It depends. In this case probably yes, inasmuch as the plaintiffs have to count the award as income, and Pharrell and Thicke had presumably counted more than $7 million combined as income from the song.
I disagree with the judgment, though. Rhythms and ‘feel’ are not plagiarism.
Yes, the verdict is bogus and due to the fact that Thicke isnt very popular and well I mean Marvin Gaye, right? But Gaye is long dead and this is just a money grab by his relatives.
Unless you’re being sarcastic, how are Thicke and Pharrel not popular? They are household names who are raking in millions.
Thicke was widely criticized for the Blurred Lines video and often for his attitude. Many artists can be personally unpopular but their music still sells.
Kanye West for example, and Chris Brown.
Thicke has had an enormous fall from public grace in the last 18 months or so. With the backlash to “Blurred Lines” (over its rapeyness, not any plagiarism) and the dismal performance of the follow-up album Paula, he’s way, way off where he was in 2013.
Pharrell is still huge.
Not true. Sampling is a hotly debated and deeply hated “form” of “music” in the industry these days.
Shockingly, that’s in fact what they did. The sheet music was identical.
Most people don’t bother suing.
If Robin Thicke sued Marvin Gaye, he’s an idiot and a douchebag. But that’s nothing new. This is a very rare lawsuit, decided by a jury, and therefore, may set precedent. Most cases are settled.
Listen to your lawyers, people.
An example of an “enormous fall from public grace” would be Bill Cosby, IMO. If stirring up some controversy with provocative lyrics constitutes being unpopular, then Madonna, Prince, Snoop Dog (Lion), and plenty of other big names have endured unpopularity too. But we know they really haven’t, and he hasn’t either.
Putting that aside, I doubt the criticism over Blurred Lines’ lyrics factored into this verdict, because it turned out to be flash in the pan issue. It’s possible most jurors hadn’t even known about that flak. What is much more likely is that Robin and Pharrell shot themselves in the foot by 1) preemptively suing the Gaye family, 2) admitting Gaye’s song influenced theirs, and 3) not being able to defend themselves when the plaintiff’s experts provided objective evidence that the songs were uncanny in their similiarity. Given all of this, why shouldn’t they lose?
With all the scorn regularly heaped upon artists who sample, it’s weird to see so many posters decrying this verdict.
I thought the Sam Smith - Stay With Me was a more blatant rip-off than the Blurred Lines song.
I know everyone claimed “honest mistake” in that case but how could they be recording that song and not a single person say “Hey, you know what, this sounds exactly like a slow version of Tom Petty’s Wont Back Down.”
I’m not even a Tom Petty fan nor own any of his albums, and I probably heard that Sam Smith song less than 5 times. But even I couldn’t help start singing the Won’t Back Down lyrics while that song plays.
“Ohwon’tyou… STAAAAAY WITH ME”
“OhnoI…WOOOOON’T BACK DOWN”
As a musician, and one who was involved in evidence for copyright disputes (indirectly) in the 1970’s, I don’t feel the song performances are similar enough to justify the court’s decision.
However, I wasn’t present during the trial and some evidence may have been introduced that isn’t obvious. I also seem to remember that “written” music was somehow a factor, and I don’t know what that was.
As far as the bass line similarity – yes, there is a similarity. Also in the percussion. Not so in the melody. But if the bass line similarity is the major factor, all of Bob Marley’s reggae songs are identical with all other reggae tunes.
So my knee-jerk reaction is this outcome is bullshit, but I haven’t examined all the evidence.
Fair enough, I probably overstated it by calling it an EFFPG. However, whether due to the controversy over “Blurred Lines,” the backlash over the ultra skeevy appearance with Miley Cyrus, or simply because it wasn’t very good, the follow album completely tanked. He went from the biggest-selling R&B singer in the world to a commercial non-factor. Completely different case from Madonna, Prince, or Snoop, where the controversy served to bring them more attention and sales.
If the sheet music was identical, then one (or possibly both) of the bands in question must be composed of horrible musicians, because the notes that got recorded are nowhere near identical. Similar (perhaps even identical; I didn’t listen *that *closely) in terms of chord progression, but not note-for-note the same.
It appears so. I started searching the BMI database for random Weird Al song titles.
For example, Coolio is the top-credited writer on “Amish Paradise.” All the writers of “Gangsta’s Paradise” including Stevie Wonder are also credited. Weird Al is only listed as “artist.”
Man, that Bach asshole better not let Vivaldi’s heirs know what a lousy thief he is, especially after Bach’s people received all those royalties from Dangerous Liaisons. 
Artists have been “copying”, to various extent, throughout history. Hell, I like Marvin Gaye and the similarities never struck me at all. I don’t understand the rationale behind this verdict one bit.
I’ll be interested to see how this ultimately settled on appeal.
I can’t stand Robin Thicke. But a case like this can have a far reaching impact on music. I keep hoping someday there will be a renewed interest in Motown and R&B. I’d love to see a new generation writing new music and performing it. That’s not going to happen if people get sued for infringing on that classic sound and style.
This case is quite troubling. Its just too broad and opens the door to constant lawsuits. R&B wasn’t created by Marvin Gaye. His heirs can’t hijack a style of music. Hundreds of artists developed R&B and Soul.
I fully support the principle, but I don’t think they copied the song. A bass line is not a song, and as others have noted, there are some very standard chord progressions in lots of songs. “My Sweet Lord” copied the melody, and I agree with the decision in that case, even though I think Robin Thicke isn’t a pimple on George Harrison’s butt.
I just saw that on the news last night. Before, I was objectively against the verdict. Now, I am viscerally involved – my stomach clenches at the idea of that woman getting $7M out of this.
Agree. Similar instrumentation and similar rhythm shouldn’t justify a claim.
If this decision stands, the estate of Bill Monroe needs to sue every bluegrass band ever.
This is incorrect. The songs are in different keys, tempos, the lyrics are not the same and do not have the same rhythm. They both use cowbell, and they both use ‘woots’.
The Washington Post has a decent write up on how terrible this decision is.
[QUOTE=Washington Post]
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?
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I prefer the Vox article to Washington Post’s shilling for Pharell Williams
Me too, especially this part:
And this part:
Can someone explain this (from the link above) to me?
“The family couldn’t play the recordings side-by-side in the trial because the judge worried that the performances of the songs might sway the jury.”