Again . . . from a bird's eye view, what are considered "statements against interest" are what sunk Pharrell and Thicke.
They openly talked about doing a song in the tradition of "Got To Give It Up" while in the studio making the song.
Then they produced a song with some similarities to GTGIU. Cue the lawsuit.
Had they kept their mouths shut, my guess is the case would have been harder to win and there would be no talk of bad precedents, floodgates, etc.
Every case will fall on its own facts. The Blurred Lines case had a smoking howitzer that 9 of 10 copyright cases don't and won't have.
That smoking gun being the fact that they gave credit to the Gaye track as an inspiration (which is all I think it was--it's not a justifiable decision imo)? So they should have lied to or ignored people talking to them (in interviews and so on) when they commented on the song's vibe? Would pretending they'd never heard any previous music keep composers safe?
.
Every artist cites general influences, and often artists mention that particular songs are inspired by or iare nfluenced by or "come from" earlier tunes in different ways. What did them in here was the "Blurred Lines" team's suit against the Gayes and Thicke's repeated dishonesty. He took the writer's credit, then begged off responsibility when the suit came (admitting, infringement or not, that he didn't deserve the money), left Williams high and dry, and generally portrayed himself as someone who desperately needed to be slapped. I just wish somebody could've just slapped him, instead of giving the Gayes money for nothing and confusing the whole copyright issue with a stupid case.
Stylistically it borrows heavily from Morris & The Time
Creatively it's a mixed bag, definitely Zapp inspired with the funk guitar riffs and also some JB with the horns.
But basically it's a homage to 80's funk
Also and was going to add this in the other topic. There's only a finite number of notes and melodies that can be written. Unless someone's going to be really bold and create some really brand new, like a new musical scale as a example, you will get a lot of soundalikes. If you listen to the history of recorded music everything has a beginning. Even the first Christmas songs were adapted from/borrowed from church hymns so everything has its roots somewhere. Some old folk songs or spiritual songs/hymns were also adapted into popular music too. Like 'An American Trilogy' is a blend of 3 19th century songs. Babyface even used 'Moonlight Senerade' by Glenn Miller for 'Together Forever' but I assume the Glenn Miller song is in the public domain now. My only real issue is when someone is blantantly copying song(s) and passing them off as new & as their own without noting the original(s) which is why the Blurred Lines thing was such a big deal because they did use 'Got to Give It Up' by Marvin & didn't give the due credit for it. If they got the sample cleared or said it was inspired by or an interpolation of, there probably wouldn't have been a court case to begin with.
That smoking gun being the fact that they gave credit to the Gaye track as an inspiration (which is all I think it was--it's not a justifiable decision imo)? So they should have lied to or ignored people talking to them (in interviews and so on) when they commented on the song's vibe? Would pretending they'd never heard any previous music keep composers safe?
I'm not saying what they should or shouldn't have done. I'm just pointing out the facts. Those facts made the case more problematic than most other CI cases.
.
Every artist cites general influences, and often artists mention that particular songs are inspired by or iare nfluenced by or "come from" earlier tunes in different ways. What did them in here was the "Blurred Lines" team's suit against the Gayes and Thicke's repeated dishonesty. He took the writer's credit, then begged off responsibility when the suit came (admitting, infringement or not, that he didn't deserve the money), left Williams high and dry, and generally portrayed himself as someone who desperately needed to be slapped. I just wish somebody could've just slapped him, instead of giving the Gayes money for nothing and confusing the whole copyright issue with a stupid case.
But you've actually pointed out the distinction between citing general and specific influences. A lot of artists point to the general influence of other artists on their sound. What the "BL" artists did was point to a specific track they wanted to pay homage to, made a track with (at a minimum) surface similarities to "GTGIU," and the Gaye family pounced.
I agree the case is problematic as precedent, and of course, numerous other factors such as the ones you identified come into play in any case. At the same time, due to the peculiar facts and background you pointed out, the case might not be as persuasive as precedent down the road. And could be overturned on appeal.
[Edited 3/19/15 10:40am]
Good night, sweet Prince | 7 June 1958 - 21 April 2016
Props will be withheld until the showing and proving has commenced. -- Aaron McGruder
It steals from The Gap Band, The Time, Cameo, P-Funk, Zapp.... the list goes on.
it's been going on for over 25 years......
I think the artists of authenticity are fed up w/so many people taking their music they are finally speaking out about it which is a great thing
if the artists who rely on sampling, if they made their own music and 10 years down the line, they find their music being sampled by everyone in sight, they would get upset too
music is a very personable form of expression and when you put your heart into crafting something for the ages, and it's being reduced to a sample to generate sales, it's a major insult of sorts
Exactly. Whoever is ripping it off without giving credit, to me has no respect for the original writer or the life experiences that they had to go through to be able to write the beautiful music they have and the climate they were in at the time.
I think the artists of authenticity are fed up w/so many people taking their music they are finally speaking out about it which is a great thing
if the artists who rely on sampling, if they made their own music and 10 years down the line, they find their music being sampled by everyone in sight, they would get upset too
music is a very personable form of expression and when you put your heart into crafting something for the ages, and it's being reduced to a sample to generate sales, it's a major insult of sorts
Exactly. Whoever is ripping it off without giving credit, to me has no respect for the original writer or the life experiences that they had to go through to be able to write the beautiful music they have and the climate they were in at the time.
I really have no idea why some of you here keep repeating that stuff about sampling.
Hardly anybody uses uncleared samples in music that's intended to be played in radios these days. People haven't really done that since the early-90s. The labels had such bad experiences with the lawsuits then that they're not going to put out anything that sounds like it's built around a sample from another recording and that's not cleared up. That's what initially resulted in all those PE / NWA style sample-heavy tracks getting replaced with R&B style backing music in hiphop, as paying for the rights to use samples became so expensive. It's still done in some underground stuff, but not really in anything that's supposed to be sent to radio.
These cases are about using interpolation techniques and similar musical motifs to what's heard on older recordings. Entirely different thing.
I really have no idea why some of you here keep repeating that stuff about sampling.
Hardly anybody uses uncleared samples in music that's intended to be played in radios these days. People haven't really done that since the early-90s. The labels had such bad experiences with the lawsuits then that they're not going to put out anything that sounds like it's built around a sample from another recording and that's not cleared up. That's what initially resulted in all those PE / NWA style sample-heavy tracks getting replaced with R&B style backing music in hiphop, as paying for the rights to use samples became so expensive. It's still done in some underground stuff, but not really in anything that's supposed to be sent to radio.
These cases are about using interpolation techniques and similar musical motifs to what's heard on older recordings. Entirely different thing.
Bravo, novabrkr. (I think sometimes people said "sample" instead of "interpolation" in context of explaining a riff that sounds like West Coast Poplock.)
I think the artists of authenticity are fed up w/so many people taking their music they are finally speaking out about it which is a great thing
if the artists who rely on sampling, if they made their own music and 10 years down the line, they find their music being sampled by everyone in sight, they would get upset too
music is a very personable form of expression and when you put your heart into crafting something for the ages, and it's being reduced to a sample to generate sales, it's a major insult of sorts
Exactly. Whoever is ripping it off without giving credit, to me has no respect for the original writer or the life experiences that they had to go through to be able to write the beautiful music they have and the climate they were in at the time.
.
Like the others have just said, there is no samples in BL. Also there is nothing there that you would traditionally give credit for such as interpolated melodies or lyrics. Were they supposed to go and say "hey we're doing a song around 120bpm with a cowbell, please can we use a cowbell? Even though the pattern is not the same as anything on your dad's song/s, we feel we need your permission for this cowbell...".
.
This case is unprecedented and surprising to the songwriting community, so saying that they should have asked permission for a situation that no-one would have asked permission for in the past is absurd.
.
Music, sweet music, I wish I could caress and...kiss, kiss...
When people on a music board like this are so confused about these things I really don't find it surprising that a jury consisting of just some random people would be confused about it too.
When people on a music board like this are so confused about these things I really don't find it surprising that a jury consisting of just some random people would be confused about it too.
Totally. It really should be a jury of peers deciding song writing copyright claims and by that I mean a jury of songwriters. Songwriters themselves should be making the decisions of what's morally acceptable within their own field when it comes to a grey area such as vibe/groove, not lawyers or families of deceased songwriters.
Music, sweet music, I wish I could caress and...kiss, kiss...
When people on a music board like this are so confused about these things I really don't find it surprising that a jury consisting of just some random people would be confused about it too.
When people on a music board like this are so confused about these things I really don't find it surprising that a jury consisting of just some random people would be confused about it too.
I think that the jury was actually in a better position to decide than people on a so called music board. It's commonplace to diss the jury in unpopular decisions.
Like I said, there is no legal standard/precedent so I am comfortable with each case being decided on its own merits or lack therof until such time as we have a better model. My perspective is necessarily different than yours since your career is in music....mine is in the justice system....25 plus years.
In my experience this isn't the first case of this kind and won't be the last and there is nothing particularly unusual about it. If not for the names and sums involved it wouldn't be getting this much ink.
Each side presented experts, evidence and testimony. The standard of proof in a civil case is the greater weight of the evidence unlike criminal cases where the standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
I've worked hundreds of trials and what usually happens is what happened in this case. People don't know when to shut the hell up. Plaintiff's counsel was able to persuade the jury by successfully impeaching the defendant's and their witnesses testimony.
Once time in the middle of a trial we were having in small claims court, the judge literally said to the plaintiff "shut up while I'm winning your case for you."
This is a tempest in a teapot and absolutely nothing to fret over. If the verdict doesn't get overturned on appeal it may spook some and tip the scales away from the so called button pushers but as the article I posted says, I seriously doubt this will set precedent even if the verdict is upheld, which I think it will be.
I'm fine with that.
Prince, in you I found a kindred spirit...Rest In Paradise.
No it doesn´t, if you put the same pitch them right a lot of songs go well together. When you listen to the part of Jungle love you can hear the melody of the horns are completely different, did just go well together once mixed.
The whole housescene is based on that, every housetracks rippes of the other housetrack that way.
That´s why it so easy to make a dj mix, but they are just not the same songs!
I don´t understand why uptown funk and Blurred lines are getting so much heath, why can´t we just enjoy the songs? I love being Uptown funk being such a big hit.
Maybe just stop making music, because every word, melody and drumloop has been done sometimes on some song already.
New topic
Printable
Report post to moderator
Bravo, novabrkr. (I think sometimes people said "sample" instead of "interpolation" in context of explaining a riff that sounds like West Coast Poplock.)
this stuff is so ridiculous,it's become boring 
