http://variety.com/2015/music/news/blur ... 201450117/The jury has reached a verdict in the “Blurred Lines” case against Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams, ordering them to pay $7.3 million to the family of Marvin Gaye for copyright infringement.
In the trial, Marvin Gaye’s family argued that 2013’s “Blurred Lines” copied their father’s 1977 song “Got to Give Up,” and sued Thicke, Williams and Clifford Harris Jr., a.k.a. T.I. The three had sought a jury determination that the song was not an infringement, and the Gaye family filed a countersuit.
“Right now, I feel free,” Marvin Gaye’s daughter, Nona Gaye, said after the verdict. “Free from … Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke’s chains and what they tried to keep on us and the lies that were told.”
“Blurred Lines” was a huge hit in 2013 and, by many measures, was the top song of the year. Since it was released, “Blurred Lines” has made nearly $16.5 million, with the Gaye heirs seeking a portion of the profits. Overall, the family sought more than $25 million. Gaye died in 1984.
Both Thicke and Williams appeared in court to defend their case, with much of the trial featuring comparisons to both songs. Listening to the juxtaposed bass lines of the two songs in question, Williams even admitted the similarities, saying “It sounds like you’re playing the same thing.”
Still, while testifying last week, Williams said the two songs share “feel — not infringement.”
The testimony was perhaps most notable for the presence of Thicke, who sang and played the piano as he defended the work as original and said he was intoxicated when he gave media interviews in which he talked about Gaye’s influence on the works. He also said that he was mistaken when he claimed credit for writing part of the song.
The eight-person jury closed its full day of closed-door deliberations on Friday after hearing a week of testimony, with court resuming on Tuesday.
Interested in nudging all your brains with this recent decision. As far as I can recall, I have never heard of a copyright infringement ruling as excessive as this one. I can understand why this particular case may have reached the scale that it did - the song was an incredibly huge hit worldwide. But how does this stand with other forms of music sampling? Should Bo Diddley be allowed to sue everyone who uses the "Bo Diddley" beat for an amount nearing 50% of the song's reported revenue?
Seems ridiculous to me. But so does the industry in general nowadays.
