Music Final Paper
Blurred Lines vs Got to Give it Up
Marvin Gaye's’ family sued Pharrell and Robin Thicke for copyright infringement claiming “Blurred Lines” sounded too similar to “Got to Give it Up”. The guest rapper T.I and the record label, Universal Records were also included in the suit due to their involvement in the song. While Pharrell, the co writer to “Blurred Lines”, was clearly influenced by Gayes work, which he admits to, he did not break any copyright laws. Pharrell made sure that the two song differed in melody, harmony, and rhythm, so while the two song may have sounded similar, he did not infringe on Gaye’s work. However after seven days on trial the jury found Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke guilty of infringement of Gaye’s …show more content…
alone. The lawyers brought the personal lives of Pharrell and Robin into question, basically dragging their names in the mud. They asked questions that made Pharrell look defensive and kind of a jerk. While Thicke could have always been a jerk, he exposed his crazy drug and alcohol use. I understand bringing their characters into question could show that they were capable of copying the song but it just seemed like a dirty card to play. The Gaye’s even got a version of Gaye's’ song heard by the juries, even though that version, that I believe, was not completely covered by the copyright. Despite these underhanded techniques they proved to be successful when the Gaye’s won and were originally awarded 7.3 million, however it was later decreased to 5.3 million dollars along with 50% of “Blurred Lines” future royalties. The award was changed due to Stern’s testimony, a licensing expert, who stated if the songwriters asked to use Gaye's’ song before the songs release it would have cost 50% of the publishing revenue. However if they licensed the song after the release the percentage would have been much higher, around 75 to 100%, or 8 million dollars. Due to this testimony a deal was probably worked out to …show more content…
These instructions are supposed to be clear and without any bias so the jury would not be leaning towards a certain side. When Pharrell and Thicke pushed for an appeal a bias jury was something they pointed out as a possibility for losing the original case. Two instructions in particular were called into question number 28 and 43. Instruction 28 sounds like it states that if the Gaye’s prove that both songs are similar then that is proof enough of infringement. This can cause confusion with the jury because that is not true. Pharrell and Thicke argued that instruction 43 tells the jury to consider unprotected elements when deciding the verdict. That can completely cause a mistrial because the line of protected and unprotected is very important in copyright law and is the main component when determining if a work is infringing on others. Instructions should be clear and simple if you think an instruction could be understood differently to someone else it needs to be changed or reworded. With these instructions along with the confusing unprotected and protected elements in this case I think Pharrell and Thicke should have won the appeal, but they
Blurred Lines vs Got to Give it Up
Marvin Gaye's’ family sued Pharrell and Robin Thicke for copyright infringement claiming “Blurred Lines” sounded too similar to “Got to Give it Up”. The guest rapper T.I and the record label, Universal Records were also included in the suit due to their involvement in the song. While Pharrell, the co writer to “Blurred Lines”, was clearly influenced by Gayes work, which he admits to, he did not break any copyright laws. Pharrell made sure that the two song differed in melody, harmony, and rhythm, so while the two song may have sounded similar, he did not infringe on Gaye’s work. However after seven days on trial the jury found Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke guilty of infringement of Gaye’s …show more content…
alone. The lawyers brought the personal lives of Pharrell and Robin into question, basically dragging their names in the mud. They asked questions that made Pharrell look defensive and kind of a jerk. While Thicke could have always been a jerk, he exposed his crazy drug and alcohol use. I understand bringing their characters into question could show that they were capable of copying the song but it just seemed like a dirty card to play. The Gaye’s even got a version of Gaye's’ song heard by the juries, even though that version, that I believe, was not completely covered by the copyright. Despite these underhanded techniques they proved to be successful when the Gaye’s won and were originally awarded 7.3 million, however it was later decreased to 5.3 million dollars along with 50% of “Blurred Lines” future royalties. The award was changed due to Stern’s testimony, a licensing expert, who stated if the songwriters asked to use Gaye's’ song before the songs release it would have cost 50% of the publishing revenue. However if they licensed the song after the release the percentage would have been much higher, around 75 to 100%, or 8 million dollars. Due to this testimony a deal was probably worked out to …show more content…
These instructions are supposed to be clear and without any bias so the jury would not be leaning towards a certain side. When Pharrell and Thicke pushed for an appeal a bias jury was something they pointed out as a possibility for losing the original case. Two instructions in particular were called into question number 28 and 43. Instruction 28 sounds like it states that if the Gaye’s prove that both songs are similar then that is proof enough of infringement. This can cause confusion with the jury because that is not true. Pharrell and Thicke argued that instruction 43 tells the jury to consider unprotected elements when deciding the verdict. That can completely cause a mistrial because the line of protected and unprotected is very important in copyright law and is the main component when determining if a work is infringing on others. Instructions should be clear and simple if you think an instruction could be understood differently to someone else it needs to be changed or reworded. With these instructions along with the confusing unprotected and protected elements in this case I think Pharrell and Thicke should have won the appeal, but they