Music 'Blurred Lines' verdict......good or bad for music? - Page 8

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/

**DaneMcCloud** · 03-17-2015, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevieray

iI've always thought of the show Good Times

I have to plead ignorance because until this verdict was announced, I'd never heard either song. Once I did listen to the two songs, I didn't find any similarities other than "vibe".

To be quite honest, I was very disappointed in the Pharrell song. It sounds like it was composed on an iPad and recorded in a bathroom.

Just Passin' By · 03-17-2015, 09:27 PM

With this verdict, Lionel Richie is going to be able to sue the pants off of Lionel Richie.

ClevelandBronco · 03-17-2015, 10:37 PM

"We're in this gig together, so let's settle down and steal each others’ songs."

JohnnyV13 · 03-18-2015, 12:41 AM

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.

Dane,

I wouldn't be that worried. District courts make a lot of weird decisions in intellectual property. IP is a specialty area, and a lot of district judges handle it poorly.

You really don't run into judges with good IP jurisprudence until you hit the Federal Circuit.

beach tribe · 03-18-2015, 04:31 AM

They said they pretty much copied it.
Bet they could have given them credits and royalties and none of this would have ever happened.

Write your own ****ing shit, modern music industry.
You bunch of short cutting slap dick musicians.

**DaneMcCloud** · 03-18-2015, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beach tribe

They said they pretty much copied it.
Bet they could have given them credits and royalties and none of this would have ever happened.

Write your own ****ing shit, modern music industry.
You bunch of short cutting slap dick musicians.

You don't seem to understand copyright law, which is why there was no reason to add the Gaye family to the copyrights, nor to settle. They copied the "vibe" of the track, not the melody or the lyric.

If this ruling isn't overturned (which is will be), this will open the floodgates to tens of thousands of similar claims. Hell, EVH could sue every band in the 80's.

It's a dumb ruling.

**Predarat** · 03-18-2015, 10:38 AM

Anything that is bad for that robin thick douchebag is awesome.

BucEyedPea · 03-18-2015, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beach tribe

They said they pretty much copied it.

No they didn't. Pharelle said something earlier that seemed like that but not as a outright copy of the song.

BucEyedPea · 03-18-2015, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

You don't seem to understand copyright law, which is why there was no reason to add the Gaye family to the copyrights, nor to settle. They copied the "vibe" of the track, not the melody or the lyric.

If this ruling isn't overturned (which is will be), this will open the floodgates to tens of thousands of similar claims. Hell, EVH could sue every band in the 80's.

It's a dumb ruling.

I think that's because copyright has been expanded to allow descendents to inherit rights for a certain number of years. I'd have to look up the details but I think the time periods have been increased so long as family members renew it officially. This is an area of copyright law, I'd like to see reformed.

Beef Supreme · 03-18-2015, 03:36 PM

If Aldo Nova didn't have to pay Jefferson Starship for ripping off "Jane," you can pretty much bet Dane is right, and it will be overturned.

eDave · 03-18-2015, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

No they didn't. Pharelle said something earlier that seemed like that but not as a outright copy of the song.

They captured the 'vibe'. If this holds up; Bye-bye Blues, R&R, Gospel, Metal...

This ruling is very concerning and I imagine Pharrell has major backing to fight this now. An entire industry is at stake here.

If you were to hear my original stuff I play guitar, you would hear a lot of Zeppelin, Radiohead, Deathcab, Cure, John Denver, My Morning Jacket. All kinds of stuff mixed in there.

I'm hesitant to release a CD now.

**DaneMcCloud** · 03-18-2015, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

I think that's because copyright has been expanded to allow descendents to inherit rights for a certain number of years. I'd have to look up the details but I think the time periods have been increased so long as family members renew it officially. This is an area of copyright law, I'd like to see reformed.

Copyright is Lifetime plus 75 years. I'd like to see it reformed as well to expand upon the length of time covered.

Otherwise, songs will enter the Public Domain and corporations will be able to use them, free of charge, for advertising, promo's etc. Radio stations, terrestrial and internet, won't required to compensate the songwriter or his/her family, thus free money.

A new copyright and licensing bill is being proposed by the music industry that should further protection, increase revenues and solve many of today's issues for the next 50-75 years IF Congress acts.

BucEyedPea · 03-18-2015, 03:43 PM

Copyright Renewal Act of 1992
Copyright Renewal Act of 1992, enacted June 26, is an act of the United States Congress, enacted to reverse the longstanding requirement under US law that a second term of copyright protection is contingent on a renewal registration with the Library of Congress.[1]

It amended the 1976 Copyright Act.

Eligibility to claim renewal

The law specifies the persons who are eligible to claim Renewal Copyright. Apart from anonymous works, the following are eligible to claim renewal:

The author, if living
The widow or widower of the author or the children or both, if the author is dead.
If there are no immediate family members, and there is a will, then the author’s executors can claim renewal.
If there is no immediate family or will, the next of kin may claim the copyright.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrig...al_Act_of_1992

**DaneMcCloud** · 03-18-2015, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

They way this works is that the music publishing company renews these copyrights each year before they expire. The publishing company continues to receive the publishing share of the royalties and the writer's continue to receive their writer's share through a Performing Rights Society like ASCAP, BMI and SESAC.

There have been cases of people not refiling the copyrights on time, so they fall into the public domain.

DaveNull · 03-18-2015, 03:50 PM

Copyright is as long as Disney says it is.

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

03-17-2015, 09:27 PM	#107
Just Passin' By In Search of a Life Join Date: Feb 2009 Casino cash: $5460524	With this verdict, Lionel Richie is going to be able to sue the pants off of Lionel Richie.
Posts: 69,748

03-17-2015, 10:37 PM	#108
ClevelandBronco I'm with the banned. Join Date: Sep 2006 Casino cash: $5658955	"We're in this gig together, so let's settle down and steal each others’ songs." __________________ "Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth ..." – Pope Saint John Paul II
Posts: 28,113

03-18-2015, 04:31 AM	#110
beach tribe Keep doubting J MFing Houston Join Date: May 2007 Location: ft.lauderdale Casino cash: $4828036	They said they pretty much copied it. Bet they could have given them credits and royalties and none of this would have ever happened. Write your own ****ing shit, modern music industry. You bunch of short cutting slap dick musicians.
Posts: 21,429

03-18-2015, 10:38 AM	#112
Predarat Run Chiefs fans, run!! Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Nashville, TN Casino cash: $9973863	Anything that is bad for that robin thick douchebag is awesome.
Posts: 10,776

03-18-2015, 03:36 PM	#115
Beef Supreme MVP Join Date: Oct 2010 Casino cash: $10019560	If Aldo Nova didn't have to pay Jefferson Starship for ripping off "Jane," you can pretty much bet Dane is right, and it will be overturned.
Posts: 11,000

03-18-2015, 03:43 PM	#118
BucEyedPea Gimme My Berries Back! Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: None of your business Casino cash: $3489963	Copyright Renewal Act of 1992 Copyright Renewal Act of 1992, enacted June 26, is an act of the United States Congress, enacted to reverse the longstanding requirement under US law that a second term of copyright protection is contingent on a renewal registration with the Library of Congress.[1] It amended the 1976 Copyright Act. Eligibility to claim renewal The law specifies the persons who are eligible to claim Renewal Copyright. Apart from anonymous works, the following are eligible to claim renewal: The author, if living The widow or widower of the author or the children or both, if the author is dead. If there are no immediate family members, and there is a will, then the author’s executors can claim renewal. If there is no immediate family or will, the next of kin may claim the copyright. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrig...al_Act_of_1992
Posts: 161,779

03-18-2015, 03:50 PM	#120
DaveNull Veteran Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Villa Straylight Casino cash: $10005610	Copyright is as long as Disney says it is.
Posts: 2,367