Copyright for Musicians: Revisiting the Blurred Lines Copyright Case | Part 6/6 | Music Business
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ย. 2024
- Download Your Free Music Business Handbook Now: berkonl.in/3XR...
Earn Your Music Business Degree Online with Berklee: berkonl.in/2BJ...
After writing the hit song, “Blurred Lines,” songwriters Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams were sued by the family of the late Marvin Gaye, saying the song was too similar to Gaye’s song, “Got to Give it Up (Part I).” The judge in the case awarded the estate of Marvin Gaye $7.3 million. Copyright lawyer Dr. E. Michael Harrington, who was interviewed for the case and is currently involved in the appeal of the decision, says it was the worst example of a copyright infringement accusation that he’s ever seen. The only commonalities between the songs, Harrington argues, was the “feel” of both songs. Harrington further argues that there was no duplication of chord change, melodies, or rhythm, and there weren’t even any samples of “Got to Give it Up (Part I)” featured in “Blurred Lines.”
About E. Michael Harrington:
Dr. E. Michael Harrington is a professor in music copyright and intellectual property matters. He has lectured at many law schools, organizations, and music conferences throughout North America, including Harvard Law, George Washington University Law, Hollywood Bar Association, Texas Bar, Minnesota Bar, Houston Law Center, Brooklyn Law, BC Law, Loyola Law, NYU, McGill, Eastman, Emory, the Experience Music Project, Future of Music Coalition, Pop Montreal, and others. Michael has worked as a consultant and expert witness in hundreds of music copyright matters including efforts to return "We Shall Overcome" and "This Land Is Your Land" to the public domain, and has worked with director Steven Spielberg, producer Mark Burnett, the Dixie Chicks, Steve Perry, Busta Rhymes, Samsung, Keith Urban, HBO, T-Pain, T. I., Snoop Dogg, Collin Raye, Tupac Shakur, Lady Gaga, George Clinton, Mariah Carey, and others. He sits on the editorial board of the Journal of Popular Culture, advisory board of the Future of Music Coalition and the Creators Freedom Project, and is a member of Leadership Music. Michael has been interviewed by the New York Times, CNN, Bloomberg Law, Wall Street Journal, Time, Huffington Post, Billboard, USA Today, Rolling Stone, Money Magazine, Investor's Business Daily, People Magazine, Life Magazine, and Washington Post, in addition to BRAVO, PBS, ABC News, NBC's "Today Show," the Biography Channel, NPR, CBC and others. He teaches Music Business Capstone and Music Licensing courses at Berklee Online.
About Berklee Online:
Berklee Online is the continuing education division of Berklee College of Music, delivering online access to Berklee's acclaimed curriculum from anywhere in the world, offering online courses, certificate programs, and degree programs. Contact an Academic Advisor today:
1-866-BERKLEE (US)
1-617-747-2146 (international callers)
advisors@online.berklee.edu
/ berkleeonline
/ berkleeonline
/ berkleeonline
Copyright for Musicians: Revisiting the Blurred Lines Copyright Case | Part 6/6 | Q&A | Music Business | E. Michael Harrington | Berklee Online | Berklee College of Music
You are absolutely correct, it was a blown verdict. It's unfortunate for music that the Blurred Lines appeal upheld the original blown verdict of plagiarism. Having a doctorate in music theory and being a composer, I can state for certain there would be impossible to musically derived the melody and chords of "Blurred Lines" from Marvin Gaye's "Got to Give it Up," the melodies go in different directions, there isn't even a single phrase that is the same. It would be like saying that Dickens "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times" plagiarized Shakespeare's "To be or not to be." Utter nonsense. Stevie Wonder and other songwriters got it right when they said the songs are not the same.
These things should not even be decided by non-musician juries, they don't have the expertise to make reliably correct decisions. Such cases should be taken to musical expert panels working in connection with the justice system (like a medical board of examiners). Independent music theory professors and musicology professors would be qualified to assess whether there is actual plagiarism. I explained some of the Marvin Gaye case to professors in music theory and they rejected it on musical grounds, it was not a fair comparison of the two songs and alleged a degree of copying which really wasn't there. And everyone is influenced by those who came before them to a greater or lesser degree, that's normal to have stylistic similarities, so not fair to composers to punish them for that.
Ironically, Spirit lost a plagiarism suit to Led Zeppelin over "Taurus" and "Stairway to Heaven" and they had a much stronger case, but still they were not the same idea either. So that gave me hope that the courts weren't going to start punishing everyone where audible influence is present. The best hope for the Marvin Gaye family win is that it does not become a precedent, that it was a one-off blown verdict.
Really enjoyed taking his copyright law course through Berklee Online for my masters in music business. He teaches a lot of information slowly, and it's easy to follow. I think it would be great if there was a court that was designed specifically to handle music-related cases, run by musicologists and similar music-minded people. The Court of Arbitration for Sport is the basis for what I'm thinking; having qualified people discussing these topics is going to be key to getting some consistency in rulings, and helping artists create freely and not worry about their works not being protected.
100% correct, it's a dangerous verdict, aside the precedent around copying 'a feeling' that they made, it can influence musicians on their creativity. (Check the interview with Pharrell and Rick Rubin.)
Yes! There has to be something in the two works that we can point to objectively and observe whether they are the same. Mood, style, feel, etc, are subjective. Notes, on the other hand, are either the same or not. Lyrics either either the same or not.
The legal standard should be explicitly defined in such a way that anyone can look at the two works in question and point to the offending passages if they exist. If I'm not mistaken, though, the only way that will happen is through legislation.
I watched this group of videos and it was really cool !
Really unfortunate. The older artists' estates seem to be extra protective of "their" IP, and I guess Blurred Lines was just too lucrative a target to pass up.
calohtar Marvin Gaye's IP belongs to his family and if it were one dollar or a trillion his estate is entitled to it. How's that for privilege?
Thank you for these insights into the "Blurred Lines" case.
Thanks for the information, though I don't believe my scenario was covered. I've recorded (but not released as yet) a versions of 'Paradise City' by Guns n Roses. My song is called 'Paradise City Bitches (Slammin Tequila). In my chorus' I have used "Take me down, Oh take me down, Take me down to the paradise city where the grass is green and the girls are pretty". The chords are the same throughout the verses and chorus with me playing in most of the instrument parts , however the lyrics in the verses are entirely my own original lyrics. The 'feel' of the song is also entirely different. What would I need to do to release this recording if anything, please?
Forever in love, peace & abundance _()_
Could use some RX De-click on those mouth noises
Just pay the damn man bs they stole
He Clearly hasn't heard the extended version
I am a musician for 45 years. I also went to a music college and took copyright classes. I am not an attorney. I just listened to Marvin Gaye’s song and, I don’t think I ever heard it but it immediately reminded me of a recent song. I searched for the two songs in question and Pharrell’s song is near identical. I couldn’t tell where one ended and one began. This decision was right on the money. Sorry.
Youre right....it's a good ...rendition....mimic
So can every blues with the same groove need to pay up an older version, what about steady rock, or a bossa nova, or salsa beat. So many grooves are copied everywhere. Why is RnB protected?
Like
It’s a pretty obvious copy though to the listener.
Mahhhhvin Ghaaaaay. Boston Accent 101. But I’m happy because Blurred Lines is So Incredibly Dumb as a song, it deserved to be destroyed.
100% agree...have you seen Pharrell's depositions, he comes over as arrogant and entitled and also lacking in basic musical ability or the humility to admit that.
I made a video of the case and it includes actual footage of his depositions.
th-cam.com/video/HYgwAQmS5WE/w-d-xo.html
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣