Blurred Lines VS Marvin Gaye
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziz9HW2ZmmY

 

omg! Which one is which? :incheek:

 

Wasn't it actually the case that the family only counter-sued after being sued originally by RThick.

 

Oh I don't know, I'll have a look. No mention of that on the news I've seen this morning. But could be the case.

 

Has Noel Gallagher commented on the verdict?

 

I'd be keeping my head down right now if I were him. :incheek:

 

Tharell / Thicke sued to make the Gaye family stop saying that they had ripped off Marvin Gaye, and lost in a big way :lol:

Also, iyt came down to the sheet music marvin gaye had oringially submitted for copyright protection, which is purportedly different to that which he recorded.

 

Basically back in 1978 the only thing you could submit to the Copyright Office in the US as evidence of your copyright work was sheet music (when the copyright work was a song). These days you can submit a recording. Therefore, the only thing that could be used to compare to Pharrell's song was the sheet music. And they still lost. Had they been allowed to use the recording of Marvin Gaye's song, it would have been far more of a n open and shut case.

Pharrell sued for declaration that he was not infringing Marvin Gaye, in the face of accusations that he was. The result is that he lost big time. $7.3 million in damages to the Gaye family. Plus they are now pursuing an injunction to prevent any further sales of Blurred Lines until they have agreed ongoing royalty payments to them going forward. And Pharrell's lawyers have confirmed he will appeal.

This is not over and won't be over for quite a while.

 

Ahh ok, so all these youtube vid comparisons aren't worth listening to then!

 

I find the whole think quite pathetic, yeh it sound similar but its a different song in a completely different age for a different audience.

Don't get me wrong I hated the song from day one, so I don't listen to it.. but its aimed at the spotty adolescent radio 1 listeners that wouldn't know original music if it slapped them in the face.

 

so because its for a different audience it gives them the right to rip off someone else's work and not give credit for it?

 

I have no interest in modern pop trash but even to my ears it's clearly some crap lyrics over Marvin's melody.

Pay up and shut up if you're going to leech other people's work.

 

tricky one this..

one the one hand i think sampling is a good thing, as without it we'd have no hip hop or dance music as we know it.

on the other hand if you're just going to rip off someones entire song and pass it off as your own devine creation then you need to be held accountable and pay your dues.

 

Dubwife..

This only came about as MG's family said it was ripping off one of his songs. RThick(and Chums) sued them to make them shut up, and then the family countersued.

This is a long way off just using a 'sample'.

 

When does imitating become copying? If only we had a phrase that could describe this 'grey area'?

 

:lol:

 

Good news i think. They are both cocky twats with too much money anyway. When they released the song they lodged a preemptive counter sue apparently which you can do in the US (the mind boggles??)

Basically they were saying we know this sounds so much like another song we are going to sue you before you sue us and this doesn't count as clear evidence that they have obviously copied the original!!

might have got my facts mixed up but basically fuck em! don't like the song anyway.

 

In the US, if you bring the case, then you choose the court. That's why they pre-emptively sued.

 

The two lads are fond of the green, probably wrote the song without realising where they heard the tune before and just thought it was their own work. Easily done

 

The point here being that intention is irrelevant. it isn't an important factor in whether they have infringed or not. So even if you didn't intend to copy it, it's still an infringement. Sam Smith got into trouble recently because one of his songs sounds a lot like one that Tom Petty and Jeff Lynne wrote. That one was settled out of court though.

 

Its funny that they want sales of the Blurred Lines song halted ... hasnt anyone who was ever going to buy it, now bought it?

Hopefully a few younger folk will now discover Marvin Gaye

I dont mind Pharrell but Robin Thicke seems a right twat.

 

Its funny that they want sales of the Blurred Lines song halted ... hasnt anyone who was ever going to buy it, now bought it?

Not for the reason you'd think. They want an injunction until they have agreed with the record company about how much of the ongoing royalties will be coming to them.

 

They cowbell line is different, the vibe is similar but two very different tracks imo.

 

Sounds like a rip-off to me.

A bit like Queens only decent song that sounds like none of their others - Another one bites the dust.

Pharell can afford it anyway, don't know why he's squealing!

 

Ed sheeran next? Thinking out loud vs lets get it on?

 

I say, 'No'.

NEXT

 

I hope not, as much as I can hear the likeness, the lady that wrote the Sheeran tune is a great writer/musician and she deserves the success!

It's a shame to see this happening IMO, it's becoming more and more difficult for young artists to make money, making them paranoid about their stuff being compared to earlier tunes that may or may not have influenced them will only make things worse, obviously blatant rip-off's should be pulled, but I don't think that the tune in question is that blatant.

 

The Blurred Lines issue came about as they were suing the Gaye family to stop saying it was a copy, the Gayes just counter-sued.

I can't see the Gayes sueing anyone directly.

 

You never know though, the same thing happened with Sam Smith a short while ago, and although it was an amicable outcome, I still don't think that SS 'copied' Tom Petty as such, at least I've not read that he's admitted doing so and from his other music he seems to be a talented enough writer that he doesn't need to 'copy' other people, from his statements it just seemed that he was happy to 'settle' to avoid the hassle of going through court (all of that is just my assumptions from what I've read though!)