> Marvin Gaye's biographer, David Ritz, sided with Gaye's family, though he said he's uncertain whether from a legal standpoint "Blurred Lines" technically infringes the copyright on Gaye's song. But looking at the case in reverse he argued that the jury's verdict was justified because, "There would be no 'Blurred Lines' if there had not been 'Got to Give It Up.' It never in a million years would have happened."
By that definition almost every song-writer since since ~1967 owes Bob Dylan some money, and Dylan owes half that money to Woodie Guthrie who owes it to a thousand other musicians that came before him.
Blurred Lines has had a target painted on it from the beginning, I've never seen a song so hated. I've even heard feminists refer to it as a "date-rape anthem." (edit: see the almost instantly killed comment in this thread that just says "Finally". People hate the song so much that they don't care if it sets bad legal precedent so long as something bad happens to Robin Thicke.)
Worse than no copyright law, maybe worse than bad copyright law is vague copyright law that's selectively enforced to police message and content.
Well, sure, I think the song sucks. I think Thicke is a douche, the lyrics are creepy, and the music is derivative...
...but that's fine. I'm sure some music expert/snob could point out how many of my favorite songs were great (when so-and-so originally did them) but that shouldn't be the basis for a copyright suit.
You can argue over who is talented, who is original, who's a hack, and who's derivative all day but unless you're just jacking an entire song or sampling large portions of it without altering it or licensing the samples, then it's just art as art has always been.
There will always be artists who are inspired by previous material and there will always be shameless hacks who just imitate whatever is popular to make a buck but I don't think it's something that fits with the stated purpose of copyright.
As you say, musical styles and conventions get picked up and reworked all the time. It's like this case vindicated every dad who ever said your music "all sounds the same".
Could the rights holders of Marvin Gaye's work be sued for copyright infringement of an older, yet still quixotically copyrighted, work? Not only would such a move highlight everything wrong with the verdict, but it would also be quite poetic.
Bridgeport Music themselves pointed out that Funkadelic's Sexy Ways (1974) is similar to Blurred Lines--and so transitively it's similar to Got to give it up (1977), right? But Bridgeport owns the catalog of Gaye and Funkadelic.
The two songs are hauntingly similar. Is that wrong though? I think fair use has a shortcoming in that what Weird Al does is technically ok (even though he asks permission) since it's parody, yet something like this is still infringement. The originality and creativity in both are similar, yet one's a joke so it's fine.
It was a good verdict. If Marvin Gaye's grandkids (or the grandkids of whoever it is that has the rights to that song) can't collect a tax on anything even remotely similar for all of eternity...
[+] [-] stolio|11 years ago|reply
By that definition almost every song-writer since since ~1967 owes Bob Dylan some money, and Dylan owes half that money to Woodie Guthrie who owes it to a thousand other musicians that came before him.
Blurred Lines has had a target painted on it from the beginning, I've never seen a song so hated. I've even heard feminists refer to it as a "date-rape anthem." (edit: see the almost instantly killed comment in this thread that just says "Finally". People hate the song so much that they don't care if it sets bad legal precedent so long as something bad happens to Robin Thicke.)
Worse than no copyright law, maybe worse than bad copyright law is vague copyright law that's selectively enforced to police message and content.
[+] [-] pat2man|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] soylentcola|11 years ago|reply
...but that's fine. I'm sure some music expert/snob could point out how many of my favorite songs were great (when so-and-so originally did them) but that shouldn't be the basis for a copyright suit.
You can argue over who is talented, who is original, who's a hack, and who's derivative all day but unless you're just jacking an entire song or sampling large portions of it without altering it or licensing the samples, then it's just art as art has always been.
There will always be artists who are inspired by previous material and there will always be shameless hacks who just imitate whatever is popular to make a buck but I don't think it's something that fits with the stated purpose of copyright.
As you say, musical styles and conventions get picked up and reworked all the time. It's like this case vindicated every dad who ever said your music "all sounds the same".
[+] [-] astrodust|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] possibilistic|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] logn|11 years ago|reply
George Clinton's take: https://twitter.com/george_clinton/statuses/3682102168289320...
Statute of limitations is 3 years from last date of infringement (which I guess is today since this music is all still being sold).
[+] [-] wodenokoto|11 years ago|reply
Protection from what? It sounds to me that this verdict will not protect musicians and songwriters, but put them in danger of litigations.
[+] [-] logn|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mark_integerdsv|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] erok|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Urbanxassassin|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] NoMoreNicksLeft|11 years ago|reply
Well, maybe Margin Gaye will stop writing songs.
We can't have that.
[+] [-] EC1|11 years ago|reply