Jurors Hit Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams With $7.4 Million In "Blurred Lines" Verdict

g under p

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-blurred-lines-copyright-trial-verdict-20150310-story.html

Rightfully so, a couple years ago when I was taking my daughter to school I heard the song for the first time. I can remember saying that's an old R&B bassline but I couldnt think of it at the time. I later remembered it's from a Marvin Gaye song....this hopefully will bring changes in the music industry to pay attention to copyrights infringement.

This one was pretty obvious, what do you think?

Peace

JH6056

I am SOOO happy about this verdict! I was positive it was a rip off (I also heard Blurred Lines the first time and immediately said "Wow, they ripped Marvin Gaye big time!"), but you never know how trials will go. Glad the jury or judge got this one right. And Thicke & Pharrell's explanations were lame as can be. Hopefully they and everyone else will take copyrights more seriously next time.

Gotta also say, as bad as the rip off itself was, the pre-emptive lawsuit against Marvin Gaye's estate to try to PREVENT them from suing Pharrell and Thicke was what made me permanently mad at both of them. Pharrell is a talented guy, but this pissed me off.

Once in awhile... justice is served.

eddiec

'Williams, who estimated that he'd written thousands of songs in his 20-year career'

Yeah, OK buddy.

g under p

I hope Marvin Gaye's family will get a piece of any further sales of the BL song going forward.

Peace

buck502000

Happy is also another ripoff of Marvin by Fake Pharell.

HughFreakingDillon

too much of this bullshit in pop music.

shecky

I always just assumed they'd paid for the rights to the song.
Unbelievable that they actually claim to have written it!
I'm glad justice prevailed even though it'll probably be tied up in litigation for years.
The good part is that young folks will learn who Marvin Gaye was.

JK_Livin

g under p said:

I hope Marvin Gaye's family will get a piece of any further sales of the BL song going forward.

Peace

Since the lawsuit was filed in 10/13, they've received back dated royalties in the lawsuit.

tempo_n_groove

g under p said:

I hope Marvin Gaye's family will get a piece of any further sales of the BL song going forward.

Peace

The only reason why they sued... For money.

Remember the song I want candy by Bow Wow Wow? It's a Bo Didley song, no one sued.

The solo at the end of Jump in the fire by Metallica? That's Free bird, again no one sued...

I could go on and on. I believe sampling should be allowed. Chuck D was fighting this years ago.

Oh well...

HesCalledDyer

Every hip hop song every made = sampled music.

PJ_Soul

I don't really see any blurred lines here. In this instance it was a pretty direct and obvious rip-off. This talk about this being a blow to artists who are simply inspired by others but write original stuff makes no sense to me, because that just wasn't the case here.

HughFreakingDillon

tempo_n_groove said:

g under p said:

I hope Marvin Gaye's family will get a piece of any further sales of the BL song going forward.

Peace

The only reason why they sued... For money.

Remember the song I want candy by Bow Wow Wow? It's a Bo Didley song, no one sued.

The solo at the end of Jump in the fire by Metallica? That's Free bird, again no one sued...

I could go on and on. I believe sampling should be allowed. Chuck D was fighting this years ago.

Oh well...

sampling is allowed, as long as you credit the original artist. what you seem to be suggesting is lawful artistic theft.

I have seen many rock artists who do this. "song X contains portions of this song by this artist". I have even seen artists who flat out say "this song was inspired by this song", basically saying "yeah, I realize I ripped this off, but it's more of an homage, not a direct steal". Ed just recently admitted this about I Got Shit and Cinnamon Girl. he didn't realize it at the time he wrote it, though, apparently.

JH6056

tempo_n_groove said:

g under p said:

I hope Marvin Gaye's family will get a piece of any further sales of the BL song going forward.

Peace

The only reason why they sued... For money.

Remember the song I want candy by Bow Wow Wow? It's a Bo Didley song, no one sued.

The solo at the end of Jump in the fire by Metallica? That's Free bird, again no one sued...

I could go on and on. I believe sampling should be allowed. Chuck D was fighting this years ago.

Oh well...

Sampling IS allowed. You just have to get rights to do it if you want to release it commercially, Pharrell not only didn't try to get rights, he knew he was stealing it and tried to pre-emptively sue to stop Gaye's family from suing BEFORE they'd ever even initiated a lawsuit.

Re: Bow Wow Wow, first of all I Want Candy was a cover (Bow Wow Wow did not write it), and 2nd, it was a great example of one of many people who used the "Bo Diddley Beat", which is a rhythmic structure, but not a melody per se. So while Bow Wow Wow (and Buddy Holly and Bruce Springsteen) all used that rhythm for sure, it's not as easy to sue for copyright on just the rhythm and say someone stole it. Blurred Lines stole not just a beat but an entire melody and song structure.

Sampling should be allowed and is allowed. You just have to acknowlege you're using someone else's work to build something new, and pay them to use their work. You can't use parts of someone else's film or t.v. show or book without getting copyright rights - why should music be different?

tempo_n_groove

JH6056 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

g under p said:

I hope Marvin Gaye's family will get a piece of any further sales of the BL song going forward.

Peace

The only reason why they sued... For money.

Remember the song I want candy by Bow Wow Wow? It's a Bo Didley song, no one sued.

The solo at the end of Jump in the fire by Metallica? That's Free bird, again no one sued...

I could go on and on. I believe sampling should be allowed. Chuck D was fighting this years ago.

Oh well...

Sampling IS allowed. You just have to get rights to do it if you want to release it commercially, Pharrell not only didn't try to get rights, he knew he was stealing it and tried to pre-emptively sue to stop Gaye's family from suing BEFORE they'd ever even initiated a lawsuit.

Re: Bow Wow Wow, first of all I Want Candy was a cover (Bow Wow Wow did not write it), and 2nd, it was a great example of one of many people who used the "Bo Diddley Beat", which is a rhythmic structure, but not a melody per se. So while Bow Wow Wow (and Buddy Holly and Bruce Springsteen) all used that rhythm for sure, it's not as easy to sue for copyright on just the rhythm and say someone stole it. Blurred Lines stole not just a beat but an entire melody and song structure.

Sampling should be allowed and is allowed. You just have to acknowlege you're using someone else's work to build something new, and pay them to use their work. You can't use parts of someone else's film or t.v. show or book without getting copyright rights - why should music be different?

I want candy is a direct rip off then. Same melody and everything.
See what I don't get is that it IS an exact copy of the melody and chorus and structure of that Bo Didley song how come no one was sued?
I know Metallica loves Lynard Skynard but I've never heard anyone say "this is a homage to them"
So to say all that I come back to this.
"Why do some get sued and others not?!?"
Neither of the above asked permission nor acknowledged.
That's what blows my mind about this...

HughFreakingDillon

is that bo didley song public domain, or is it copyrighted? and maybe lars asked permission from LS before they did that. who knows.

tempo_n_groove

HughFreakingDillon said:

is that bo didley song public domain, or is it copyrighted? and maybe lars asked permission from LS before they did that. who knows.

Good point. That would make a lot of sense. I'll look that up.

I've read nowhere that Metallica asked to use that part and I read EVERYTHING Metallica back in the day.

I remember a Warrant song "down Boys" ripping off the Cars' Bye bye love too...

g under p

tempo_n_groove said:

g under p said:

I hope Marvin Gaye's family will get a piece of any further sales of the BL song going forward.

Peace

The only reason why they sued... For money.

Remember the song I want candy by Bow Wow Wow? It's a Bo Didley song, no one sued.

The solo at the end of Jump in the fire by Metallica? That's Free bird, again no one sued...

I could go on and on. I believe sampling should be allowed. Chuck D was fighting this years ago.

Oh well...

I'm not sure that is true....this first started when Thicke filed suit to prevent the Gaye family from receiving profits from BL song and other songs. THEN the Gaye family counter sued Thicke...so if Thicke and Pharellel had paid to used song sheets from The Gaye song we wouldn't be here talking about this. Here is some of the story from the beginning.... The New New York Times has more on the story...

http://www.okayplayer.com/news/robin-thicke-sues-marvin-gayes-family-blurred-lines.html

Peace

JH6056

tempo_n_groove said:

JH6056 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

g under p said:

I hope Marvin Gaye's family will get a piece of any further sales of the BL song going forward.

Peace

The only reason why they sued... For money.

Remember the song I want candy by Bow Wow Wow? It's a Bo Didley song, no one sued.

The solo at the end of Jump in the fire by Metallica? That's Free bird, again no one sued...

I could go on and on. I believe sampling should be allowed. Chuck D was fighting this years ago.

Oh well...

Sampling IS allowed. You just have to get rights to do it if you want to release it commercially, Pharrell not only didn't try to get rights, he knew he was stealing it and tried to pre-emptively sue to stop Gaye's family from suing BEFORE they'd ever even initiated a lawsuit.

Re: Bow Wow Wow, first of all I Want Candy was a cover (Bow Wow Wow did not write it), and 2nd, it was a great example of one of many people who used the "Bo Diddley Beat", which is a rhythmic structure, but not a melody per se. So while Bow Wow Wow (and Buddy Holly and Bruce Springsteen) all used that rhythm for sure, it's not as easy to sue for copyright on just the rhythm and say someone stole it. Blurred Lines stole not just a beat but an entire melody and song structure.

Sampling should be allowed and is allowed. You just have to acknowlege you're using someone else's work to build something new, and pay them to use their work. You can't use parts of someone else's film or t.v. show or book without getting copyright rights - why should music be different?

I want candy is a direct rip off then. Same melody and everything.
See what I don't get is that it IS an exact copy of the melody and chorus and structure of that Bo Didley song how come no one was sued?
I know Metallica loves Lynard Skynard but I've never heard anyone say "this is a homage to them"
So to say all that I come back to this.
"Why do some get sued and others not?!?"
Neither of the above asked permission nor acknowledged.
That's what blows my mind about this...

I think Buddy Holly was the very first to use the beat and basically the song, and maybe back then black artists didn't even consider suing white artists, because maybe no one would represent them? Or it wasn't safe? Then maybe by the time I Want Candy was written, it was so "stolen" already, again, it didin't occur to anyone to sue? It's an interesting question to ask.

I have read where Diddley was frustrated that so many used it and he didn't get paid, but I don't know why no one sued except maybe in early days it just wasn't done? If it happened now, pretty sure he'd win, although in truth he didn't "invent" the rhythm, it existed in a lot of places (hand jive/jocamo (sp?), and kids hand clap games from waaaaaay back).

JH6056

g under p said:

tempo_n_groove said:

g under p said:

I hope Marvin Gaye's family will get a piece of any further sales of the BL song going forward.

Peace

The only reason why they sued... For money.

Remember the song I want candy by Bow Wow Wow? It's a Bo Didley song, no one sued.

The solo at the end of Jump in the fire by Metallica? That's Free bird, again no one sued...

I could go on and on. I believe sampling should be allowed. Chuck D was fighting this years ago.

Oh well...

I'm not sure that is true....this first started when Thicke filed suit to prevent the Gaye family from receiving profits from BL song and other songs. THEN the Gaye family counter sued Thicke...so if Thicke and Pharellel had paid to used song sheets from The Gaye song we wouldn't be here talking about this. Here is some of the story from the beginning.... The New New York Times has more on the story...

http://www.okayplayer.com/news/robin-thicke-sues-marvin-gayes-family-blurred-lines.html

Peace

Agreed, it's not fair at all to accuse the Gaye family of "just wanting money", since they didn't start this whole thing. Pharrell and Thicke started it, in an un-precedented pre-emptive lawsuit to stop Gaye's family from suing before they'd ever even started a lawsuit. Gaye's family got into it as a response to the original suit from Thicke/Pharrell. Whatever else one thinks about sampling, that was obnoxious as heck and I'm really glad they were ruled against.

tempo_n_groove

JH6056 said:

g under p said:

tempo_n_groove said:

g under p said:

I hope Marvin Gaye's family will get a piece of any further sales of the BL song going forward.

Peace

The only reason why they sued... For money.

Remember the song I want candy by Bow Wow Wow? It's a Bo Didley song, no one sued.

The solo at the end of Jump in the fire by Metallica? That's Free bird, again no one sued...

I could go on and on. I believe sampling should be allowed. Chuck D was fighting this years ago.

Oh well...

I'm not sure that is true....this first started when Thicke filed suit to prevent the Gaye family from receiving profits from BL song and other songs. THEN the Gaye family counter sued Thicke...so if Thicke and Pharellel had paid to used song sheets from The Gaye song we wouldn't be here talking about this. Here is some of the story from the beginning.... The New New York Times has more on the story...

http://www.okayplayer.com/news/robin-thicke-sues-marvin-gayes-family-blurred-lines.html

Peace

Agreed, it's not fair at all to accuse the Gaye family of "just wanting money", since they didn't start this whole thing. Pharrell and Thicke started it, in an un-precedented pre-emptive lawsuit to stop Gaye's family from suing before they'd ever even started a lawsuit. Gaye's family got into it as a response to the original suit from Thicke/Pharrell. Whatever else one thinks about sampling, that was obnoxious as heck and I'm really glad they were ruled against.

Why would Pharrel and Thicke sue BEFORE they were sued? That just seems weird. They either knew something or are completely idiotic…

As for Didley and the statement above, I was not aware that he was upset about his music being used.

DewieCox

I hadn't really paid any attention the first time this came up, I assume when a Thicke and Pharrell decided to sue. Im not incredibly familiar with Marvin Gaye, and maybe the video comparison I watched was a different song, but I don't see how this decision will hold up. Inspired by, definitely. Straight lift of the tune? I, just not hearing it. If this verdict is held up, then John Fogerty needs to write a check to 'ol Saul Zantz.

Generally speaking, in the past, it has taken a melody to be validated as a true ripoff. Chord progressions and grooves have never been enough to win a lawsuit in the past. This sets the precedent that will create a huge backlog of lawsuits. I can think of a lot of songs that are much closer comparisons.

In some of my guitar adventures, I've dabbled with a little writing and a few times I've heard a song and thought id like to write a song with a similar structure. Well those songs have inevitably turned out wildly different than the inspiration. On the other hand, I could definitely believe that more accomplished musicians with more musical ears attempt the same thing, but sorta overdo it, and get a little close for comfort.

On other boards I've seen some, that are seemingly in the know about the back rooms of the music industry, point out that often a band will literally record a song over an other artist's tune, then take the original tune out. That to me is pretty messed up. I could also see something like this being what happened here.

Whatever the appeals courts decide, I hope they make the write call.