The Songwriter Forum - songwriting reviews, tips and chat
Songwriter Forum => The Bar => Topic started by: tone on November 02, 2014, 01:12:41 PM
-
This came up in another thread, and I wondered what y'all thought.
You may now have heard the news that the estate of Marvin Gaye are suing Robin Thicke & Pharrell Williams for copyright infringement over their song 'blurred lines' claiming its ripped off from Gaye's Got to give it up.
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/oct/31/robin-thicke-pharrell-blurred-lines-copyright-battle-marvin-gaye-family
Got to give it up
Blurred lines clean version, family safe :p
So what do you reckon? Is it pinched?
-
It will be an interesting one
I still believe only "melody and lyric" can be protected
The key part is this bit:
The judge also pointed in particular to the “substantial similarity” of the two songs’ “signature phrases, hooks, basslines, keyboard chords, harmonic structures and vocal melodies”. - I actually think this might be a "mis-quote" of what the musicologist said (see below)
Most of these refer to melodies - the keyboard chords and "harmonic structures" are just being used to support the case that they had been using the track as reference (which Thicke seems to confirm and deny in various statements / interviews - Thicke by name....thick by nature)
Eg if they claim they hadn't heard the original track an pd came up with the same melodies by accident - however, this would be difficult to argue with the other "non-protected" similarities
The "musicologist" working for the Gaye family is arguing:
[There are at] least eight substantially similar compositional features" with Gaye's original. The similarities are said to encompass the signature phrase, vocal hook, backup vocal hook, their variations, and the keyboard and bass lines -- "far surpassing the similarities that might result from attempts to evoke an 'era' of music or a shared genre"
Notice the difference "keyboard and bass lines" = melodies
I am sure there will be a settlement before this goes to court
-
It's a shame Robin is so Thick as you pointed out in the other thread. And I agree, a settlement is far more likely than a judgement.
But if you listen to the two tracks, the only 'signature' element that blurred lines actually borrows noticeably is the cow bell. Everything else just 'feels' a bit like the other song.
Maybe there are similarities that I haven't picked up on yet, but if you take the prosecution's stance and apply it to blurred lines, the things that make it click are the vocal melody (original) the descending bassline (original) the harmonies (original) and the controversial lyric (original).
I just can't see it holding water. Will be interesting to see how it pans out though.
-
Similarities: drums, crowd noise, tempo, chord progression (although BL holds the tonic a couple extra bars) - none of which IMO are copyrightable. The lead vocals and lyrics are enough different I don't think this is lifted. I've heard a lot worse stolen material.
Paul
-
Similarities: drums, crowd noise, tempo, chord progression (although BL holds the tonic a couple extra bars) - none of which IMO are copyrightable.
I wish we could sue Pharell for every song with crowd noise in it. The first time is was fun now it's EVERYWHERE in EVERY song on EVERY station ughhhhhhhhh.
-
I haven't listened to them in detail compare yet but I think they are claiming the backing vocals from the Marvin Gaye track is what has been lifted?
-
Might be easier to listen to them together.
-
come on..
if you have to run them together to decide then morally its game over, the similaritys are just too close..
but thicke and co im sure know what theyr doing and just going for the hit sound..the contention adds immeasurably to the exposure and gives the song even more legs..
younger folks find marvin gayes amazing back catalog, everybody wins..
money will change hands and its goodnight irene
morally its wrong but funwise its a cool track and thats all the market really cares about
-
Similar stylistically but i hear two different songs IMHO. There are loads of others where there are far greater rips than this one ( my latest spot is Sam Smith - Stay with me and Tom Petty - Won't back down ) :(
Neil
-
I also hear two songs
Cowbell, main chords and "vibes" stand out for me. None of which you can claim as unique. Some of the bass movements too - but then in this style, stabbed staccato tonics are pretty prevalent!
Doubt they'll get a penny, maybe a small settlement
I like both songs. I can definitely see the inspiration
Addendum - the "dancing baby" vocal add IS very similar to the "I know you want it" in BL. Thats the most egregious part for me :-\
-
I did not see this coming. http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/mar/10/blurred-lines-pharrell-robin-thicke-copied-marvin-gaye
Jury decides in Gaye's favour :o
-
I think this will get over-turned
The "rhythm" is identical and there are similarities in the backing vocals
BUT - I still fundamentall disagree that "melody and lyrics" have been "copied"
-
I too was a little surprised by this.
I would love to see the musicologists' notes. Where they highlight the "rip off" sections. And how they maintain that combined, this equals a copy write infringement.
-
i think these two songs are amazing
but as soon as i hear the two it is just so obvious that there is copying going on here
STC, put the mash up on and for me just confirmed it
i'm not a musician in any way but listening to the mash up
the similarity is incredible,
i also think copying anything another artist has done should come under copyright
does this mean that the THICKE song will be scrapped how can it be used again ?
they will both just go on now to make even more millions
-
They say they're likely to appeal.. Apparently they are dealing with "Blurred Laws"
-
I would be stunned if the Gaye estate win this one. Joe Satriani sued Coldplay several years ago for what was an absolutely blatant rip off of Joe's 'If I Could Fly', and lost!!! If Joe can't win that one I wouldn't hold out too much hope for Marvin's children. Most modern day Pop songs are ripped off from 60's and 70's motown and soul in some way or another.
-
This is a load of bollocks IMHO. A lay jury god help us all.
Stylistically similar but top line melody - no way.
I hope it gets overturned coz if it doesn't the world will full of spurious lawsuits and consequent reductions in creativity.
:)
Neil
-
I don't have a comment on the actual controversy of whether or not there was a copyright infringement. But I do have a legal question.
I thought that when it comes to copyright laws, it's not only necessary to show that a copyright was infringed upon, but it's also necessary to show "damages". In other words, there has to be an argument that the infringement on the copyright actually resulted in damages to the originator.
My question is, how was the Gaye family damaged by this?
If anything it would seem to me that it would probably result in sparking more sales of the original song doing them a favor actually.
Why were they awarded 7 million dollars? In damages? What damages? How did this damage them to the tune of 7 million dollars?
-
I am assuming the "damages" represent the lost money they would have got if they had the % share of the writers credit
I can't help help feeling this is more of a backlash about the controversy surrounding the song (mysoginistic lyrics and video) and I was surprised to see it was "trial by jury"
The appeal should be interesting...
-
I agree with Neil about the lay jury observation. These people are not musicians, and are 95% likely to have noticed the controversy around this song, creating a negative bias before the trial began.
In terms of damages, the way I see it is this: if they'd used a sample from the Marvin Gaye record, and properly licensed it, then the Gaye estate would have earned good money from the record. The fact that they 'recreated' it instead means they lost out on 'rightful' income?
This article sums it up http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2015/03/if-you-think-robin-thickes-blurred-lines-plagiarises-marvin-gaye-you-dont-understand
-
i was shocked when i read the news paper the mirror this morning
and there is a load of these artists who have copyright issues
OASIS, used the melody from I'D LIKE TO TEACH THE WORLD TO SING
and paid out £300.000
VANILLA ICE, used the riff from queens under pressure, for ice ice baby
paid undisclosed fee out of court
GEORGE HARRISON, my sweet lord used the melody from he's so fine by the chiffons
paid out £392.000
this has been going on for a long time
but to me seems like you can use the other artist material, make a fortune
then just give then some of it, no more said
even mike tysons tattoo on his face
in hangover two a guy wakes up with the same tattoo as mike tyson who is in the film
but the guy who owns the copyright on the image sued warner bros it was amicably resolved
-
My father in law made a lot of production music in the 70s-80s. Recently we found out 2 of his tunes had been sampled without licensing or permission, and put out as records with no credit or any other acknowledgement. One of the songs uses his piece of music in entirety as the backing track, with just beats & rapping over the top.
These tracks have been on commercial release for over a decade, and my wife only found out by chance last summer. The publisher's lawyers say they're onto it, but he hasn't seen a penny yet, and when he does, who knows how much it will be. Not much I reckon.
A friend of mine who's an established pop producer told me this happens all the time. The industry is full of 'producers' who'll happily take a chance on sampling an old/ obscure piece of music and hope the composer never finds out. Shocking ain't it?
-
I'm sure you all know this song
&spfreload=10
Now listen to this
&spfreload=10
Satch lost the case. Blatant rip off.
-
The other fun one is of course The Verse's Great Bitter Sweet Symphony involving the Stone and their producer Andrew Oldham http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitter_Sweet_Symphony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitter_Sweet_Symphony)
:)
Neil
-
Sorry to re-incarnate this old thread but here's an update from today:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/13/entertainment/robin-thicke-pharrell-blurred-lines/index.html