Make a Contribution to Remove NSFW Ads

What's wrong with this white boy? Robin Thicke Sues Marvin Gaye's Family.

kefta

kefta

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
‘Blurred Lines’ Verdict: Robin Thicke, Pharrell Williams to Pay $7.4 Million in Copyright Case

Jurors in the high-profile trial deliberated for two days before ruling in favor of Marvin Gaye’s family

UPDATED, Tuesday 5:41 p.m.: A spokesperson for Pharrell Williams called Tuesday’s “Blurred Lines” verdict a “horrible precedent for music and creativity.”
In a statement obtained by TheWrap, the spokesman said, “While we respect the judicial process, we are extremely disappointed in the ruling made today, which sets a horrible precedent for music and creativity going forward. Blurred Lines was created from the heart and minds of Pharrell, Robin and T.I. and not taken from anyone or anywhere else. We are reviewing the decision, considering our options and you will hear more from us soon about this matter.”

http://www.thewrap.com/blurred-line...s-lose-copyright-case-to-marvin-gayes-family/

:yes:

:itsawrap:

:cool:
 
Last edited:
kefta

kefta

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Robin Thicke & Pharrell Lose “Blurred Lines” Lawsuit

Eight jurors in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles have reached a verdict in the case regarding Robin Thicke and Pharrell, on whether they had infringed on Marvin Gaye’s 1977 song “Got to Give It Up” with their hit “Blurred Lines.” After two weeks of deliberation, the court has determined that the duo must pay the family upwards of $7.4 million after the jury found the song to not be infringed upon willfully, but was definitely inspired by the late R&B singer’s work.

The Gaye family was awarded about $4 million in damages, including profits from the single that totaled about $1.6 million from Pharrell and $1.76 from Thicke.

T.I., who was also featured on the smash record, was exonerated of any wrongdoing.

Court documents revealed the track went on to make more than $16 million in sales, with the duo making over $5 million each from sales of the record.

THE LINE HAS BEEN DRAWN AND IT’S WORTH MILLIONS

http://www.thewrap.com/blurred-line...s-lose-copyright-case-to-marvin-gayes-family/

:yes::yes:

:itsawrap:

:cool:
 
D

Day_Carver

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
good for them; artist need to stop trying to steal shit and either create their own shit or pay the people who created it...
 
2

210

Potential Star
Registered
I'm not sure about how I feel about this ruling.

Did the song have a vibe and some instruments that reminded you of Give It Up, sure it did ... but was it a direct rip of Give It Up? Absolutely not. Not even close.

- It didn't sample GIU at all.
- It didn't use the same lyrics or even portions thereof.
- It didn't use the same drum patterns or even portions thereof
- It didn't use the same key.
- It didn't use the same tempo.
- It didn't use the same melody.
- The instruments were all different*
- There was a rap performance in the song.


The only thing that was *similar was that both were written in 4/4 time with a sweep on the up beat, and the use of Bass, MOOG synth stabs and a cowbell - but you cannot copywrite an instrument or the way its played.


Sounding similar or evoking the spirit of another song is not an infringement of copywrite. If that were the case Bruno Mars would expect a lawsuit from Jimmy Jam & Terry Lewis for Uptown Funk because it sounds so similar to works they wrote for Morris Day & Time.

Every commercial on the radio / tv that uses that quickly, low budget produced background filler music that sort of sounds like that more popular song but not really would have to be yanked.

And let's not even get into Dubstep? 70% of that stuff all sounds the same. The producers use the same synths, filters, and fruity loop packages.

Finally, how about parody. Now how does one legally maneuver and create a parody song if almost all the critical elements of the original song are needed for a parody? Because it is infringing highly upon the original works.




I understand everyone wants to protect Gaye's legacy, but then again I would hope people are rational and judicious about these things.

Dollar's to doughnuts, if they file for an appeal - and with $7MM on the table plus future royalties and performance fees due Gaye's estate an appeal filing is all but a certainty - and the case is heard in bench trial before an Appellate Circuit Court judge, the case will be overturned or the amount of the award significantly reduced.
 
exiledking

exiledking

Rising Star
OG Investor
210 said:
I'm not sure about how I feel about this ruling.

Did the song have a vibe and some instruments that reminded you of Give It Up, sure it did ... but was it a direct rip of Give It Up? Absolutely not. Not even close.

- It didn't sample GIU at all.
- It didn't use the same lyrics or even portions thereof.
- It didn't use the same drum patterns or even portions thereof
- It didn't use the same key.
- It didn't use the same tempo.
- It didn't use the same melody.
- The instruments were all different*
- There was a rap performance in the song.


The only thing that was *similar was that both were written in 4/4 time with a sweep on the up beat, and the use of Bass, MOOG synth stabs and a cowbell - but you cannot copywrite an instrument or the way its played.


Sounding similar or evoking the spirit of another song is not an infringement of copywrite. If that were the case Bruno Mars would expect a lawsuit from Jimmy Jam & Terry Lewis for Uptown Funk because it sounds so similar to works they wrote for Morris Day & Time.

Every commercial on the radio / tv that uses that quickly, low budget produced background filler music that sort of sounds like that more popular song but not really would have to be yanked.

And let's not even get into Dubstep? 70% of that stuff all sounds the same. The producers use the same synths, filters, and fruity loop packages.

Finally, how about parody. Now how does one legally maneuver and create a parody song if almost all the critical elements of the original song are needed for a parody? Because it is infringing highly upon the original works.




I understand everyone wants to protect Gaye's legacy, but then again I would hope people are rational and judicious about these things.

Dollar's to doughnuts, if they file for an appeal - and with $7MM on the table plus future royalties and performance fees due Gaye's estate an appeal filing is all but a certainty - and the case is heard in bench trial before an Appellate Circuit Court judge, the case will be overturned or the amount of the award significantly reduced.
Click to expand...

well said
 
U

Upgrade Dave

Rising Star
Registered
210 said:
I'm not sure about how I feel about this ruling.

Did the song have a vibe and some instruments that reminded you of Give It Up, sure it did ... but was it a direct rip of Give It Up? Absolutely not. Not even close.

- It didn't sample GIU at all.
- It didn't use the same lyrics or even portions thereof.
- It didn't use the same drum patterns or even portions thereof
- It didn't use the same key.
- It didn't use the same tempo.
- It didn't use the same melody.
- The instruments were all different*
- There was a rap performance in the song.


The only thing that was *similar was that both were written in 4/4 time with a sweep on the up beat, and the use of Bass, MOOG synth stabs and a cowbell - but you cannot copywrite an instrument or the way its played.


Sounding similar or evoking the spirit of another song is not an infringement of copywrite. If that were the case Bruno Mars would expect a lawsuit from Jimmy Jam & Terry Lewis for Uptown Funk because it sounds so similar to works they wrote for Morris Day & Time.

Every commercial on the radio / tv that uses that quickly, low budget produced background filler music that sort of sounds like that more popular song but not really would have to be yanked.

And let's not even get into Dubstep? 70% of that stuff all sounds the same. The producers use the same synths, filters, and fruity loop packages.

Finally, how about parody. Now how does one legally maneuver and create a parody song if almost all the critical elements of the original song are needed for a parody? Because it is infringing highly upon the original works.




I understand everyone wants to protect Gaye's legacy, but then again I would hope people are rational and judicious about these things.

Dollar's to doughnuts, if they file for an appeal - and with $7MM on the table plus future royalties and performance fees due Gaye's estate an appeal filing is all but a certainty - and the case is heard in bench trial before an Appellate Circuit Court judge, the case will be overturned or the amount of the award significantly reduced.
Click to expand...


Good post.
Bad judgment but that's what happens when you go to court.
 
2

210

Potential Star
Registered
Dhustla said:
I don't see the "infringement" :dunno:

And Blurred Lines ain't that good of a song, not to me
Click to expand...

Didn't like the song either.
It sounded like a Broadway Show Tune quite honestly.
And I'm not a big lover of Show Tunes.

Video was hot though. Good call on that.
 

Make a Contribution to Remove NSFW Ads
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top