- This topic has 38 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 8 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Bit shocked at this one, didn’t think there was a case to answer. Similar in style but not in content.
Sorry Denis. Didn’t see your post earlier. Art you can delete my redundant post.
With respect to the verdict:
US courts look for “substantial similarity,” not detailed analysis by a musicologist. In doing so the court will apply a number of tests. One of those tests is the “ordinary observer” test. Basically if a lay person listens to the music and hears the similarities, enough to recognize the original work in the alleged infringing work, you have a problem.
There are defenses to infringement, for example “parody.” But in that instance the parody has to comment on, criticize, or ad some layer of meaning to the original. If you want to know how that works, here’s a distilled version from the case that arose out of 2Live Crew’s alleged infringement of Roy Orbison’s Pretty Woman. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/510/569/case.html
I would say that 99% of the time that composers work to a temp track, or create a sound-alike, what they create is not going to fall under any of the copyright defenses.
One of the things that courts actually look for is the attempt to make infringement not look like infringement with clumsy differences.
In other words, changing a few notes here and there is not likely to help you. It only makes it look like you were trying to hide your infringement, which is not good, because it shows intent. (It should be noted that the court did not find intent in the Blurred Lines case)With respect to ‘Blurred Lines,” the title turned out to somewhat ironic in that the lines aren’t blurry enough. So while composers may be saying “we hear a lot of differences,” the average person is saying “we hear a lot of similarities,” and that unfortunately is upon what the law turns. (in the US)
I listened to the two songs. In my opinion, this is abuse of the copyright system.
Indeed the songs have got a very similar groove, but for me that’s about it: I think I am going to copyright the 4:4 signature… I will make tons of money 😉
The First Video shared by Dennis – Amazing lol!
I hadn’t actually heard the Marvin Gaye song until a few months ago (does this post show my age?), but when I did I DEFINITELY thought that it was being sampled in Blurred Lines. I did’nt study them back to back (I don’t even think I could hum the melody to Got To Give It Up if I had a gun to my head), but upon casually hearing the Marvin Gay tune for the first time it sounded more than similar to Blurred Lines.
What on earth a jury would make of that !!!
Ah, corporate country. A lot of songwriting in Nashville is done by a handful of writers working together in committee. Could be a case of different artists, but the same writers, rewriting their own songs.
It’s worth noting that the US Copyright office seems to be recognizing the homogenous nature of contemporary music production. In its recently released report, which recommends some sweeping changes, I’ve been told there are provisions that might protect similar works, possibly even sound-alikes. (So… U2 rippers don’t throw away your delays until you see where the law goes!)
But…remember those changes would only apple to US law unless other countries agree by treaty.
Unfortunately, the media is a business in which originality is an anathema. Creative people, whether they are script writers or composers are encouraged (almost forced) to emulate or repeat what has proven successful. The law may be catching up to that reality.
upon casually hearing the Marvin Gay tune for the first time it sounded more than similar to Blurred Lines.
That spark of recognition is often enough for what US courts call the “ordinary observer” test for substantial similarity.
IMO this verdict is going to open up a lot of other law suits with other songs that may have the same “feel” or “groove”.
I spent over a year performing “Got to give it up” live and other than the groove and maybe some add lib vocals, I never heard enough similarities between the two songs to think there was some kind of copyright infringement.
I can see the similarities on a song like Sam Smith’s “Stay with Me” and Tom Petty’s “I won’t Back Down” because the melodies are so alike, but once you start suing for copyright infringement based on grooves and feel, where do stop?
I can see the similarities on a song like Sam Smith’s “Stay with Me” and Tom Petty’s “I won’t Back Down” because the melodies are so alike, but once you start suing for copyright infringement based on grooves and feel, where do stop?
Easy: you don’t stop suing. I am sure MichaelL knows, some lawyers make a good living being copyright and patent trolls.
I agree that the focus on “feel” and “vibe” is troubling. It definitely opens up the possibility for more litigation.
The Blurred Lines decision is just the first step in a possibly long process. It is by no means the law of the land.
If they choose to do so, Williams and Thicke can appeal the verdict all the way to the US Supreme Court, where it would become the law of the land.
Until then, the verdict in LA sets a precedent that other jurisdictions can cite, but not necessarily follow.
I would like to see the SCOTUS set a bright line rule, but it may not be necessary, if proposed changes to the copyright are put into effect.
In the end, let’s not forget that Thicke and Williams have earned, and will earn far more from Blurred Lines, than the 7.8 million awarded.
But…here’s an interesting musical analysis:
Yes, they can appeal. They should appeal. They can file a Writ of Certiorari to put the case before the US Supreme Court. But, the Court only grants a small fraction of such requests.
This would be an ideal case for the Supreme Court to hear, because it really goes to the heart of the basic business today…everyone copies everyone.
But…as suggested above there may be changes in the US copyright law itself, that would address many of the issues here.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.