Robin Thicke "Blurred Lines" (1 Viewer)

[rockaction]

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Oof. That's a tough verdict with a lot of precedential issues for the music industry. I would love to review some of the trial transcripts.

If you're interested apparently the plaintiffs (Thicke & Farrell) even got the judge to give them a favorable ruling on using just the sheet music filing instead of the whole song and all the key elements of it, which was essentially new law out of thin air and should have made it a lot tougher for the Gaye family to win. Even with a major handicap they pulled it off.

Right, thanks; I did know that (about the only substantive legal item I knew about the trial) and found it extremely interesting. (The Gaye estate representatives were the plaintiffs BTW, and Thicke and Williams the defendants, unless there was some sort of strange procedural quirk that reversed the posture.) I know the judge fairly well but I have no idea what went into that ruling. Could tee up a Ninth Circuit appeal, though. I sort of doubt that celebrities like Thicke and particularly Williams (whose rising star and "The Voice" gig are *really* tarnished by this verdict) are going to let this sit without appealing.

Thicke and Williams filed a DJ action, so they

were the plaintiffs and counter-defendants.

I'm surprised at the verdict, but this seems like the quintessential finding of fact that is nearly impossible to reverse on appeal.

Got it, thanks, as to the declaratory judgment.

I don't know everything that went into the decision to allow (essentially) a reproduction of the song to be used in court instead of the original for comparison purposes, but my point was that that's going to be grounds for appeal right there if Thicke and Williams want to drag things out further.

It's my understanding that the judge did limit the analysis to the sheet music, which was a ruling that favored Thicke and Williams. Can't really appeal based on the judge granting your own motion. If the argument is that earlier in the trial, the jury may have been allowed to listen to both songs and hear expert testimony based on that, that seems pretty typical for music copyright cases. Maybe they claim that the Gaye's expert testimony should have been stricken, but that strikes me as a Hail Mary.

I admit that this is a weird case. When I listen to Blurred Lines, I hear a bass line and cowbell, but it's a different bass line and different cowbell melody than Got to Give It Up. If the Ninth Circuit could decide substantial similarity de novo, I'm sure it would be reversed. But they can't.

 

[rockaction]

Oof. That's a tough verdict with a lot of precedential issues for the music industry. I would love to review some of the trial transcripts.

If you're interested apparently the plaintiffs (Thicke & Farrell) even got the judge to give them a favorable ruling on using just the sheet music filing instead of the whole song and all the key elements of it, which was essentially new law out of thin air and should have made it a lot tougher for the Gaye family to win. Even with a major handicap they pulled it off.

Right, thanks; I did know that (about the only substantive legal item I knew about the trial) and found it extremely interesting. (The Gaye estate representatives were the plaintiffs BTW, and Thicke and Williams the defendants, unless there was some sort of strange procedural quirk that reversed the posture.) I know the judge fairly well but I have no idea what went into that ruling. Could tee up a Ninth Circuit appeal, though. I sort of doubt that celebrities like Thicke and particularly Williams (whose rising star and "The Voice" gig are *really* tarnished by this verdict) are going to let this sit without appealing.

Thicke and Williams filed a DJ action, so they

were the plaintiffs and counter-defendants.

I'm surprised at the verdict, but this seems like the quintessential finding of fact that is nearly impossible to reverse on appeal.

Got it, thanks, as to the declaratory judgment.

I don't know everything that went into the decision to allow (essentially) a reproduction of the song to be used in court instead of the original for comparison purposes, but my point was that that's going to be grounds for appeal right there if Thicke and Williams want to drag things out further.

It's my understanding that the judge did limit the analysis to the sheet music, which was a ruling that favored Thicke and Williams. Can't really appeal based on the judge granting your own motion. If the argument is that earlier in the trial, the jury may have been allowed to listen to both songs and hear expert testimony based on that, that seems pretty typical for music copyright cases. Maybe they claim that the Gaye's expert testimony should have been stricken, but that strikes me as a Hail Mary.

I admit that this is a weird case. When I listen to Blurred Lines, I hear a bass line and cowbell, but it's a different bass line and different cowbell melody than Got to Give It Up. If the Ninth Circuit could decide substantial similarity de novo, I'm sure it would be reversed. But they can't.

Yeah, that's weird. I was under the impression from Music Law that the jury got to use their ear as opposed to limiting the analysis to sheet music. Interesting post.

 

[One]

The explicit version is an Amazing video. Great song too.

Sounds like a total rip-off of Marvin Gaye, but I don't really care where it came from. My wife and I have danced our asses off to it over the last few years. Brings back great memories for me.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

"A total and complete rip-off" - Jimmy Page

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Oof. That's a tough verdict with a lot of precedential issues for the music industry. I would love to review some of the trial transcripts.

If you're interested apparently the plaintiffs (Thicke & Farrell) even got the judge to give them a favorable ruling on using just the sheet music filing instead of the whole song and all the key elements of it, which was essentially new law out of thin air and should have made it a lot tougher for the Gaye family to win. Even with a major handicap they pulled it off.

Right, thanks; I did know that (about the only substantive legal item I knew about the trial) and found it extremely interesting. (The Gaye estate representatives were the plaintiffs BTW, and Thicke and Williams the defendants, unless there was some sort of strange procedural quirk that reversed the posture.) I know the judge fairly well but I have no idea what went into that ruling. Could tee up a Ninth Circuit appeal, though. I sort of doubt that celebrities like Thicke and particularly Williams (whose rising star and "The Voice" gig are *really* tarnished by this verdict) are going to let this sit without appealing.

Thicke and Williams filed a DJ action, so they

were the plaintiffs and counter-defendants.

I'm surprised at the verdict, but this seems like the quintessential finding of fact that is nearly impossible to reverse on appeal.

Got it, thanks, as to the declaratory judgment.

I don't know everything that went into the decision to allow (essentially) a reproduction of the song to be used in court instead of the original for comparison purposes, but my point was that that's going to be grounds for appeal right there if Thicke and Williams want to drag things out further.

It's my understanding that the judge did limit the analysis to the sheet music, which was a ruling that favored Thicke and Williams. Can't really appeal based on the judge granting your own motion. If the argument is that earlier in the trial, the jury may have been allowed to listen to both songs and hear expert testimony based on that, that seems pretty typical for music copyright cases. Maybe they claim that the Gaye's expert testimony should have been stricken, but that strikes me as a Hail Mary.

I admit that this is a weird case. When I listen to Blurred Lines, I hear a bass line and cowbell, but it's a different bass line and different cowbell melody than Got to Give It Up. If the Ninth Circuit could decide substantial similarity de novo, I'm sure it would be reversed. But they can't.

Yeah I'm just trying to imagine what 3 federal circuit court judges jamming out arguing over whether that's a C or C minor or if that's a cowbell or just another percussion, I don't think so.

 

[Koya]

Gaye Gaye Gaye!

 

[heckmanm]

I heard somewhere that you can copyright a melody but not a "beat". Is that true?

The underlying beat is almost identical, but the melodies are not similar at all. "Blurred Lines" almost sounds like a counter-melody to Gaye's song.

 

[Brony]

the music do make me moist

 

[Ditka Butkus]

They should be sued for making such a dumb ### song.

 

[Foosball God]

This is a slippery slope. Look at what happened when Vanilla Ice ripped off David Bowie/Queen. It set the music industry back for decades!!!

 

[Todd Andrews]

Music copyright infringement is very complicated--much much more complicated than visual or textual infringement cases. There are two tests a successful plaintiff must satisfy. This pre-verdict article breaks it down pretty clearly.

And remember that this verdict was only about the notes, etc., on paper, and not the sound recordings themselves, and that it was decided by a jury (think about that...). An interesting take on the verdict.

Definitely will be appealed.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This is a slippery slope. Look at what happened when Vanilla Ice ripped off David Bowie/Queen. It set the music industry back for decades!!!

Classic, I'm sure Thicke Jr. made similar noises on the stand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-1_9-z9rbY

 

[Mario Kart]

Does anyone think this is only about the $$$$?

If this song isn't a hit... does the Gaye estate sue?

 

[Koya]

Pay Pay Pay!

 

[xulf]

Does anyone think this is only about the $$$$?

If this song isn't a hit... does the Gaye estate sue?

Well, duh. Whats the point of suing if there is nothing to win?

 

[Major]

Huge step backward for music. Pharrell didnt sample Marvin Gaye's song...the snares/claps & woodblocks are all different.

 

[Fennis]

This is a slippery slope. Look at what happened when Vanilla Ice ripped off David Bowie/Queen. It set the music industry back for decades!!!

Classic, I'm sure Thicke Jr. made similar noises on the stand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-1_9-z9rbY

I love that clip. I like to play it on a loop

 

[DaVinci]

E'er'body pay up!

 

[Aerial Assault]

Oof. That's a tough verdict with a lot of precedential issues for the music industry. I would love to review some of the trial transcripts.

If you're interested apparently the plaintiffs (Thicke & Farrell) even got the judge to give them a favorable ruling on using just the sheet music filing instead of the whole song and all the key elements of it, which was essentially new law out of thin air and should have made it a lot tougher for the Gaye family to win. Even with a major handicap they pulled it off.

Right, thanks; I did know that (about the only substantive legal item I knew about the trial) and found it extremely interesting. (The Gaye estate representatives were the plaintiffs BTW, and Thicke and Williams the defendants, unless there was some sort of strange procedural quirk that reversed the posture.) I know the judge fairly well but I have no idea what went into that ruling. Could tee up a Ninth Circuit appeal, though. I sort of doubt that celebrities like Thicke and particularly Williams (whose rising star and "The Voice" gig are *really* tarnished by this verdict) are going to let this sit without appealing.

Thicke and Williams filed a DJ action, so they

were the plaintiffs and counter-defendants.

I'm surprised at the verdict, but this seems like the quintessential finding of fact that is nearly impossible to reverse on appeal.

Got it, thanks, as to the declaratory judgment.

I don't know everything that went into the decision to allow (essentially) a reproduction of the song to be used in court instead of the original for comparison purposes, but my point was that that's going to be grounds for appeal right there if Thicke and Williams want to drag things out further.

It's my understanding that the judge did limit the analysis to the sheet music, which was a ruling that favored Thicke and Williams. Can't really appeal based on the judge granting your own motion. If the argument is that earlier in the trial, the jury may have been allowed to listen to both songs and hear expert testimony based on that, that seems pretty typical for music copyright cases. Maybe they claim that the Gaye's expert testimony should have been stricken, but that strikes me as a Hail Mary.

I admit that this is a weird case. When I listen to Blurred Lines, I hear a bass line and cowbell, but it's a different bass line and different cowbell melody than Got to Give It Up. If the Ninth Circuit could decide substantial similarity de novo, I'm sure it would be reversed. But they can't.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. The judge instructed the jury to consider only the compositional elements, which made sense since the Gaye recording was *not* involved in the litigation, but having now (I never know how to post these things without giving away confidences), uh, PSYCHICALLY GUESSED SOME OF WHAT HAPPENED IN THE COURTROOM, it seems that liberties were taken with this during the course of the case. And that's a problem, because it looks like the jury has to have based its verdict on the Ninth Circuit's intrinsic similarity test, which relies on concept and feel. In other words, it's difficult to see how the jury based a verdict on intrinsic similarity when they were not allowed to consider the Gaye recording. Plenty of grounds for appeal here.

From a musical standpoint, I'm afraid that the similarities are pretty clear to me at least. The bass line is the most damning. But again, listening to the two recordings isn't a relevant test because that's not what was involved. Or at least it's not what was supposed to be involved.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Oof. That's a tough verdict with a lot of precedential issues for the music industry. I would love to review some of the trial transcripts.

If you're interested apparently the plaintiffs (Thicke & Farrell) even got the judge to give them a favorable ruling on using just the sheet music filing instead of the whole song and all the key elements of it, which was essentially new law out of thin air and should have made it a lot tougher for the Gaye family to win. Even with a major handicap they pulled it off.

Right, thanks; I did know that (about the only substantive legal item I knew about the trial) and found it extremely interesting. (The Gaye estate representatives were the plaintiffs BTW, and Thicke and Williams the defendants, unless there was some sort of strange procedural quirk that reversed the posture.) I know the judge fairly well but I have no idea what went into that ruling. Could tee up a Ninth Circuit appeal, though. I sort of doubt that celebrities like Thicke and particularly Williams (whose rising star and "The Voice" gig are *really* tarnished by this verdict) are going to let this sit without appealing.

Thicke and Williams filed a DJ action, so they

were the plaintiffs and counter-defendants.

I'm surprised at the verdict, but this seems like the quintessential finding of fact that is nearly impossible to reverse on appeal.

Got it, thanks, as to the declaratory judgment.

I don't know everything that went into the decision to allow (essentially) a reproduction of the song to be used in court instead of the original for comparison purposes, but my point was that that's going to be grounds for appeal right there if Thicke and Williams want to drag things out further.

It's my understanding that the judge did limit the analysis to the sheet music, which was a ruling that favored Thicke and Williams. Can't really appeal based on the judge granting your own motion. If the argument is that earlier in the trial, the jury may have been allowed to listen to both songs and hear expert testimony based on that, that seems pretty typical for music copyright cases. Maybe they claim that the Gaye's expert testimony should have been stricken, but that strikes me as a Hail Mary.

I admit that this is a weird case. When I listen to Blurred Lines, I hear a bass line and cowbell, but it's a different bass line and different cowbell melody than Got to Give It Up. If the Ninth Circuit could decide substantial similarity de novo, I'm sure it would be reversed. But they can't.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. The judge instructed the jury to consider only the compositional elements, which made sense since the Gaye recording was *not* involved in the litigation, but having now (I never know how to post these things without giving away confidences), uh, PSYCHICALLY GUESSED SOME OF WHAT HAPPENED IN THE COURTROOM, it seems that liberties were taken with this during the course of the case. And that's a problem, because it looks like the jury has to have based its verdict on the Ninth Circuit's intrinsic similarity test, which relies on concept and feel. In other words, it's difficult to see how the jury based a verdict on intrinsic similarity when they were not allowed to consider the Gaye recording. Plenty of grounds for appeal here.

From a musical standpoint, I'm afraid that the similarities are pretty clear to me at least. The bass line is the most damning. But again, listening to the two recordings isn't a relevant test because that's not what was involved. Or at least it's not what was supposed to be involved.

You are correct, for the subjective intrinsic test, the jury could/should have considered both recordings. And Pharrell/Thicke's lawyers made a big deal out of the fact that they didnt and instead listened to a simple recording of the composition without Gaye's vocals.

 

[TenTimes]

I've seen T.I. mentioned once throughout this whole thing, the official statement about setting music back was signed by all 3 of them.

 

[eoMMan]

Everybody get up!!!

 

[Major]

hey hey hey!

 

[Todd Andrews]

This helps explain why the decision will probably (IMO) be reversed on appeal.

 

[Aerial Assault]

This helps explain why the decision will probably (IMO) be reversed on appeal.

Good link, thanks. Yeah, that is a solid article with some good comments as well. As an IP lawyer who's also musical I find this verdict pretty fascinating (and am really ticked at myself for not following the trial while it was going on, in a courthouse where I regularly appear no less, before I judge whom I know decently well; dumb on my part). I think the songs are similar, but that's not the same thing as infringing, and there seems to be ample basis for appeal because were just a few too many irregularities for my taste in a music copyright case (perhaps spurred by the fact that they very, very rarely get to trial relative to TM and patent disputes or even other kinds of copyright cases).

The Ninth Circuit might read some public policy into its decision, too; the danger of a "chilling effect" on songwriters is very real and I can just imagine the amicus briefs that will be filed on this one.

One of the most interesting comments at the link says that there are only 88 keys on a piano. Well, yeah, and to take it a step further there are only twelve tones in the chromatic scale. Goethe said "Everything has been thought of before, but the problem is to think of it again," and IIRC one of the giants (Beethoven/Bach/Mozart) said virtually the same thing about music. (If anyone has that quote please post it.) I'm actually hoping they appeal just to read a really fascinating Ninth Circuit opinion if nothing else, but I also think some clarity would be good for the industry.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This helps explain why the decision will probably (IMO) be reversed on appeal.

Good link, thanks. Yeah, that is a solid article with some good comments as well. As an IP lawyer who's also musical I find this verdict pretty fascinating (and am really ticked at myself for not following the trial while it was going on, in a courthouse where I regularly appear no less, before I judge whom I know decently well; dumb on my part). I think the songs are similar, but that's not the same thing as infringing, and there seems to be ample basis for appeal because were just a few too many irregularities for my taste in a music copyright case (perhaps spurred by the fact that they very, very rarely get to trial relative to TM and patent disputes or even other kinds of copyright cases).

The Ninth Circuit might read some public policy into its decision, too; the danger of a "chilling effect" on songwriters is very real and I can just imagine the amicus briefs that will be filed on this one.

One of the most interesting comments at the link says that there are only 88 keys on a piano. Well, yeah, and to take it a step further there are only twelve tones in the chromatic scale. Goethe said "Everything has been thought of before, but the problem is to think of it again," and IIRC one of the giants (Beethoven/Bach/Mozart) said virtually the same thing about music. (If anyone has that quote please post it.) I'm actually hoping they appeal just to read a really fascinating Ninth Circuit opinion if nothing else, but I also think some clarity would be good for the industry.

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.

Problem is that they asked for that because they thought it would help them. I think the tough thing is that Thicke & Co. would be asking for the appellate court to reverse a finding pursuant to a rule of law that they, Thicke & Co., themselves requested. They essentially won every evidentiary and legal ruling they asked for. You have to hang your hat on something on an appeal, outside of something factual (largely off limits) and second bites at the apple ("ok never mind, actually we do want the music played...") what would that be?

 

[Aerial Assault]

This helps explain why the decision will probably (IMO) be reversed on appeal.

Good link, thanks. Yeah, that is a solid article with some good comments as well. As an IP lawyer who's also musical I find this verdict pretty fascinating (and am really ticked at myself for not following the trial while it was going on, in a courthouse where I regularly appear no less, before I judge whom I know decently well; dumb on my part). I think the songs are similar, but that's not the same thing as infringing, and there seems to be ample basis for appeal because were just a few too many irregularities for my taste in a music copyright case (perhaps spurred by the fact that they very, very rarely get to trial relative to TM and patent disputes or even other kinds of copyright cases).

The Ninth Circuit might read some public policy into its decision, too; the danger of a "chilling effect" on songwriters is very real and I can just imagine the amicus briefs that will be filed on this one.

One of the most interesting comments at the link says that there are only 88 keys on a piano. Well, yeah, and to take it a step further there are only twelve tones in the chromatic scale. Goethe said "Everything has been thought of before, but the problem is to think of it again," and IIRC one of the giants (Beethoven/Bach/Mozart) said virtually the same thing about music. (If anyone has that quote please post it.) I'm actually hoping they appeal just to read a really fascinating Ninth Circuit opinion if nothing else, but I also think some clarity would be good for the industry.

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.

Problem is that they asked for that because they thought it would help them. I think the tough thing is that Thicke & Co. would be asking for the appellate court to reverse a finding pursuant to a rule of law that they, Thicke & Co., themselves requested. They essentially won every evidentiary and legal ruling they asked for. You have to hang your hat on something on an appeal, outside of something factual (largely off limits) and second bites at the apple ("ok never mind, actually we do want the music played...") what would that be?

There's a lot of confusion about this (some of which I created in my first post in the thread), and just to be clear, that's the Washington Post writer you quoted just above, not me. What he cited won't be the basis of the appeal. I imagine that the basis for the appeal will be that the Gayes' expert supplied the jury with testimony based on elements of the recording, which could not be copyrighted at the time it was made and was thus not before the court. I assume the attorneys for Thicke/Williams/T.I. objected to that testimony, and if they did, there you go.

 

[Major]

But you're a good girl!!!  

 

[Major]

hey, hey, hey