A federal jury found that Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams lifted "Blurred Lines" from Marvin Gaye
68 replies, posted
[QUOTE]The "Blurred Lines" trial brought a blurred verdict — but it was very clearly in favor of the Marvin Gaye family, to the distinctive tune of $7.4 million.
A federal jury on Tuesday found that Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams lifted "Blurred Lines" from Gaye's 1977 hit "Got to Give It Up" — but that they didn't necessarily do it on purpose. The cash, which is $4 million in damages, plus $1.6 million in profits from Williams and $1.7 million from Thicke, will go to Gaye’s children Nona, Frankie and Marvin III, pending a possible appeal.
Though "Blurred Lines" was played several times throughout the trial, the jury was never allowed to hear "Got to Give It Up," since copyright law only protected its underlying sheet music when it was recorded in 1976. But the plaintiffs prevailed anyway, as the jury was convinced that "Blurred Lines" had enough of the underlying structure of the song in common to grant the award.
Source:
[url]http://mashable.com/2015/03/10/blurred-lines-trial-verdict/[/url][/QUOTE]
What the hell does this all mean?
you can't make a song if it's sorta like another?
I'm lost
[quote]"the jury was never allowed to hear "Got to Give It Up,""[/quote]
I'd like to see how the plaintiff pulled off the case still
Well, I guess we know they didn't want [I]that[/I].
Didn't T.I. perform in this song too? Why is he not in this?
The song was totally asking to get lifted, walking around with a melody like that.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;47298033]The song was totally asking to get lifted, walking around with a melody like that.[/QUOTE]
this is victim blaming and this is wrong
the song should be able to walk around like that and not be lifted
the song isn't the one to blame here
yeah, then go and sue harry gregson williams and the composer of the main theme of deus ex too
[video=youtube;8JL4JXEv-RY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JL4JXEv-RY[/video]
[editline]11th March 2015[/editline]
in fact sue the copyright holders of nirvana's music because they stole the riff from the killing joke
etc
[quote]"the jury was never allowed to hear "Got to Give It Up,""[/quote]
How in the fuck were they supposed to make an informed decision then?
This sounds like a fucking sham.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;47298257]How in the fuck were they supposed to make an informed decision then?
This sounds like a fucking sham.[/QUOTE]
yeah its marvin gaye's producers who wanted money, nothing else to this
they barely sound similar
the drum rhythm seems to be the only thing that *barely* matches up
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;47298257]How in the fuck were they supposed to make an informed decision then?
This sounds like a fucking sham.[/QUOTE]
How dare you ask a lift victim to relive their trauma in court
[QUOTE=code_gs;47297935]I'd like to see how the plaintiff pulled off the case still[/QUOTE]
Nice partial quote:
[QUOTE]Though the jury was never allowed to hear the entirety of "Got to Give It Up," since copyright law only protected its underlying sheet music when it was recorded in 1976. [/QUOTE]
"Entirety"
[QUOTE=deadoon;47298654]Nice partial quote:
"Entirety"[/QUOTE]
Read the OP.
[quote]Though "Blurred Lines" was played several times throughout the trial, [b]the jury was never allowed to hear "Got to Give It Up,"[/b] since copyright law only protected its underlying sheet music when it was recorded in 1976.[/quote]
[editline]oh hamburgers[/editline]
I know the article is different, just pointing out that people are getting that from the edited version in the thread.
I guess when it comes to this sort of legal situation, there are a lot of... blurred lines
I do wonder how easy it is to sue over these things though.
[QUOTE=Paramud;47298747]Read the OP.
[editline]oh hamburgers[/editline]
I know the article is different, just pointing out that people are getting that from the edited version in the thread.[/QUOTE]
Oh, I tend to ignore the quoted section and read the article, there has been too many cases of people editing the OP.
[QUOTE=J!NX;47297924]What the hell does this all mean?
you can't make a song if it's sorta like another?
I'm lost[/QUOTE]
Yeah musicians get in trouble for copying songs all the time, were people not aware of this?
God this is the fucking stupidest bullshit.
[QUOTE=smurfy;47298987]Yeah musicians get in trouble for copying songs all the time, were people not aware of this?[/QUOTE]
Yeah but, how badly was this copied? outright or just inspired/based off it?
of course if it was just explicitly and blatantly copied then screw these guys
but if it was just based off it, inspired, or accidentally sounds like it, that's worrying
[QUOTE=smurfy;47298987]Yeah musicians get in trouble for copying songs all the time, were people not aware of this?[/QUOTE]
seems you only get in trouble for copying a few words from an old song after your song makes a lot of money. soon there will be no way for you to have a song original to this guys standards
Pharrell copied "If you're happy and you know it clap your hands" and just called it "Happy" yet I don't see anybody going after him for that.
[QUOTE=J!NX;47299041]Yeah but, how badly was this copied? outright or just inspired/based off it?
of course if it was just explicitly and blatantly copied then screw these guys
but if it was just based off it, inspired, or accidentally sounds like it, that's worrying[/QUOTE]
It's a similar bassline and the percussion is spot on.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziz9HW2ZmmY[/media]
Regardless it's Marvin Gaye's intellectual property. Sampling and taking parts of songs is okay and people have been doing it since forever, but not paying your royalties isn't cool. This doesn't mean that the creators behind Blurred Lines are unoriginal though.
[QUOTE=Map in a box;47299085]seems you only get in trouble for copying a few words from an old song after your song makes a lot of money. soon there will be no way for you to have a song original to this guys standards[/QUOTE]
This happens to small producers all the time, the fact this is a huge song that didn't pay royalties is why it's getting attention. Even though the jury couldn't listen to Marvin Gaye's song, this case has been going on since 2013.
[QUOTE=Silentfood;47299321]It's a similar bassline and the percussion is spot on.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziz9HW2ZmmY[/media]
Regardless it's Marvin Gaye's intellectual property. Sampling and taking parts of songs is okay and people have been doing it since forever, but not paying your royalties isn't cool. This doesn't mean that the creators behind Blurred Lines are unoriginal though.
This happens to small producers all the time, the fact this is a huge song that didn't pay royalties is why it's getting attention. Even though the jury couldn't listen to Marvin Gaye's song, this case has been going on since 2013.[/QUOTE]
That video thumbnail is disturbing.
It sounds almost identical, in the drums, to me. I read that the jury did get to see the sheet music. That should be just as good as listening to the recording, since seeing the visual similarities is just using a different way of understanding the structure of the music. Also, the jury didn't rule they intentionally did it. So it's not that they're thieves, just that what they came up with is so similar that they need to pay for it.
I'm sorry, but a simple percussion beat like that + a bass is now plagiarism?
It's different enough to be it's own song. I'd still say it's inspiration, or at the very most light plagiarism, but either way it's different enough.
As much as I think Thicke is the Thickest cunt to ever exist, I don't see how this warrants a payout like that.
tbh if we sued musicians based on what inspired them music wise to make a partiular song, or if they merely based it on another song, every musician that's ever existed ever would be homeless
I don't get music plagiarism. Lets say someone makes a song which is pretty good, but not the best. You have the skills to make it better. Yet, if you do, you get sued for copyright? How does that make sense. You're delivering a better product to consumers... You're delivering it later, so the original artist also got paid for their work over months of exclusive sales before your song comes out.
Can't say i have any sympathy for robin, don't touch the greats. But yeah there is slight notice between the two.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.