Pharrell Williams, Robin Thicke lose to Gaye Estate

Wow...I really don't know what I think about this. I've heard other songs that I thought sounded waaaay more similar to each other. I really felt like this song was "inspired" by the MG song...but this is a really slippery slope. What's your take on it, donr?

JK, I largely agree with your professional opinion. For whatever reason, Williams, Thicke et al declined to settle out of court, and let a jury decide.

It's not a good idea IMO to let a jury or a judge make the call on what is infringement or plagiarism in popular music. As Pharrell's spokeperson said, this decision does not bode well for songwriting in general. If there are paydays like this awarded to plaintiffs, you know there will be more suits like this to follow, like the ones against the ladder manufacturers, McDonald's hot coffee, etc. Anyone with a big hit is going to be fair game for a skillful plaintiff attorney.

It would be better to establish a civil panel or special court populated by songwriter/publisher peers to make the call on what is stealing and what is just another song with a certain progression, melody or vibe.

I think the Gaye estate had a case, and rightfully might have deserved some compensation on "Blurred Lines." But for the court to say that Gaye has a perpetual right to the style of that particular song, and imply no one else can write a song in that style without paying Gaye really doesn't understand the way pop songs are written at all.

These beefs should be settled much the same way as sample clearances are for rap tracks. Now, how are they settled? (We once had to threaten suit for rap act Third Bass using one of our tunes for a rap bed without clearance. Didn't have to go to court.) I bet no sample clearance issue ever went to a civil court. The sample IS the sample, after all. 

you guys should watch the videos by the lawyers that explain how the case was won. they couldn't play the songs outright in the case, and the copyright for the Gaye song was in the form of a lead sheet. it's really interesting how the case was proven.

this ones a bit of a head scratcher imo.

7.4 mil for a similar vibe. This is bad for musicians everywhere.

Sounds like lawyers ripping off both sides to me. I can't imagine the similar elements couldn't have easily been proven to be in the public domain.

maybe this will trigger people to start writing new music, instead of rehashing everyone else's songs.. They should've done what Sam Smith and Co. did with regard to that Tom Petty song that had the same chorus melody. they gave Petty a percentage instead of dragging it thru the courts. Pharrell and Co. were dumb and tried to sue the Gaye family first to prevent them from pursuing a claim, knowing they ripped off Gaye's tune. ain't nothin' but Karma rearing its head in this situation.

I know both of these songs very well, and i have to say blurred lines never evoked a though of marvins tune, i think the suit is shit. On the other hand that Sam tune immediately had me saying woah,... Tom Petty must be pissed. The lawyers for blurred lines had to be shit, this doesn't seem difficult to prove, this BS case sets a horrible precedent that subjects any pop tune that has kick on 1,3 and snare on 2,4, or jazz tune with a ride cymbal pattern of 1, 2 a, 3, 4 a, to a law suit, if they appeal(and i'd be stunned if they didn't) they will win.

So the drum beat is copyrighted "feel" so Gaye wrote that beat I dident know he played drums. Wonder who the drummer was maybe he/she's family should sue the gaye's family for song writing credits.. But wait that "feel" is not original who played it first... W.T.F have we gone insane???

The moral of the story is to "keep your mouth shut."

wish I wrote the first 12 bar blues song in E

It was poorly played, but still, it's a crock of poop, they should have let the jury hear both tunes, you cant copyright drum grooves...right? Thats the only thing in the tune thats similar, the sparse bassline drops differently.