert King were the source of many of his most recognizable blues licks.

>Should they have to go back and pay his family because the copped his licks?<

No.

>There are jazz musicians that will, while improvising, include an entire well known musical phrase of a completely different song in their solos, just because it sounds cool. If those are recorded and sold, will they have to pay a royalty to the original writer of the song because they played 15 recognizable notes from the song?<

No.

>This is a dark day for musicians. :(<

Not really. Unless you mean for musicians who spend an hour writing a tune, an evening recording it (as Pharrell claimed), in order to "pay homage" to the vibe of another guy's tune (as Thicke claimed), make 65 Million bucks, and then preemptively sue the homagees' family, in order to avoid cutting them in on any of the royalties for it.
Yeah… maybe a little dark for them.
 
paulasbell said:
>Honestly, I think it's ridiculous. Musicians have been "leveraging" other musicians ideas for millennia.<

Ideas… yes. Leveraging entire songs? Rarely. And in many of those rare cases, they're taken to court, and found guilty.
Click to expand...

You're not implying that the entire song is the same are you?? That's just crazy talk.

The point I was trying to make is that it is a slippery slope. Today, they're sued because the "feel" of the song is the same, tomorrow it's 15 notes played in an improvised solo.
 
Nobody better write another 12 bar blues song in A or E, there must be about 1 million of them out there using the same groove and chord progression and that includes SRV, Clapton etc.
 
AnthonyZ said:
I think it's a good thing. Be original is the lesson here.
Click to expand...
:lol

“Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is non-existent. And don’t bother concealing your thievery - celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: “It’s not where you take things from - it’s where you take them to."
 
All music is just a collection of influences. If someone is stupid enough to buy a song that's a blatant imitation of another, that's their problem. Cases like this are completely pointless, and do nothing but enrich opposing legal teams. I can't stand Pharrel, but this lawsuit is bunk.
 
>You're not implying that the entire song is the same are you??<

Of course not. But since the music portion of the "song" is mostly a groove, the details of that groove were apparently close enough for a jury to agree that there was copyright infringement.

>The point I was trying to make is that it is a slippery slope. Today, they're sued because the "feel" of the song is the same, tomorrow it's 15 notes played in an improvised solo.<

I got your point the first time. And yes, everything can be viewed as a "slippery slope", I s'pose. But no… that last sentence isn't true, on any level, IMO.
 
These things happen all the time... sometimes it goes to court, other times it's settled out of court. There was the whole Tom Petty/Sam Smith thing just a couple of months ago. I think Tom put it very well when he said: "All my years of songwriting have shown me these things can happen. Most times you catch it before it gets out the studio door but in this case it got by. Sam's people were very understanding of our predicament and we easily came to an agreement." Yeah, that was settled out of court, but I think the key here is "Most times you catch it before it gets out the studio door."
 
There only 12 basic notes in music, therefore a limited number of patterns/groupings available, as more song writers/musicians come our world there are going to be coincidental overlaps.
Listen to The Kink's -Catch Me Now I'm Falling @ about 55sec in and see what song comes to mind, to me, this sounds more like a lawsuit. If this didn't/doesn't instigate litigation, then IMO the proof should be that there was intentional plagiarism.
 
mrstrat said:
:lol

“Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is non-existent. And don’t bother concealing your thievery - celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: “It’s not where you take things from - it’s where you take them to."
Click to expand...

I enjoy the quote and I appreciate your laughing at what I said, but I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here. I see originality in music all the time. In any case, if they wanted to borrow from another artist to pay tribute, they should have gotten permission.
 
Williams said that he was inspired by Gaye. The take away is if you want to write music, you can never have heard any music in your entire life to prevent "Blurred Lines" and then hope & pray that you haven't used a previously written group/pattern of notes.
 
Music publishing rights are protected for 50 (recording)-70(publishing) years...so, if you have to write an original tune just cop something older than that (ex. Beethoven, Bach, etc.). If the another guy tries to sue then, you can just tell them they are NOT the originator :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom