Marvin Gaye/Robin Thicke - "Blurred Lines" Verdict

[pablow]

Blurred Lines and Pharrell Williams' Happy are Marvin Gaye ripoffs. The verdict for Gaye's family is justified. According to the linked Rolling Stone article they're going after Happy next. I wish them luck.

The defense lawyers argued that Robin Thicke, et el, were merely paying "homage" to Gaye and Blurred Lines just captured the "feel" of Gaye's song. What trash!

Happy is a straight up copy of Ain't That Peculiar. How do these idiots think they can get away with this.

As for the "paying homage" and "capturing the feel" arguments I thought of one example of this: Billy Joel's Uptown Girls pays homage and has the feel of a Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons hit without copying one. This argument is nonsense as applied to Blurred Lines and Happy.

This will be appealed to the ditzy 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. What do you think?

I'm actually pissed at the gall of Thicke, Williams, and the lawyers.

Rolling Stone

 

[Wahawk56]

How do you not clear samples?

 

[HawkEngineer]

So does Nickelback sue themselves since all of their music is the same? At first I just thought it was kind of BS but hadn't actually listened to the two side by side. The mashup in the linked article is pretty damning though. Same key, same pacing and unless they broke up the instrumentals it perfectly lines up. WOW! Sampling and taking ideas definitely happens but that mashup is not just getting inspired by someone elses work

 

[naturalmwa]

"Ain't that Peculiar" is a 50 year old song. At what point should it be legal to sample it? The original copyright length was just 14 years. At some point, it's important that patents and copyrights expire IMO.

 

[pablow]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:
"Ain't that Peculiar" is a 50 year old song. At what point should it be legal to sample it? The original copyright length was just 14 years. At some point, it's important that patents and copyrights expire IMO.

It's 70 years after the death of the author. Smokey Robinson wrote it and he's not dead.

"At some point, it's impotant that. . ." muscians write their own damn songs like Marvin and Smokey did. BTW there is plenty of great music in the public domain.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by pablow:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:
"Ain't that Peculiar" is a 50 year old song. At what point should it be legal to sample it? The original copyright length was just 14 years. At some point, it's important that patents and copyrights expire IMO.

It's 70 years after the death of the author. Smokey Robinson wrote it and he's not dead.

"At some point, it's impotant that. . ." muscians write their own damn songs like Marvin and Smokey did. BTW there is plenty of great music in the public domain.

When do you think a song or other work should enter the public domain?

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

The problem with copyright law is the fair use defense has no safe harbors. Fair use recognizes that other transformative works of copyrighted works benefit society. One of the fair use factors is essentially percentage of original used. The problem is there is no bright line. You can be sued for using 3 seconds of a 3 minute song. The Beach Boys' publisher threatened to sue Katy Perry for Snoop Dog's lyric "I really do wish they could all be California Girls." 1 sentence. Faulkner's estate sued Sony for 1 sentence in the movie Midnight in Paris: "The past is not dead. It's not even the past. You know who said that? Faulkner." The underlined portion is the only thing that was Faulkner's and copyrighted (actually, "It's not even past" is the actual quote.)

 

[TJ8869]

You can still sample. You just have to give the original artist credit for their work.and a cut of the profits.

I'm sort of torn on this particular case. I don't like seeing people ripoff previous work, but I also despise family members of long-dead artists milking their careers for all they can. Marvin Gaye has been dead for over 30 years. This judgment isn't going to do him any good. It's same thing with Hendrix's family. He's been dead almost 45 years and it seems like every 5 years his family dredges up a bunch of old unreleased songs to try and squeeze some more money out of Jimi's corpse.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[SF HAWKEYE]

Originally posted by FlickShagwell:
On one hand, I'm glad that Thicke has to suck it and cough up the cash for Marvin Gaye's family.

On the other, I don't like anything that makes it harder to sample, being a hip hop fan. The Beastie Boys' Paul's Boutique is literally there's no way it could be produced today with the laws being much stricter than they were 26 years ago.

While I'm of course opposed to out and out thievery (known in hip hop as biting), I fear this might infringe on an artists ability to create something truly memorable down the road. Something to consider.

I agree, Beastie Boys = my favorite band, Pauls Boutique = Top 3 for me, However when I saw they sued that company for stealing "Girls" It kind of pissed me off. The fact that they made so much money off ripping off other peoples work then they sue this toy mfg. for sampling Girls? Still love the album though.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

Originally posted by TJ8869:
You can still sample. You just have to give the original artist credit for their work.and a cut of the profits.



Posted from Rivals Mobile

The problem is a lot of time, you can't get a license when you ask -- the rights holder won't allow it because the potential licensee is not deemed worthy of a license. Then the potential licensee is left with the decision to risk going without a license and rely solely upon a fair use defense.

John Hughes was damn lucky the Beatles licensed twist and shout for Ferris Bueller. They originally said no.

 

[pablow]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by pablow:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:
"Ain't that Peculiar" is a 50 year old song. At what point should it be legal to sample it? The original copyright length was just 14 years. At some point, it's important that patents and copyrights expire IMO.

It's 70 years after the death of the author. Smokey Robinson wrote it and he's not dead.

"At some point, it's impotant that. . ." muscians write their own damn songs like Marvin and Smokey did. BTW there is plenty of great music in the public domain.

When do you think a song or other work should enter the public domain?

I could go with 80 years or more. I believe the copyright laws incourage and reward creativity. I'm in favor of them.

BTW, I've linked a public domain sheet music site. There's some great stuff there.

Petrucci Music - Public Domain

 

[pablow]

Originally posted by St. Louis Hawk:

The problem with copyright law is the fair use defense has no safe harbors. Fair use recognizes that other transformative works of copyrighted works benefit society. One of the fair use factors is essentially percentage of original used. The problem is there is no bright line. You can be sued for using 3 seconds of a 3 minute song. The Beach Boys' publisher threatened to sue Katy Perry for Snoop Dog's lyric "I really do wish they could all be California Girls." 1 sentence. Faulkner's estate sued Sony for 1 sentence in the movie Midnight in Paris: "The past is not dead. It's not even the past. You know who said that? Faulkner." The underlined portion is the only thing that was Faulkner's and copyrighted (actually, "It's not even past" is the actual quote.)

Good point. Can you lose your copyright by not suing? A remember a few years back when the University of Wisconsin sued (or threatened to sue) the Waukee School District over the "W" on Waukee High School's football helmet. I thought I read that Wisconsin felt compelled to do this over fear of losing enforcement rights.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by pablow:

I could go with 80 years or more. I believe the copyright laws incourage and reward creativity. I'm in favor of them.

BTW, I've linked a public domain sheet music site. There's some great stuff there.

I think copyright laws can do that and as originally conceived did do that. When you had exclusive control over your work for 14 years you were motivated to promote it and make it pay. You were also motivated to continue to create as your protections would run out in your life time and someone contemporary to you might show you up and do you better. What you describe is more a recipe for resting on your laurels and producing generational wealth. IMO excessive copyright protections lock out creativity. I mean your perscription would have us sampling music from 1935. I would argue there is reason to moderate that time period significantly.

 

[pablow]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by pablow:

I could go with 80 years or more. I believe the copyright laws incourage and reward creativity. I'm in favor of them.

BTW, I've linked a public domain sheet music site. There's some great stuff there.

I think copyright laws can do that and as originally conceived did do that. When you had exclusive control over your work for 14 years you were motivated to promote it and make it pay. You were also motivated to continue to create as your protections would run out in your life time and someone contemporary to you might show you up and do you better. What you describe is more a recipe for resting on your laurels and producing generational wealth. IMO excessive copyright protections lock out creativity. I mean your perscription would have us sampling music from 1935. I would argue there is reason to moderate that time period significantly.

Well I think the public is entitled to the entertainment of watching of the no-good heirs of famous artist suing and fighting among themselves for free money. That's what makes this country great.