Posted on 03/12/2015 4:09:25 AM PDT by 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?
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
All I can say is that if this race baiting keeps happening, it's not going to end well for that certain 13% of the country.
The jury didn’t listen to Marvin Gaye’s recording; they listened to a new recording based on the sheet music for the song that was submitted for the copyright claim.
Here is another example, using country music examples to illustrate how this is troubling...
They stole the hook from Marvin’s song. It wasn’t just a bridge line.
That being said, how does one create anything without repeating what has been done before? DO I think that they intentionally ripped Marvin’s hook, hard to say. HAve to be there when it was written and/or produced.
I am getting pretty old now, the first time I heard Blurred Lines on the radio I thought it was catchy. I never thought in my head, when the music started, oh this is Marvin Gaye. I did not make that association.
The judge said George Harrison subconsciously copied “”He’s so fine” and turned it into “My Sweet Lord.” It cost him about two million dollars.
But in that case it was almost a note for note rip-off. John Lennon even said so in his Playboy interview.
At one time CCR sued John Fogerty for writing a song that sounded like a CCR song ... written by John Fogerty.
I would think the laws should reflect that at some point widely distributed music has entered the public conscience and maybe the kids don’t get to sue for royalties 30 years after Dad dies.
I don’t know anything about Robin Thicke, but I’ve heard the pieces in question and yes it sounds similar, but I think that could be said about a lot of songs. The writer of the article goes onto compare it to a case involving sampling. When a hip hop artist samples a song, they are taking a piece of the exact song and putting it in their song. To me, that is wrong and the artist should be paying royalties to the people they sample. It’s like a writer that takes an exact passage of a book and puts it in his story without attribution.
Yep... his old record label sued him for a song that was on Centerfield. He actually went into court and took a guitar and played the two for the jury, showing them exactly how they were different.
A huge amount of pop hits are based on a 4-chord progression
Have you ever listened to Kid Rocks All Summer Long, Werewolves’ of London and Sweet home Alabama?
This is utter ridiculous. Surely, Thicke gleaned some inspiration, but to say he stole the song is a stretch.
Are they going to appeal the award at least?
I can give you several Country Songs out now that basically follow a D to Em to G back to D chord pattern that sound the same, but aren’t.
The Everly Bros also would follow up a hit tune with another tune that was similar.
Copyright was originally for a term under 20 years. (Statute of Anne IIRC) Now Big Media wants to lock up everything in the name of "Intellectual Rights"
Warner/Chappell (One of the biggest of the Big Media Music Rights holders) holds the rights to "Happy Birthday to You" and still tries to charge people for singing the song in a restaurant and the song was first published in 1893.
Our Constitution grants two 14 year terms. But Big Media paid Congress critters to extend that term to now over 70 years and in some cases well over 100 years. It needs to be repealed back to the original and defund these leeches and allow the works to fall in the public domain after the two 14 year terms.
Kid Rock was legal though because he paid for the privilege by clearing the samples and paying the fees to the Big Media leeches to use the melody/chord structure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.