海角大神

Why the 'Blurred Lines' $7.4 million verdict sets a new creative standard

A jury awarded the family of Marvin Gaye nearly $7.4 million in damages after deciding that Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke were guilty of copyright infringement of Mr. Gaye鈥檚 鈥淕ot to Give It Up.鈥 The verdict sends a clear message to recording artists to be careful what they sing.

|
Phil McCarten/Reuters/File
Pharrell Williams (L), Robin Thicke and T.I. perform at the Clive Davis Pre-Grammy Gala and Salute to Industry Icons, honoring Universal Music Group Chairman and CEO Lucian Grainge, in Beverly Hills, California in this January 25, 2014 file photo. Williams and Thicke were found liable for copyright infringement in a lawsuit accusing them of plagiarizing the late soul singer Marvin Gaye in their hit single "Blurred Lines" on March 10.

The music industry is reeling.

On Tuesday, a Los Angeles jury awarded Marvin Gaye鈥檚 estate nearly $7.4 million in damages after deciding that Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke copied the late singer鈥檚 music in composing their 2013 hit, 鈥淏lurred Lines,鈥 according to reports.

Mr. Gaye鈥檚 family had filed a suit claiming the artists had ripped off their father鈥檚 1977 song, 鈥.鈥

The case was unusual because of the large damages awarded and the fact that it reached a jury at all. The verdict could also have an impact on the modern music industry, sending a clear message to recording artists to be careful what they choose to write and sing 聽鈥 a potentially difficult mandate for even the most innovative songwriters and composers who are often influenced by other musicians.

Accusations of plagiarism, and corresponding demands for credit or royalties, are common occurrences in the music business, .

Such cases are often settled quickly and quietly, 鈥渨ith financially successful defendants doling out basically extorted payoffs to potential plaintiffs rather than facing expensive, protracted and embarrassing litigation,鈥 Charles Cronin, a lecturer at the Gould School of Law at the University of Southern California who specializes in music copyright, told the Times.

The 鈥楤lurred Lines鈥 case not only went to a jury, it also called to question Mr. Williams and Mr. Thicke鈥檚 credibility as artists.

As : 鈥淭he Gayes鈥 lawyer branded Williams and Thicke liars who went beyond trying to emulate the sound of Gaye鈥檚 late-1970s music and copied the R&B legend鈥檚 hit 鈥楪ot to Give It Up鈥 outright.鈥

The trial also involved multiple analyses of the two songs via musicologists鈥 testimonies. The presiding judge ruled, however, that the eight jurors were to compare the songs based only on their core elements, and were only allowed to listen to 鈥淕ot to Give It Up鈥 in snippets.

The guilty verdict could have an impact on music鈥檚 long legacy of borrowing from older tracks.

鈥淭he entire history of popular music has, in large part, been driven by songs that evoke other songs,鈥 . 鈥淚t seems counterintuitive, but creative copying often accompanies innovation.鈥

Mr. Kornhaber remarked that rock music was born on the strings of celebrated musician Bo Diddley鈥檚 guitar 鈥 and indeed, 聽in their obituary for him聽that Mr. Diddley鈥檚 syncopated beat has been a staple for rock n鈥 roll songs through the decades, from Buddy Holly鈥檚 鈥淣ot Fade Away鈥 to U2鈥檚 鈥淒esire.鈥 聽

Hip-hop as a genre has also 鈥減roudly thrived on borrowed sounds and vibes, and has clashed with the courts over the years because of sampling,鈥 Kornhaber wrote.

Soul legend James Brown, for instance, , according to the website , which tracks sampled music, cover songs, and remixes through the decades.

Beside鈥檚 1982 hit, 鈥淐hange the Beat鈥 also influenced more than 1,500 songs by everyone from Slick Rick to Justin Bieber, making it , the same site found.

Some experts speculated that the 鈥楤lurred Lines鈥 verdict could change that tradition.

鈥淚t will cause people who want to want to evoke the past to perhaps refrain from doing so,鈥 Lawrence Iser, a Los Angeles-based intellectual property lawyer, told the Times. 鈥淩ather than helping to progress the arts, it is a step backward.鈥

鈥淭oday's jury verdict has blurred the lines between protectable elements of a musical composition and the unprotectable musical style or groove exemplified by Marvin Gaye," Mr. Iser added, according to The Associated Press. 鈥淎lthough Gaye was the Prince of Soul, he didn't own a copyright to the genre.鈥

Thicke鈥檚 representative said about as much after the jury made its decision.

"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,鈥 he said in a statement, according to the AP.

Gaye鈥檚 daughter, Nona, reportedly wept as the verdict was read.

"Right now, I feel free," Ms. Gaye said. 鈥淔ree from鈥 Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke's chains and what they tried to keep on us and the lies that were told."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
海角大神 was founded in 1908 to lift the standard of journalism and uplift humanity. We aim to 鈥渟peak the truth in love.鈥 Our goal is not to tell you what to think, but to give you the essential knowledge and understanding to come to your own intelligent conclusions. Join us in this mission by subscribing.
QR Code to Why the 'Blurred Lines' $7.4 million verdict sets a new creative standard
Read this article in
/The-Culture/Music/2015/0311/Why-the-Blurred-Lines-7.4-million-verdict-sets-a-new-creative-standard
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
/subscribe