Pharrell Williams, et al. v. Bridgeport Music, Inc., et alA US District Court of California has decided that Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams' 2013 pop hit Blurred Lines infringes copyright in
Pharrell Williams, et al. v. Bridgeport Music, Inc., et al
A US District Court of California has decided that Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams' 2013 pop hit Blurred Lines infringes copyright in Marvin Gaye's 1977 hit Got to Give It Up. As part of the decision, Thicke and Williams must pay damages to Gaye's estate to the tune of $7.3m.
The hotly contested battle kicked off in 2013 when the Blurred Lines co-writers took pre-emptive action and sought a declaratory judgment that Blurred Lines did not infringe copyright in Got to Give It Up or otherwise violate any rights held by Gaye's estate. Gaye's family counter-claimed for copyright infringement.
The question of infringement centred on the Gayes' rights in specific compositional elements of the sheet music and similarities between these features and elements of Blurred Lines. In presenting their respective cases for similarities and/or differences between the songs, both parties adduced expert evidence from musicologists to comment on features such as signature phrase, hooks, core themes, melodies, and percussion choices. The expert for the Gayes opined that the similarities between the songs “surpass the realm of generic coincidence, reaching to the very essence of each work.”
In deciding whether any infringement had taken place, the jury was faced with the unenviable task of differentiating between copyright in the registered sheet music of Got to Give It Up and the sound recording of the song which, unlike the automatic protection it would have received in the UK, was not a registrable copyright at the relevant time in the US.
During the trial, Williams discussed the song-creation process; he admitted that Gaye's music was an inspiration to him and in creating Blurred Lines tried to "channel that '70s feeling" but insisted that "to feel isn't copyright infringement". The jury decided differently and held that Blurred Lines contained substantial similarities to the protected expressions within Got to Give It Up and ordered the payment of damages accordingly.
Thicke and Williams' lawyers appear set to appeal the decision, which they say sets a "horrible precedent for music and creativity". In the meantime, Gaye's estate are now seeking an injunction to block sales of Blurred Lines, which has generated over $16m to date, until an "appropriate agreement" can be reached.
The consequences of this decision could be far-reaching for the music industry in terms of what constitutes 'inspiration' from previous works and what constitutes 'infringement' of those works. If the verdict is upheld on appeal, it will be interesting to see whether this apparent lowering of the hurdle for infringement will encourage others to assert their rights against songs which clearly aim to 'emulate' copyright protected work.
A US District Court of California has decided that Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams' 2013 pop hit Blurred Lines infringes copyright in Marvin Gaye's 1977 hit Got to Give It Up. As part of the decision, Thicke and Williams must pay damages to Gaye's estate to the tune of $7.3m.
The hotly contested battle kicked off in 2013 when the Blurred Lines co-writers took pre-emptive action and sought a declaratory judgment that Blurred Lines did not infringe copyright in Got to Give It Up or otherwise violate any rights held by Gaye's estate. Gaye's family counter-claimed for copyright infringement.
The question of infringement centred on the Gayes' rights in specific compositional elements of the sheet music and similarities between these features and elements of Blurred Lines. In presenting their respective cases for similarities and/or differences between the songs, both parties adduced expert evidence from musicologists to comment on features such as signature phrase, hooks, core themes, melodies, and percussion choices. The expert for the Gayes opined that the similarities between the songs “surpass the realm of generic coincidence, reaching to the very essence of each work.”
In deciding whether any infringement had taken place, the jury was faced with the unenviable task of differentiating between copyright in the registered sheet music of Got to Give It Up and the sound recording of the song which, unlike the automatic protection it would have received in the UK, was not a registrable copyright at the relevant time in the US.
During the trial, Williams discussed the song-creation process; he admitted that Gaye's music was an inspiration to him and in creating Blurred Lines tried to "channel that '70s feeling" but insisted that "to feel isn't copyright infringement". The jury decided differently and held that Blurred Lines contained substantial similarities to the protected expressions within Got to Give It Up and ordered the payment of damages accordingly.
Thicke and Williams' lawyers appear set to appeal the decision, which they say sets a "horrible precedent for music and creativity". In the meantime, Gaye's estate are now seeking an injunction to block sales of Blurred Lines, which has generated over $16m to date, until an "appropriate agreement" can be reached.
The consequences of this decision could be far-reaching for the music industry in terms of what constitutes 'inspiration' from previous works and what constitutes 'infringement' of those works. If the verdict is upheld on appeal, it will be interesting to see whether this apparent lowering of the hurdle for infringement will encourage others to assert their rights against songs which clearly aim to 'emulate' copyright protected work.