"now, normally I don't do this" (remix to Ignition)




nah, y'all will love the dissents and T.I. got cleared this time around


https://www.spin.com/2018/03/blurred-lines-copyright-verdict-appeals-court-marvin-gaye/

NEWS \

“Blurred Lines” Copyright Verdict Upheld by Appeals Court in Favor of Marvin Gaye’s Family

Eriq Gardner, The Hollywood Reporter // March 21, 2018


A jury’s 2015 verdict punishing Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams for infringing Marvin Gaye’s “Got to Give It Up” to create the international chart-topper “Blurred Lines” was a controversial one in the musical community, with some believing that the $5.3 million judgment would chill musical creativity. But Wednesday, a divided panel at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals largely affirmed the verdict in a lengthy decision that provides a huge win for Gaye’s family.

The majority opinion from Circuit Judge Milan D. Smith Jr. rejects the Thicke camp’s argument that Gaye’s copyright is only entitled to “thin” protection, commenting, “Musical compositions are not confined to a narrow range of expression.”

Smith looks at the 1909 Copyright Act, which was the law until the mid-1970s and didn’t protect sound recordings. “Got to Give It Up” was one of the last songs created before the law was amended, and as such, the trial judge decided that only the sheet music deposited with the U.S. Copyright Office was entitled to protection. The 9th Circuit, however, decides not to resolve the question of whether the scope of Gaye’s copyrights was limited to the sheet music.

Nor will the appeals court disrupt the trial judge’s decision not to allow the jury to hear the actual sound recording with cowbells and party noises. Additionally, the appeals court affirms the trial judge’s discretion in allowing testimony from Gaye’s music experts, which the defendants asserted illegitimately incorporated opinions about the similarity of the sound recordings.

Ultimately, the majority opinion (read here) states that the verdict wasn’t against the clear weight of evidence and won’t disturb fact-finding at trial and second-guess the jury. The affirmation of what happened three years ago is on narrow grounds.
“We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Thicke Parties’ motion for a new trial,” writes Smith.

A good part of the appellate discussion is directed at damages where the jury awarded 50 percent of publishing revenue for “Blurred Lines” as actual damages. That amounted to nearly $3.2 million and the appeals court says that testimony from an expert regarding this wasn’t speculative. Additionally, the trial judge and jury awarded profits in the amount of $1.8 million against Thicke and $357K against Williams, and the conclusion by the 9th Circuit is that the award wasn’t clearly erroneous. The Gayes also will be able to get a running royalty rate of 50 percent.

Where the appeals court differs from the trial court’s judgment is with respect to some of the lesser players, including rapper T.I (aka Clifford Harris Jr.), who was cleared by a jury before being punished by U.S. District Judge John Kronstadt.

“Harris and the Interscope Parties contend that the district court erred in overturning the jury’s general verdicts finding in their favor,” writes Smith. “We agree. First, the Gayes waived any challenge to the consistency of the jury’s general verdicts. Second, even had the Gayes preserved their challenge, neither Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) nor our decisions in Westinghouse and El-Hakem v. BJY Inc., conferred authority on the district court to upset the jury’s verdicts in this case. Third, as to Harris specifically, the district court erred for the additional reason that no evidence showed Harris was vicariously liable.”

Thus, T.I. gets a win today.

The decision offered a sharp dissent from Judge Jacqueline Nguyen and a rebuttal from Smith and Judge Mary Murguia.
Nguyen blasts the outcome.

“The majority allows the Gayes to accomplish what no one has before: copyright a musical style,” she writes. “‘Blurred Lines’ and ‘Got to Give It Up’ are not objectively similar. They differ in melody, harmony, and rhythm. Yet by refusing to compare the two works, the majority establishes a dangerous precedent that strikes a devastating blow to future musicians and composers everywhere.”
She continues by addressing the experts.

“While juries are entitled to rely on properly supported expert opinion in determining substantial similarity, experts must be able to articulate facts upon which their conclusions — and thus the jury’s findings — logically rely,” states the dissent. “Here, the Gayes’ expert, musicologist Judith Finell, cherry-picked brief snippets to opine that a ‘constellation’ of individually unprotectable elements in both pieces of music made them substantially similar. That might be reasonable if the two constellations bore any resemblance. But Big and Little Dipper they are not. The only similarity between these ‘constellations’ is that they’re both compositions of stars.”

Nguyen then runs through guiding principles for copyright law — that expressions are protected but ideas are not, and how this gets applied under the intrinsic and extrinsic tests used to measure similarity.

“The majority begins its analysis by suggesting that the Gayes enjoy broad copyright protection because, as a category, ‘(m)usical compositions are not confined to a narrow range of expression,'” she writes. “But the majority then contrasts this protected category as a whole with specific applications of other protected categories — the ‘page-shaped computer desktop icon’ in Apple Computer (an audiovisual work) and the ‘glass-in-glass jellyfish sculpture’ in Satava (a pictorial, graphic, and sculptural work) — that were entitled only to thin copyright protection due to the limited number of ways in which they could be expressed. That’s a false comparison. Under the majority’s reasoning, the copyrights in the desktop icon and glass jellyfish should have been broad. Like musical compositions, both audiovisual works and pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works can be expressed in myriad ways.”

The dissenting judge thinks the majority should explain which elements of “Got to Give It Up” were protectable and doesn’t think that just because Gaye’s song was widely available, there was a lesser burden to show similarity.

This all picks a fight with Smith and her colleague about procedure given the case is being reviewed de novo (basically with fresh eyes) but without particular trial motions the majority feels are necessary.

“The dissent’s position violates every controlling procedural rule involved in this case,” states the majority opinion. “The dissent improperly tries, after a full jury trial has concluded, to act as judge, jury, and executioner, but there is no there there, and the attempt fails.”

Essentially, Smith thinks the appeals court is handcuffed from doing much about what the jury found after resolving factual disputes, especially because the defendants failed to make a motion for judgment as a matter of law at trial.

“Two barriers block entry of judgment as a matter of law for the Thicke Parties,” writes Smith. “The dissent attempts to sidestep these obstacles: It finds that the Thicke Parties are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, but fails to explain the procedural mechanism by which this could be achieved.”

But eventually, the majority gets to the discussion that many in the musical community begged the appeals court to take up given the rash of copyright lawsuits over musical compositions in the time since the verdict. Smith isn’t impressed.

“(T)he dissent prophesies that our decision will shake the foundations of copyright law, imperil the music industry, and stifle creativity,” comments the judge. “It even suggests that the Gayes’ victory will come back to haunt them, as the Gayes’ musical compositions may now be found to infringe any number of famous songs preceding them. Respectfully, these conjectures are unfounded hyperbole. Our decision does not grant license to copyright a musical style or ‘groove.’ Nor does it upset the balance Congress struck between the freedom of artistic expression, on the one hand, and copyright protection of the fruits of that expression, on the other hand. Rather, our decision hinges on settled procedural principles and the limited nature of our appellate review, dictated by the particular posture of this case and controlling copyright law. Far from heralding the end of musical creativity as we know it, our decision, even construed broadly, reads more accurately as a cautionary tale for future trial counsel wishing to maximize their odds of success.”

This article originally appeared in The Hollywood Reporter.

really bad precedent to set.

under the direction of Black Flag bassist Chuck Dukowski's modus operandi of being direct on your instrument and not adhering to music theory whatsoever.


So....


let's happily usher in a Chuck Dukowski inspired new musical era.....


yes?

Folks coming up with all-new random scales, tuning A to something like 424Hz, 5/7 time, etc.

That shit was blatant

i dont know how you dont hear Marvin when you listen to Blurred Lines. After the lawsuit first happened. I played Marvin for my son and asked him what song does it sound like within 30 seconds he said Blurred Lines. He is 8.

and not sure how they lost based on that shit but at the same time, I know damn well Pharrell wasn’t writing the sheet music when he made that song.

He knew damn well he was trying to make that Marvin song without sampling it.

yes (c) marv albert

Folks feel some kind of way about Robin Thicke

eh. just my stupid theory.

I've A/B'd the shit out of the two songs and I just don't hear it on a level to elevate to legal intervention

inspired, yes but its not 1:1

Blurred lines is way more upbeat

Got to give it up is more laid back and slinky

That damned cowbell.

It was funky as hell and hey kept going back and forth. Transitions were smooth as hell.

Shia blatant to me. I know folks with more music theory can break down the notes and patterns but I think you have to be lying to ourself to say Pharrell wasn’t copying this song when he was laying it down.

It’s almost like he didn’t want to straight sample it but couldn’t stray too far from it without losing the funkiness of it.

its still a blatant sample/rip

>Folks feel some kind of way about Robin Thicke
>
>eh. just my stupid theory.
>
>I've A/B'd the shit out of the two songs and I just don't hear
>it on a level to elevate to legal intervention
>
>inspired, yes but its not 1:1
>
>Blurred lines is way more upbeat
>
>Got to give it up is more laid back and slinky
>
>That damned cowbell.

would be in here cheering this decision or the Gaye family.

I believe you can pay when you copy/give credit (cover version) or just make freeform new music that clearly isn't a copy of anything.


Pay or go freeform


yep

you better be prepared to pay up.

if not, let me help.

the problem is here: “The majority allows the Gayes to accomplish what no one has before: copyright a musical style,” she writes. “‘Blurred Lines’ and ‘Got to Give It Up’ are not objectively similar. They differ in melody, harmony, and rhythm. Yet by refusing to compare the two works, the majority establishes a dangerous precedent that strikes a devastating blow to future musicians and composers everywhere.”

what has been allowed to happen with this ruling is that even if your composition is LITERALY different in every way, but it has a similar "vibe," then you are screwed.

this decision comes at an interesting time. obviously, we've had the whole debate over Bruno Mars which raises the issue that it seems that Teddy Riley could sue Mars because Mars and Co. made a "New Jack Swing" style song.

can someone come after Kali Uchis and Tyler the Creator for this (and if so, who?) or is this sliding thru untouched because Bootsy (an original contributor of songs that sounded like this in the 70's) is involved:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9f5zD7ZSNpQ

this decision opens a nasty can of worms for musicians. however, this legal fight doesn't seem to be over, so we'll see.

Just because I make a reggae cut doesn't mean the Marleys can sue

but if I make Jammin and change the pitch and change a few notes but it still sounds like Jammin. they gonna come knocking when I sell 5 million records

...have "Jammin," and you have created a new work of art.

They are applying sample-based logic (you stole a piece of our music!) to musicians that took 0% of their sound. You can't copyright notes, scales, chords or progressions.


>Just because I make a reggae cut doesn't mean the Marleys can
>sue
>
>but if I make Jammin and change the pitch and change a few
>notes but it still sounds like Jammin. they gonna come
>knocking when I sell 5 million records

https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/6502023/blurred-lines-verdict-how-it-started-why-it-backfired-on-robin-thicke-and

I wonder if that hurt their case.

...but by the end they are looking like:

https://img.gifmagazine.net/gifmagazine/images/965190/medium.gif
http://cdn3.sbnation.com/assets/3961657/royincredulous_medium.gif


I just listened to the two songs. CLEAR difference in key, chord structure and progression. The "feel" (the way the instruments are played) is the same, but that's music.

>

>our decision hinges on settled procedural
>principles and the limited nature of our appellate review,
>dictated by the particular posture of this case and
>controlling copyright law. Far from heralding the end of
>musical creativity as we know it, our decision, even construed
>broadly, reads more accurately as a cautionary tale for future
>trial counsel wishing to maximize their odds of success.”
>

The majority is making it sound like the defendants (Thicke, Pharrell) botched their defense moreso than the Gayes winning the case in principle. And they assert that the exact thing we're all lamenting is not true. Can anyone who knows this better explain it?


______________________________
http://i.imgur.com/v2ye7l2.jpg

for whatever reason Pharrell and Thicke wanted it retried (due to their narrow role as appellate review)


but....

It's clear earlier that they wrote there's was no reason to undo what the jury in the first trial decided.

Gotcha...so that comment was regarding the proposed appeal of the original ruling, not the original ruling itself.

>for whatever reason Pharrell and Thicke wanted it retried
>(due to their narrow role as appellate review)
>
>
>but....
>
>It's clear earlier that they wrote there's was no reason to
>undo what the jury in the first trial decided.


______________________________
http://i.imgur.com/v2ye7l2.jpg

>>our decision hinges on settled procedural
>>principles and the limited nature of our appellate review,
>>dictated by the particular posture of this case and
>>controlling copyright law. Far from heralding the end of
>>musical creativity as we know it, our decision, even
>construed
>>broadly, reads more accurately as a cautionary tale for
>future
>>trial counsel wishing to maximize their odds of success.”
>>
>
>The majority is making it sound like the defendants (Thicke,
>Pharrell) botched their defense moreso than the Gayes winning
>the case in principle. And they assert that the exact thing
>we're all lamenting is not true. Can anyone who knows this
>better explain it?

There are limits on what can be reviewed on appeal. They don't re-litigate the entire case. They're saying that their decision is based on reviewing a small slice of the original case, not the entire thing. It almost sounds like they're saying, "This isn't our fault. We did what we could with what we were given."

And you seem to be correct about the defense. The appeals court seems to be saying that this is a warning to future attorneys trying similar cases on how to improve their chances of winning.





>
>______________________________
>http://i.imgur.com/v2ye7l2.jpg

this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyDUC1LUXSU

or this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI9Hw5s9X2E

Blurred Lines was every where of course they are going to go after that song.

but in a case to establish dangerous precedents in court (which this is) i'd pull out the stocks and use this even if people saw it as a dry snitch.

this is disappointingly dangerous

That’s a waste of time and money.

Did they not credit the original or not pay the licensing fee or something?

not a straight lift sample... there is nowhere in that Marvin joint that has the sound elements that dilla laid down... from the keys to the bass...even the drums. yes emulated, but not lifted.

while the original BNH may lift that actual joint...my point was in #20

the youtube clip lol


Anti-gentrification, cheap alcohol & trying to look pretty in our twilight posting years (c) Big Reg
http://Tupreme.com

Did they not credit the original or not pay the licensing fee or something?

just wack

i guess blues artists should go on suing orgy.
most of the songs sound similar.

Different key, different number of chords, etc. I'm not sure how the jury, looking at sheet music (which I believe their instructions were), came up with that decision.

but to look at the sheet music. Hearing doesn't mean shit, brains interpret sounds all kinds of ways. Niggas hear puppies telling them to burn their house down.

where you can have a situation where you came make an original reggae track, blow up, and then have the Marleys comes for you all because it REMINDS you of Bob.

Copyrighting styles???

Got To Give It Up was a Ska/soul style that was not prevalent...the fact that the rhythm and swing of the song stands out more than the actual key, melody an harmony to the average listener shows that these music cases will only get messier. The Gaye Estate basically copyrighted that ska/soul sound that acts rarely do and blow up on.

Only way the Marley can come at someone is if it’s a blatant rip.

I really don’t understand how y’all can be this deep in music and act like you don’t hear Marvin when you hear Blurred Lines.

Its like Bruno’s Locked out of Heaven. That’s The Police all day even if it’s not the same notes.

and I wouldn’t be surprised if he was sued over it (i don’t think he was)

a C major and B flat..

you have no business trying to argue with anybody


they copyrighted a style, not melody, a style, not harmony, a style, not lyrics, not even rhythm..

FOH

You sound mad bruh

archipelago from an arpeggio

Shit, even trying to explain a major chord to a non-artist is like trying to get them to read textbooks in the summertime.

>archipelago from an arpeggio

I'd gamble that they (the average US citizen) don't know what EITHER of those words means, lol.

>You sound mad bruh

or at least you led on to acting like you did..

and not pay up.

"Get ready....for your blessing....."

At least that’s the impression I got for Uptown Funk

get buried


Nope


In reply #13, The3rdOne links a Dilla remixed song that was released in 2000. The song (as isaaa points out in reply #51) has a Marvin Gaye credit on it (yes the youtube clip has the image of the vinyl label and M.Gaye is printed as a writer).


So..........


the year 2000 (how many years is that before "Blurred Lines" was released?)


M.Gaye credited as writer on the vinyl label of the Brand New Heavies remixed track.


hmmmm......


well...........


if the "Blurred Lines" verdict is so "dangerous" "bad" to present and future creativity.........(see replies #1, #21)


What was going on in 1999 - 2000 when Dilla remixed the Brand New Heavies track that made Dilla/Brand New Heavies give Marvin credit in 2000?

Was there any cases of musicians being sued and losing copyright cases before "Blurred Lines" (George Harrison "my sweet Lord" - a situation John Lennon famously critiqued by saying "I don't know how George allowed himself to get caught" meaning John Lennon knew how easy it is to "disguise" "changing" some song that influenced your own derivative creation based on said song)


How "dangerous" or "scary" were those previous copyright cases in influencing Dilla and the Brand New Heavies to give M.Gaye credit in 2000?


So....


If people were being shook by copyright cases in the past, how "new" or "dangerous" (or how much is it a change in the system of making music) is it to be "shook" by copyright cases now?


(according to The3rdOne in reply #33, the Brand New Heavies track is "not a straight lift sample... there is nowhere in that Marvin joint that has the sound elements that dilla laid down... from the keys to the bass...even the drums. yes emulated, but not lifted."

so don't come with that, Dilla/Brand New Heavies HAD to credit a sample)

and with that....enjoy this post...cause I know you will.


https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/robin-thicke-pharrell-williams-blurred-lines-copyright-suit-final-5-million-dollar-judgment-768508/

HOME
MUSIC
MUSIC NEWS

DECEMBER 13, 2018 12:47AM ET

‘Blurred Lines’ Copyright Suit Against Robin Thicke, Pharrell Ends in $5M Judgment
Legal saga with Marvin Gaye’s family concludes with final judgment

By ALTHEA LEGASPI


Pharrell Williams, left, and Robin Thicke perform onstage at the BET Awards at the Nokia Theatre in Los Angeles. More and more, contemporary artists are giving credit to past songs in the wake of the infamous â?œBlurred Linesâ?? case, where Thicke and Williams were ordered to pay $5.3 million to Marvin Gayeâ?™s children in a copyright disputeMusic-Sampling Songs, Los Angeles, USA - 30 Jun 2013


A judge has entered a nearly $5 million judgment against Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams in favor of Marvin Gaye’s family in the long-running lawsuit involving copyright infringement surrounding Thicke and Williams’ song “Blurred Lines” and Gaye’s 1977 hit “Got to Give It Up,” Billboard reports.

In 2016, Williams and Thicke appealed a verdict that awarded $5.3 million in damages (the initial March 2015 jury verdict resulted in a $7.3 million award, but the judge agreed to cut that to $5.3 million), seeking to overturn the ruling, but a federal appeals court upheld the verdict in March 2018.


According to California federal judge John A. Kronstadt’s new amended judgment, Thicke, Williams and Williams’ More Water From Nazareth Publishing Inc. are jointly required to pay Gaye’s family. They jointly owe damages of $2,848,846.50. Meanwhile, Thicke has been ordered to pay an additional $1,768,191.88 and Williams and his publishing company will pay another $357,630.97 to the Gaye family.

Additionally, The Gaye family is entitled to receive prejudgment interest on the damages award and respective profits against each of them, which totals to $9097.51. The Gaye family is also entitled to royalties going forward for 50 percent of the songwriter and publishing revenue coming from “Blurred Lines.”

Like..I barely hear that song anywhere..not in "throwback" sets, the adult R&B station...nowhere..lol.


Last time I heard it was...dang...2013 at my cousins Christmas party. I didnt know there was line dance to it, but they was damn gettin it to this song, lol.

Don't think I've heard it since


*************************************

Fuck aliens

-Warriorpoet415

https://astackofwax.com/

#2dopebrothersandastackofwax

https://www.instagram.com/thirtythree.three/

The Greatest Story (N)ever Told (finished)

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=s

I've heard very little of *any* of Pharrell's 2013 resurrection replayed in the last 5 years.

That's definitely strange, considering he *dominated* the airwaves for so much of that year, what with Thicke, Daft Punk, and a few others. Was a huge year for him ... then it just went away. Haha.

And now that I think of it it's actually kind of incredible just how much the music landscape has shifted since then, especially the urban/hip-hop scene. 2013 may as well be 1998.