Blurred Lines / Got to give it up

For me, the two songs are pretty close. But I don't know what goes as far as the law so really don't know about the details of the case.

I would guess the millions of dollars made off of Blurred Lines was the major factor in bringing the case in the first place. Had Blurred Lines not been such a money maker, the suit probably would have never happened.
 
>I would guess the millions of dollars made off of Blurred Lines was the major factor in bringing the case in the first place. Had Blurred Lines not been such a money maker, the suit probably would have never happened.<

As I understand it, Thicke and Pharrell made the initial suit, preemptively suing the Gaye estate, before the Gaye estate could sue them. Yes, that sounds weird, and kind of offensive… but it's apparently the case. Possibly that fact had something to do with the verdict, as well.
 
paulasbell said:
>I would guess the millions of dollars made off of Blurred Lines was the major factor in bringing the case in the first place. Had Blurred Lines not been such a money maker, the suit probably would have never happened.<

As I understand it, Thicke and Pharrell made the initial suit, preemptively suing the Gaye estate, before the Gaye estate could sue them. Yes, that sounds weird, and kind of offensive… but it's apparently the case. Possibly that fact had something to do with the verdict, as well.
Click to expand...


Preemtively suing? That's just Gaye.
 
Rich people suing other rich people... how pedestrian and boring. If we had established artists hammering up-and-coming acts with copyright lawsuits all the time then that would upset me, because that really would stifle creativity. Usually it's the successful artists that get sued because, well, they have money.

Still, it's the sort of thing that makes me think it might be a good idea to incorporate your band - that way if you get sued, the band can just go bankrupt and change the name. Make sure Timbaland doesn't get your car.
 
paulasbell said:
>As I understand it, Thicke and Pharrell made the initial suit, preemptively suing the Gaye estate, before the Gaye estate could sue them. Yes, that sounds weird, and kind of offensive… but it's apparently the case. Possibly that fact had something to do with the verdict, as well.
Click to expand...
The Gaye estate had already stated they were going to take it to court before Thicke, Pharell et al filed. All the rest is just legal positioning. I would love to have been a fly on the wall fir the case, but my impression was that this is a bullshit verdict. I went and listened to the Marvin Gaye song, and the similarities were mainly in the rhythm and the arrangement, neither if which are copywritable.
 
An old teacher of mine once told me that there are only 12 notes and they've all been played already.

If only there were only 12 lawyers in the world!
 
The Thesaurus of Scales and Melodic Patterns says there are over 470,000,000 possible combinations of the 12 tone chromatic scale, plus endless rhythmic variety... NOBODY SHOULD BE RUNNING OUT OF IDEAS!
 
This decision flies in the face of DECADES of precedent in copyright law.

Historically, copyright may only apply to melody and lyrics. You can't technically infringe on a bassline (Queen wishes otherwise re: Vanilla Ice), a drum beat, a cowbell rhythm, or--most ridiculously in this case--an "overall funk." This is a pathetic money grab by the Gaye estate, probably a poorly argued case by lawyers who should never get work defending a musical artist again, and an incredibly ill-informed jury decision. The precedent set by this case is an incredibly slippery slope. If we are to start copyright beats/rhythms and overall grooves, we will soon find ourselves in a world with a very different definition of "original music."

Source: my father is an entertainment lawyer/I studied EL at NU
 
AnthonyZ said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hey Anthony, my laughing was not meant to be disrespectful. I honestly have to laugh when people talk about originality like it's some kind of moral imperative. If you go back and look through hundreds of years of music and art, you'll see that it just doesn't exist. Everyone, and I mean everyone has stood on the shoulders of, and been influenced by, and stolen from, the giants that preceded them. Again, no disrespect intended. :)
 
ccroyalsenders said:
You can't technically infringe on a bassline (Queen wishes otherwise re: Vanilla Ice)
Click to expand...

Queen vs Vanilla Ice was a case of using a sample of the actual recording. It wasn't the song writing that was infringed upon. It was the actual recorded work used without permission. At risk of using a bad pun, I think the court is blurring the lines on this one. Pharrell didn't steal from the song writing that was protected by law, he made a recording that sounded like a Marvin Gaye song, yet he didn't "sample" anything, like in the case of Vanilla Ice. It sounds like the judge is mixing up two different sets of laws.

Tom Petty vs Sam Smith was a similar melody. Albeit very short, it was the same.

Very cool that you studied music law. That must really come in handy. That's something I would love to have time to do.
 
Fro said:
It sounds like the judge is mixing up two different sets of laws.
Click to expand...

I think more likely it came down to the lawyers very, very poorly making the case against infringement. I hope they appeal with a different legal team.
 
ccroyalsenders said:
Because that was based on the melody line. Which is one of the only two protected elements of a song historically.
Click to expand...

What's the other one?

mrstrat said:
Hey Anthony, my laughing was not meant to be disrespectful. I honestly have to laugh when people talk about originality like it's some kind of moral imperative. If you go back and look through hundreds of years of music and art, you'll see that it just doesn't exist. Everyone, and I mean everyone has stood on the shoulders of, and been influenced by, and stolen from, the giants that preceded them. Again, no disrespect intended. :)
Click to expand...

None taken, I actually found all sides of the conversation quite interesting.
 
Ron_R said:
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...
Click to expand...

Actually I'd say in Satriani's case his work was just ripped off whole. There are clips on Youtube which switch back and forth, and it's nearly identical. I'm all for "borrowing ideas", but stealing things in their entirety is just not cool.
 
The whole preemptive suit thing is weird to me. I kind of get why they did it, but what exactly was Pharrel/Thicke's claim from a legal perspective in that suit? I mean they can't sue someone for having written a song 30+ years earlier. Was it more of a libel/slander or false accusations kind of thing?

The songs are very similar in their construction and groove, but I agree that this sets a dangerous precedent. I'm not a big fan of Pharrel or Thicke, but it does seem like they were given the shaft here. I wonder if they are going to appeal.
 
The whole court was laughable. Come on, have the judges actually listened to the songs? Blurred lines basicly consists only of drum and base. How can that ever be "stolen", considering that there isn't an infinite number of base lines that match a 4 quarter pop beat? Also, the songs don't even sound similar to me. Greedy retired musicians being greedy, as always.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom