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: 3, Interesting) by tnt118 on Friday March 13 2015, @05:58PM

    by tnt118 (3925) on Friday March 13 2015, @05:58PM (#157375)

    A lot of talk so far about the theory, but have any of you actually listened to the two songs in comparison?

    I've a musical background (although no significant formal training) and I'm really struggling to see how there is any comparison between the two songs. Seriously, the closest argument I could come with up with is they both have percussion. That's it. And that's what makes this so scary to me... that it's such a stretch but still found to be infringing... I can easily see why folks in the industry would be concerned. I've also read that the jury could not listen to the song but only compare the sheet music. That surely cannot be a reasonable way to decide on such a matter and cannot be representative of what the songs actually sound like.

    --
    I think I like it here.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Friday March 13 2015, @06:17PM

    by CirclesInSand (2899) on Friday March 13 2015, @06:17PM (#157387)

    How did you listen to the songs without violating copy law? Did you actually buy them? You have the right to remain silent. I suggest a "fair use" for "educational purposes" defense, but it's not 100%.

  • (Score: 2) by karmawhore on Friday March 13 2015, @07:15PM

    by karmawhore (1635) on Friday March 13 2015, @07:15PM (#157403)
    In this case, it's even more of a stretch, since Marvin Gaye only chose to copyright the lead sheet (think melody, chord progression, lyrics) -- and it's very difficult to understand how "Blurred Lines" infringes. I can kind of see how the percussion would sound similar to the average juror, but that shouldn't have been considered, since there was no copyright on that.
    --
    =kw= lurkin' to please
    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday March 15 2015, @07:57PM

      by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Sunday March 15 2015, @07:57PM (#158093) Homepage
      Marvin Gaye did not chose to copyright, Marvin Gaye was legally granted copyright the instant of creation of the work. And that copyright is over all the work, independent of what he may have registered copyright over. The damages that may be sought are different on registered versus non-registered copyrights, but that doesn't mean non-registered parts are not copyrighted.
      --
      I know I'm God, because every time I pray to him, I find I'm talking to myself.