Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Friday March 13 2015, @03:48PM   Printer-friendly
from the let's-get-it-on dept.

The Washington Post reports that the $7.4 million verdict that Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke copied Marvin Gaye’s music to create their hit song “Blurred Lines” could ripple across the music industry, potentially changing how artists work and opening the door to new copyright claims. Howard King, lead attorney for Thicke and Williams, said 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 artists. 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,” says Glen Rothstein, an intellectual property attorney. King says record labels are going to become more reluctant to release music that’s similar to other works—an assertion disputed by Richard Busch, the lead attorney for the Gaye family. “While Mr. Williams's 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,” says Busch. “The music industry will go on.”

Music copyright trials are rare, but allegations that a song copies another artist’s work are common. Singers Sam Smith and Tom Petty recently reached an agreement that conferred songwriting credit to Petty on Smith’s song, “Stay With Me,” which resembled Petty’s hit “I Won’t Back Down.” Other music copyright cases include Former Beatle George Harrison's 1970 solo song "My Sweet Lord" which had a melody heavy with echoes of "He's So Fine," the 1962 hit from The Chiffons. The copyright owner sued Harrison. A judge said that while the tunes were nearly identical, Harrison was guilty only of "subconscious plagiarism." Harrison would eventually pay out $587,000. Probably the most bizarre case of musical infringement was when John Fogerty was accused of stealing from John Fogerty. The Creedence Clearwater Revival frontman was sued for his 1985 solo song "The Old Man Down the Road" because his former label thought it sounded too much like the 1970 Fogerty-penned "Run Through the Jungle," a song it owned the rights to.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by M. Baranczak on Friday March 13 2015, @04:57PM

    by M. Baranczak (1673) on Friday March 13 2015, @04:57PM (#157353)

    Old: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdnyrnLXFhg [youtube.com]
    New: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyDUC1LUXSU [youtube.com]

    Bad musicians borrow, great musicians steal. Thicke and Williams sure as hell aren't great musicians. The difference is, whether you can take an old tune and add something worthwhile to it.

    But courts really aren't equipped to be making these kind of judgements, so yeah, the fact that this ended up in court is bad for music.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Underrated=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 13 2015, @05:33PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 13 2015, @05:33PM (#157365)

    But wait! Without this kind of valuable protection, what incentive would Marvin Gaye have to produce any new music? I look forward to hearing a new release from him any day now.

  • (Score: 2) by M. Baranczak on Friday March 13 2015, @06:02PM

    by M. Baranczak (1673) on Friday March 13 2015, @06:02PM (#157377)

    The only fair solution to this case would be to take the $7.4 mil and redistribute it to some worthy charities. Nobody who's involved in the case deserves that money. Not the lawyers. Not the record labels. Not the Gaye family - they already made enough money off Marvin's work. Certainly not Thicke and Williams. While we're at it, I would sentence each of those two to a kick in the balls - just to restore an illusion of karmic balance to the universe.

  • (Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Friday March 13 2015, @08:02PM

    by Nerdfest (80) on Friday March 13 2015, @08:02PM (#157424)

    Looks like more trouble coming [youtube.com].

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by RamiK on Friday March 13 2015, @10:06PM

    by RamiK (1813) on Friday March 13 2015, @10:06PM (#157523)

    "Got to give it up" is a song from the 70s from Marvin Gaye while "Blurred Lines" is an almost identically sounding song from 2013. If it was plagiarism from a living contemporary artist then it would have made sense for the law to intervene for the sake of public interest in providing protections for artist wishing to make a living off their work.

    However, Gaye died in 84 so who exactly are we protecting here? The law should at most require giving credits where credits due - like, say, an honorable mention in the track listings - and not much else.

    --
    compiling...