Marvin Gaye's Relatives Prevail over Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke

finnbow

The Dude Abides
A federal jury found Tuesday that the 2013 hit song "Blurred Lines" infringed on the Marvin Gaye chart-topper "Got to Give It Up," awarding nearly $7.4 million to Gaye's children.
Jurors found against singer-songwriters Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke, but held harmless the record company and rapper T.I.
The verdict capped a trial that lasted more than a week and focused on the similarities between the song and the legendary soul singer's 1977 hit.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...s-copyright-trial-verdict-20150310-story.html

These cases are always interesting. All (or most) music is derivative, but there is a fuzzy line between that and copying.
 
I think Robin Thicke et al kind of took the song and made it their own. I'm not a lawyer though, so maybe I shouldn't comment.

Lee.
 
What's always puzzled me is sampling.
If you do the same thing in Literature it can be considered plagiarism.
 
Im a musician and I have to play both these songs in the clubs . I don't hear it . I had no idea that there was a lawsuit over this . Wow .
Rudy .
 
Mixed feelings and memories does this thread conjure. In little more than three weeks from today will be the 76th anniversary of Marvin's birth and -- one day earlier -- the 31st anniversary of his untimely and sudden death. What a day.
 
There are some similarities between the songs (cow bells and party chants) but I know Marvins song well and dont see the melodies being that similar.
Maybe Lady Gaga, Beyonce, Katy Perry, Rihana, and Sia should all be suing each other because I cant tell one from the other unless I'm told which is which. Same for all the current country artists.
 
I thought it was very obvious when I first heard Blurred Lines that it was Marvin's song...

That said, Marvin should be the only one who should get paid for it, not the sperm lucky offspring.
 
I liked "Blurred Lines", too, but I think Robin Thick is pretty much of a DICKE....Pharrell Williams, I'm pretty much Meh over..
 
So I guess Thicke et al had to "Give it up"... (sorry, couldn't resist)
 
Was it Picasso that said, "Good artists borrow from other artists. Great artists steal."?

Not that it that makes it right, but it does make you question who gets busted for it and who doesn't.
 
couple things from me..... i can't beleive that song generated 16 million dollars.... (crazy)

it is funny how some folks "hear it" and others do not.... the first time I heard it (some younger friends played it for me, they are in their 30's, I am in my EARLY 50's lol) - I immediately said it was Gaye ripoff... - they had no idea, and the song was not popular yet.... - its amazing what does and does not get caught.... I did not hear the Sam Smith / Tom Petty correlation..... (until the song was slowed down, and you realized Sam sings word for word every time Petty sings....) <<< but who ever figured that out was a serious detective... .lol.... ec
 
According to the news story on PBS Evening News Hour, the jury made this decision on the basis of using sheet music, they never listened to either piece during the trial. The question that occurred to me is: Could the members of the jury read music? And if not, would that be grounds for appeal?
 
To me, there is the similar rhythmic background, and it starts out harmonically in a similar manner. Melodically though, they are two very different songs. Some of the background riffs are similar though, melodically and rhythmically. Also in the beginning of "Blurred Lines" they say "Everybody get up" which is similiar to "Give it up", and echoes the overall theme of Gaye's song. Gaye also talks about a "sexy lady" and Thicke's song lays that concept on a little more - thickly (pun intended!), and with less class. Maybe the real meaning behind the title "Blurred Lines" is about the blurring of the lines between the two songs! The more I listen to Gaye's version, I can see where his family is coming from. Not to acknowledge that "Lines" didn't borrow from "Got To Give It Up" is at the very least, disingenuous. Overall, a tough call. Ultimately though IMO, while "Lines" certainly borrows, it does do something different, and melodically stands on its own. At the same time, Thicke either came close to the line, or just stepped over it.
 
According to the news story on PBS Evening News Hour, the jury made this decision on the basis of using sheet music, they never listened to either piece during the trial. The question that occurred to me is: Could the members of the jury read music? And if not, would that be grounds for appeal?

We don't know what they know. But you could make a case for laying the sheet music side by side or even one on top of the other and look for for how often they shared the same notes/chords. But then, how many formulaic pop song use the same chord sequences?
 
I am not a fan of either party's music, however by the same reasoning, shouldn't the Canadian group "Len" be getting sued too? The similarities between Steal My Sunshine and More More More by "Andrea True Connection" are just as striking, if not more so.

If anything, Blurred Lines reminds me of the cartoon show, Fat Albert as much as anything else. So do Thicke et al owe Bill Cosby a taste too?

In any case, I think the award is bogus.
 
Last edited:
People miss the point, its not about the song being the same note to note. Its about the soul of the song being stolen without credit. Same goes for ten tom petty sam smith case. Obviously there are differences, butbthe soul of the song was copied.

Now of course one can say then that any regeae song ever written is stolen from the previous one because they are all basically the same, but maybe for regeae or blues thats just expected.
 
Back
Top Bottom