Music 'Blurred Lines' verdict......good or bad for music? - Page 3

Deberg_1990 · 03-11-2015, 04:07 PM

Interesting......

Song was meant to be an 'homage' to a certain era and sound, but verdict was they ripped Marvin Gaye off. Will this force artists to change?

Thoughts?

A jury’s verdict that Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke copied Marvin Gaye’s music to create their hit song “Blurred Lines” won’t just be felt by the singer’s pocketbooks — it has the potential to change how musicians work and could open the door to new copyright claims.

An eight-person jury determined Tuesday that Williams and Thicke copied elements of Gaye’s 1977 hit “Got to Give It Up” and ordered the pair to pay nearly $7.4 million to the late singer’s three children.

Gaye’s daughter, Nona Gaye, wept as the verdict was read and later told reporters, “Right now, I feel free. Free from … Pharrell Williams’ and Robin Thicke’s chains and what they tried to keep on us and the lies that were told.”
The music industry may feel new constraints in the coming years as artists — and lawyers — sort through the verdict and its implications.

Howard King, lead attorney for Thicke and Williams, told jurors in closing arguments that a verdict for the Gaye family would have a chilling effect on musicians’ trying to evoke an era or create an homage to the sound of earlier musicians. Williams contended during the trial that he was only trying to mimic the “feel” of Gaye’s late 1970s music, but insisted he did not use elements of his idol’s work.

“Today’s successful verdict, with the odds more than stacked against the Marvin Gaye estate, could redefine what copyright infringement means for recording artists,” said Glen Rothstein, an intellectual property attorney with the firm Greenberg Glusker.

“The Gaye verdict is precedential in that whereas prior to today, it was generally understood that paying homage to musical influences was an acceptable, and indeed commonplace way of conducting business and even showing respect for one’s musical idols, after today, doubt has been cast on where the line will be drawn for copyright infringement purposes,” Rothstein said.

The Gaye family will seek an injunction against “Blurred Lines,” which will give them leverage to negotiate for royalties and other concessions such as songwriting credits.
VIRAL VIDEO: TV Reporter Mugged On Camera

Music copyright trials are rare, but allegations that a song copies another artist’s work are common. Recently, singers Sam Smith and Tom Petty reached an agreement that conferred songwriting credit to Petty on Smith’s song, “Stay With Me.” The agreement was reached because Smith’s song resembled Petty’s hit “I Won’t Back Down.”

“Unfortunately, today’s jury verdict has blurred the lines between protectable elements of a musical composition and the unprotectable musical style or groove exemplified by Marvin Gaye,” said Larry Iser, an intellectual property lawyer who has represented numerous musicians, including Jackson Browne and David Byrne, in music copyright cases.

“Although Gaye was the Prince of Soul, he didn’t own a copyright to the genre, and Thicke and Williams’ homage to the feel of Marvin Gaye is not infringing.”
King, who also represents numerous musicians, said record labels are going to become more reluctant to release music that’s similar to other works.

“This is going to make them more conservative, and less likely that you’re going to have new music,” King said.

That assertion was mocked by Richard Busch, the lead attorney for the Gaye family.
“While Mr. Williams’ lawyer suggested in his closing argument that the world would come to an end, and music would cease to exist if they were found liable, I still see the sun shining. I still see the wind blowing, and I still see the clouds in the sky. The world has not come to an end,” Busch said after the verdict. “The music industry will go on.”
So too will Williams’ career, said Joe Levy, editor-at-large at Billboard.
“For Pharrell the story moves on,” Levy said. “It will move on quickly.”

Williams is a seven-time Grammy Award winner whose songs he’s either performed or produced have sold more than 100 million copies worldwide. His hit “Happy” has helped make him a household name, as has his work as a judge on NBC’s music competition show, “The Voice.”

Feminists have criticized Williams for producing “Blurred Lines,” which they say promotes rape culture.

“It’s much to Pharrell’s advantage that he is at a high point in his career,” Levy said.
Thicke’s career may have more issues as a result of Tuesday’s verdict, since “Blurred Lines” was a global hit and his follow-up effort failed to connect with audiences, Levy said.
Levy said that while the verdict will likely make musicians and record labels more cautious, it won’t stop artists from using others’ works as inspiration.

“Are people going to stop writing songs inspired in homage to what’s come before? I don’t think so,” he said.

Levy said the size of the judgment for the Gaye family was surprising, as well as the fact the case even went this far.

“I think the biggest surprise here is this case didn’t have to move to trial,” he said. “Many cases of this nature are brought and either dismissed or settle.”

Despite the verdict, Levy predicted that “Blurred Lines” will continue to make plenty of money for Williams, Thicke and in all likelihood the Gaye family.

“People aren’t going to stop playing it,” Levy said, adding that it will one day achieve a nostalgic status that other artists’ songs now have. “It’s not just going to disappear.”

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...usic-business/

BucEyedPea · 03-11-2015, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I think the verdict is complete horseshit and had better overturned on appeal.

The "Letter of the Law" is Lyric and Melody. The two songs do not share the same melody or notes, nor do they share the same words or lyrics.

Pharrell and Thicke have said they wanted to capture the "vibe" of the song, which relates to the production (instrumentation, mic'ing, reverb, mix, overall sound) and I believe that was the catalyst for this ruling.

What the Gaye family has tried to say, and to the heart of this ruling, is that Marvin Gaye not only wrote songs, he's responsible for an entire GENRE of music.

This opens the door to all kinds of legal mess. Eddie Van Halen could sue about 50 80's bands because they used modified Marshall's, Strat guitars with humbucking pickups and a Floyd Rose. Black Sabbath could sue just about anyone that's ever picked up a Les Paul or SG and a Marshall and had a career.

It's completely and utterly asinine. I've discussed this with many of my friends that are VP and higher in the music business and everyone is stunned.

I am surprised too. It does share similarities but I don't think enough. I read part of the proceedings and played parts of the two songs which was on a You Tube video. I thought the Gaye family only owned the composition and not the single itself. I heard the sheet music doesn't look anything like Blurred Lines.

There is so much similarity in art, which doesn't make them all infringements. It's like saying no one can paint an impressionist painting.

**BigMeatballDave** · 03-11-2015, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Satriani and Cold Play never went to court. There was a "behind the scenes" settlement.

The main melody of an instrumental would be at issue in a copyright dispute. You could have a different chord progression underneath the melody but if the melody is the same, it would be copyright infringement.

Thanks for the clarification.

**Canofbier** · 03-11-2015, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Again, the Letter of the Law is Lyric and Melody, which aren't the same.

Prior to this ruling, you couldn't copyright a "vibe" or cowbell rhythm. You couldn't copyright a Blues I-IV-V progression because then, Blues music wouldn't exist.

This ruling, if upheld, sets forth a very dangerous precedent.

Absolutely. I'm a musician and hear similarities between songs that other people don't all the time (as many people that listen to lots of music would), and I don't see anything more than rhythmic and stylistic similarities between these two songs (which you'll see between at least a few top-50 songs at any given time).

Unless I'm missing something here, this ruling exposes a TON of other popular music to possible litigation, and it's ridiculous.

jspchief · 03-11-2015, 04:49 PM

The "tears" and comments from Gaye's daughter was rage inducing. Such phony bullshit. All a money grab.

Demonpenz · 03-11-2015, 04:50 PM

Rush is going to owe the chipmonks big

ghak99 · 03-11-2015, 04:53 PM

My untrained ear hears the similarities, but if this is the new line in the sand I bet there is some serious panic going on in Nashville.

**DaneMcCloud** · 03-11-2015, 05:01 PM

Pharrell and Thicke's lawyer is appealing. He'd better win.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/m...peal/70168510/

Frosty · 03-11-2015, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

One word: ****ing terrible

That's two words

**DaneMcCloud** · 03-11-2015, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frosty

That's two words

It only took 37 responses

Sweet Daddy Hate · 03-11-2015, 05:18 PM

Did Ace Frehley get some grip from Buck Cherry?

BucEyedPea · 03-11-2015, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghak99

My untrained ear hears the similarities, but if this is the new line in the sand I bet there is some serious panic going on in Nashville.

There's been other songs with similarities but no law suits. Tom Petty didn't sue the Red Hot Chili Peppers for their "Dani California" when it sounded like his "Mary Jane's Last Dance"? because he said so many songs sound alike.

“I seriously doubt that there is any negative intent there. And a lot of rock ‘n’ roll songs sound alike. Ask Chuck Berry. The Strokes took ‘American Girl’ [for their song 'Last Nite'], and I saw an interview with them where they actually admitted it. That made me laugh out loud. I was like, ‘OK, good for you’ … If someone took my song note for note and stole it maliciously, then maybe [I'd sue]. But I don’t believe in lawsuits much. I think there are enough frivolous law suits in this country without people fighting over pop songs.”

This is interesting to watch:

**kysirsoze** · 03-11-2015, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

There's been other songs with similarities but no law suits. Tom Petty didn't sue the Red Hot Chili Peppers for their "Dani California" when it sounded like his "Mary Jane's Last Dance"? because he said so many songs sound alike.

“I seriously doubt that there is any negative intent there. And a lot of rock ‘n’ roll songs sound alike. Ask Chuck Berry. The Strokes took ‘American Girl’ [for their song 'Last Nite'], and I saw an interview with them where they actually admitted it. That made me laugh out loud. I was like, ‘OK, good for you’ … If someone took my song note for note and stole it maliciously, then maybe [I'd sue]. But I don’t believe in lawsuits much. I think there are enough frivolous law suits in this country without people fighting over pop songs.”

This is interesting to watch:

Of course he got Sam Smith, but that was even more egregious.

**DaFace** · 03-11-2015, 05:26 PM

The song sucks, but the verdict sucks worse.

**BigMeatballDave** · 03-11-2015, 05:49 PM

Anyone heard the Tom Petty vs Sam Smith?

I can't hear any similarities.

BucEyedPea · 03-11-2015, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kysirsoze

Of course he got Sam Smith, but that was even more egregious.

With Jeff Lynne. Smith says he never heard "I won't back down" — that it was a complete accident. He wasn't even born when it was released...not that someone couldn't have heard it later. Petty reached out to him personally and Smith claims there are no hard feelings.

BTW I never associated "Stay with Me as" being a copy of "Don't Back Down"—evah'. I had to listen to the two together with Petty's going faster to see any connection. And I have had that CD of Petty's since it came out.

03-11-2015, 04:07 PM
Deberg_1990 In Search of a Life Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: San Antonio Tx. Casino cash: $3914454	'Blurred Lines' verdict......good or bad for music? Interesting...... Song was meant to be an 'homage' to a certain era and sound, but verdict was they ripped Marvin Gaye off. Will this force artists to change? Thoughts? A jury’s verdict that Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke copied Marvin Gaye’s music to create their hit song “Blurred Lines” won’t just be felt by the singer’s pocketbooks — it has the potential to change how musicians work and could open the door to new copyright claims. An eight-person jury determined Tuesday that Williams and Thicke copied elements of Gaye’s 1977 hit “Got to Give It Up” and ordered the pair to pay nearly $7.4 million to the late singer’s three children. Gaye’s daughter, Nona Gaye, wept as the verdict was read and later told reporters, “Right now, I feel free. Free from … Pharrell Williams’ and Robin Thicke’s chains and what they tried to keep on us and the lies that were told.” The music industry may feel new constraints in the coming years as artists — and lawyers — sort through the verdict and its implications. Howard King, lead attorney for Thicke and Williams, told jurors in closing arguments that a verdict for the Gaye family would have a chilling effect on musicians’ trying to evoke an era or create an homage to the sound of earlier musicians. Williams contended during the trial that he was only trying to mimic the “feel” of Gaye’s late 1970s music, but insisted he did not use elements of his idol’s work. “Today’s successful verdict, with the odds more than stacked against the Marvin Gaye estate, could redefine what copyright infringement means for recording artists,” said Glen Rothstein, an intellectual property attorney with the firm Greenberg Glusker. “The Gaye verdict is precedential in that whereas prior to today, it was generally understood that paying homage to musical influences was an acceptable, and indeed commonplace way of conducting business and even showing respect for one’s musical idols, after today, doubt has been cast on where the line will be drawn for copyright infringement purposes,” Rothstein said. The Gaye family will seek an injunction against “Blurred Lines,” which will give them leverage to negotiate for royalties and other concessions such as songwriting credits. VIRAL VIDEO: TV Reporter Mugged On Camera Music copyright trials are rare, but allegations that a song copies another artist’s work are common. Recently, singers Sam Smith and Tom Petty reached an agreement that conferred songwriting credit to Petty on Smith’s song, “Stay With Me.” The agreement was reached because Smith’s song resembled Petty’s hit “I Won’t Back Down.” “Unfortunately, today’s jury verdict has blurred the lines between protectable elements of a musical composition and the unprotectable musical style or groove exemplified by Marvin Gaye,” said Larry Iser, an intellectual property lawyer who has represented numerous musicians, including Jackson Browne and David Byrne, in music copyright cases. “Although Gaye was the Prince of Soul, he didn’t own a copyright to the genre, and Thicke and Williams’ homage to the feel of Marvin Gaye is not infringing.” King, who also represents numerous musicians, said record labels are going to become more reluctant to release music that’s similar to other works. “This is going to make them more conservative, and less likely that you’re going to have new music,” King said. That assertion was mocked by Richard Busch, the lead attorney for the Gaye family. “While Mr. Williams’ lawyer suggested in his closing argument that the world would come to an end, and music would cease to exist if they were found liable, I still see the sun shining. I still see the wind blowing, and I still see the clouds in the sky. The world has not come to an end,” Busch said after the verdict. “The music industry will go on.” So too will Williams’ career, said Joe Levy, editor-at-large at Billboard. “For Pharrell the story moves on,” Levy said. “It will move on quickly.” Williams is a seven-time Grammy Award winner whose songs he’s either performed or produced have sold more than 100 million copies worldwide. His hit “Happy” has helped make him a household name, as has his work as a judge on NBC’s music competition show, “The Voice.” Feminists have criticized Williams for producing “Blurred Lines,” which they say promotes rape culture. “It’s much to Pharrell’s advantage that he is at a high point in his career,” Levy said. Thicke’s career may have more issues as a result of Tuesday’s verdict, since “Blurred Lines” was a global hit and his follow-up effort failed to connect with audiences, Levy said. Levy said that while the verdict will likely make musicians and record labels more cautious, it won’t stop artists from using others’ works as inspiration. “Are people going to stop writing songs inspired in homage to what’s come before? I don’t think so,” he said. Levy said the size of the judgment for the Gaye family was surprising, as well as the fact the case even went this far. “I think the biggest surprise here is this case didn’t have to move to trial,” he said. “Many cases of this nature are brought and either dismissed or settle.” Despite the verdict, Levy predicted that “Blurred Lines” will continue to make plenty of money for Williams, Thicke and in all likelihood the Gaye family. “People aren’t going to stop playing it,” Levy said, adding that it will one day achieve a nostalgic status that other artists’ songs now have. “It’s not just going to disappear.” http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...usic-business/
Posts: 66,914

03-11-2015, 04:49 PM	#34
jspchief BAMF Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Your Face Casino cash: $9998710	The "tears" and comments from Gaye's daughter was rage inducing. Such phony bullshit. All a money grab. __________________ Courage is not the absence of fear but rather the judgment that something is more important than fear. The brave may not live forever but the cautious do not live at all.
Posts: 27,207

03-11-2015, 04:50 PM	#35
Demonpenz I got Rice cookin in the micro Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Apartment "G UNIT!" Casino cash: $3152136	Rush is going to owe the chipmonks big __________________
Posts: 54,267

03-11-2015, 04:53 PM	#36
ghak99 MVP Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Missouri Casino cash: $1952250	My untrained ear hears the similarities, but if this is the new line in the sand I bet there is some serious panic going on in Nashville.
Posts: 8,196

03-11-2015, 05:01 PM	#37
DaneMcCloud Supporter Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Hollywood, CA Casino cash: $10053648	Pharrell and Thicke's lawyer is appealing. He'd better win. http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/m...peal/70168510/
Posts: 88,960

03-11-2015, 05:18 PM	#40
Sweet Daddy Hate Unsparing Join Date: Aug 2008 Casino cash: $10004900	Did Ace Frehley get some grip from Buck Cherry? __________________ 1. Merciless, severe. 2. Given freely and generously. 100% refusal to overrate 20 year Head Coaches with ZERO **ing rings as a Head Coach. CP's Official Professor of 'Dem Blues for 2019/2020!**
Posts: 77,135

03-11-2015, 05:26 PM	#43
DaFace Kind of a mod Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Donkey Land Casino cash: $2056899	The song sucks, but the verdict sucks worse.
Posts: 51,749

03-11-2015, 05:49 PM	#44
BigMeatballDave GBM 8-12-15 Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Dayton, Oh. Casino cash: $10052154	Anyone heard the Tom Petty vs Sam Smith? I can't hear any similarities.
Posts: 59,997