It’s okay if you hate Robin Thicke. But the ‘Blurred Lines’ verdict is bad for pop music

Washington Post ^ | March 11 2015 | Chris Richards

[iowamark]

Will Madonna sue Lady Gaga? Will George Clinton sue OutKast?

These idiotic questions became frighteningly legitimate after a jury ruled that Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams committed copyright infringement. The jurors decided that yes, Thicke’s 2013 chart-topping single “Blurred Lines” had copied elements of Marvin Gaye’s 1977 hit “Got to Give It Up,” and awarded Gaye’s family a walloping $7.4 million. The titles of the two songs in question could not have been more fitting.

But it was the lack of detail on exactly which elements were copied that prompted a hard-swallow...

The jury was instructed to make its ruling based on written melodies, chords and lyrics, not the sounds of the respective recordings. If that’s the case, how these eight jurors arrived at their verdict is incomprehensible. Yes, “Blurred Lines” approximates the rhythm and timbre of “Got to Give It Up,” but is that theft?

Both songs have cowbell-ish percussion that plunkity-plunks at a similar tempo, but the patterns are different. Both songs have rich, teasing basslines, but the notes and rhythms of each are dissimilar...

Sure, both recordings are filled with background chatter, as if they were cut at a party. And in direct homage, “Blurred Lines” is littered with steam-whistle WOO!s — one of Gaye’s vocal trademarks.

But while “Blurred Lines” might lack imagination, Thicke and Williams ultimately only seem guilty of stealing a vibe.

And if vibes are now considered intellectual property, let us swiftly prepare for every idiom of popular music to go crashing into juridical oblivion. Because music is a continuum of ungovernable hybridity, a dialogue between generations where the aesthetic inheritance gets handed down and passed around in every direction. To try and adjudicate influence seems as impossible as it does insane. Is that the precedent being set here?

[RansomOttawa]

The real important question is, where does this legally leave Weird Al Yankovic's parody of Blurred Lines, Word Crimes?

Yankovic obtains permission from the artists he parodies—it's his way of being a good neighbour, so to speak—but legally he doesn't have to, as parody is protected under the Fair Use doctrine.

[discostu]

CCR didn’t sue him, Geffen Records, who had bought Fantasy the company that owned the CCR catalog did. Geffen also sued Neil Young for making unpopular music. Luckily Geffen lost both.

[Pan_Yan]

You are correct.

[Mad Dawgg]

"If Skynard owns it, then wouldn't Rock pay directly to them and not big media?"

See this is the deal, which rights? Publishing Song Writer Mechanical?

it is doubtful Skynard holds the Mechanical Rights to the works unless they bought them outright early on. This is how Big Media makes Billions. Unless Skynard signed an exceptionally bad record deal early they (the actual song writers) probably hold the song writer music and lyrics rights but usually not the publishing rights and it is very rare for the band/artist to hold the mechanical rights. See that is why there is such a scramble now to keep increasing the term on the copyrights because Today's Artists don't need to give up the publishing and mechanical rights to Big Media to get a recording produced so Big Media is continually lobbying congress to extend the term even further because Big Media's business model is disintegrating due to the digital revolution that put all the tools AND distribution into the hands of the actual music makers, the artists/bands.

[Mad Dawgg]

"He did right by both of those artists, unlike many other musicians do. BTW, could Skynard have sued Zevon since the beat, tempo, and I believe bass line in "Werewolves" were the same?"

Only if he claimed it as a NEW recording which he didn't he took the melody hook of both recordings and paid the piper for doing so. Basically he did a medley of the music and then added new lyrics. BUT he also Sampled with permission.

Medley is sort of an exception to the rule that you can't alter the original written composition extensively which is not kosher. You can change the structure but not alter the melody and you can add some words etc. without permission IF it is not Medley. Its a grey area but you sorta got to stick with what the original is without changing it greatly. Or you open yourself up to legal challenge, but medley gives you wider latitude by allowing you to add melody and words and change the structure a good bit.

Here is a classic example of a new medley recording: Stars on 45 New Lyrics and melody with a medley of songs.

If Kid had not used both songs it is doubtful he could've added in the unique part of the recording new lyrics and melody though adding samples clouds that issue greatly. Sampling changed the whole recording industry because BIG MEDIA spent big dollars to get total control of mechanical rights.

Which is totally opposite of what the Song Writer rights are because they have a claim to be paid but they can't say no. Mechanical rights allow you total control over a mechanical recording.

[Yardstick]

Yep, Run Through the Jungle and Old Man Down the Road:

http://www.soundsjustlike.com/1848/john-fogerty-sounds-like-creedence-clearwater-revival/

[nikos1121]

Then why has he refused to join them in any revival concerts?

[minnesota_bound]

Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams are sleazy karaoke singers.

[rhoda_penmark]

Because he already tours on his own and plays his songs that he wrote and he owns the rights to by himself.