I think this is the most important point.....

The basis of the Gaye defendants’ claims is that “Blurred Lines” and “Got To Give It Up” “feel” or “sound” the same. Being reminiscent of a “sound” is not copyright infringement. The intent in producing “Blurred Lines” was to evoke an era. In reality, the Gaye defendants are claiming ownership of an entire genre, as opposed to a specific work, and Bridgeport is claiming the same work.

After reading the lawsuit, this is the part that stands out to me:

(b) the Gayes do not have an interest in the copyright to the composition "Got To Give It Up" sufficient to confer standing on them to pursue claims of infringement of that composition;

Why should Got to give it up be in the public domain? That doesn't make sense. It is the property of the artist or their estate or the heirs of the estate.

SoulAlive said:

George Clinton just tweeted:

George Clinton ✔ @george_clinton

No sample of #Funkadelic's 'Sexy Ways' in @RobinThicke's 'Blurred Lines' - yet Armen Boladian thinks so? We support @RobinThicke @Pharrell!

8:18 PM - 15 Aug 2013

Oh, George...

SoulAlive said:

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

Saying Pharrell "rarely ever uses samples" means he has used samples at some point and does not exempt him from having done so again, in this particular instance.

If Pharrell had sampled the Marvin Gaye track,he would have cleared it beforehand.He's not dumb He's been in the business long enough to know that samples would have to be cleared/approved.What you hear on the "Blurred Lines" song is not a sample.

An interpolation without permission without permission is still illegal.

The two basslines do sound very similar, there are slight differences. It's hard to know how much of a similarity there has to be for it to breach copyright laws.

There you go, the P-Funk camp supports Thicke and Pharrel. It's our job on this site to go by their rule.

novabrkr said:

There you go, the P-Funk camp supports Thicke and Pharrel. It's our job on this site to go by their rule.

That is NOT George's motivation.

Graycap23 said:

novabrkr said:

There you go, the P-Funk camp supports Thicke and Pharrel. It's our job on this site to go by their rule.

That is NOT George's motivation.

No, it's not.

Maybe my ears are bad, but I don't hear it.

It's definitely inspired by, but the two songs are in no way THAT similar.

I listened to that Funkadelic track,and I agree with George Clinton.I don't hear a similarity at all.

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

Graycap23 said:

That is NOT George's motivation.

No, it's not.

You guys realize you're betraying the funk, right?

novabrkr said:

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

No, it's not.

You guys realize you're betraying the funk, right?

Keep busting.

Blurred Lines is an alright song, but I dont understand all the hype over it and why its such a huge hit. Its good, but not that good imo. And the music video sucks.

NaughtyKitty said:

Blurred Lines is an alright song, but I dont understand all the hype over it and why its such a huge hit. Its good, but not that good imo. And the music video sucks.

I think it's a big hit simply because it's fun and uptempo....something that we don't always get from R&B these days.

I meant to go to the Thicke thread and write that I preferred the original. It's Marvin's sound all over it.

I don't support the Gaye family on this case, but I really don't get the appeal of "Blurred Lines" either. I've had to conclude that people just want their hits to be mediocre as songs these days. Additionally, they should have some sort of annoying vocals on them.

If they'd hear the same type of CLASS and GREAT TASTE as Marvin's track showcases they'd just switch the radio channel or leave the club. I've been to clubs quite a lot over the last year or so and nothing clears the dancefloor in the bigger clubs as quickly as good music.

novabrkr said:

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

No, it's not.

You guys realize you're betraying the funk, right?

Pish posh!

Here I was thinking they had clearance from the get go. It's GTGIU all day on that track.

SoulAlive said:

mjscarousal said:

Very disappointed in Robin. This man is really suing the Marvin Gaye family

He should be kissing the ground they walk on and respectfully giving them the credit since it was obviously sampled or inspired by Got To Give It Up.

I dont know what to think. Robin is cool I guess but these artists out now have no respect for the legendary artists This move by Thicke is straight up tacky... Im actually quite shocked.

it's not quite that severe Robin and Pharrell are simply trying to get everything clarified.They have been threatened by Marvin's estate,so they want to clarify everything and have it all settled.Their view is that the music on "Blurred Lines" was not sampled/stolen from the Marvin Gaye classic and they simply want a judge to settle it.I agree with what they're doing.

Robin isn't really "suing" Marvin's family...he's just protecting his song.

I understand what you're saying but do you think that is going to sit well with the family?

I never particularly cared for Blurred Lines and the video could have been WAY more creative. They could have made a 70's inspired video that took place in a neighborhood block party or house party in the summer of 1970. It does sound alot like "Got to Give It Up" and MJ's "woooaaaa" from Dont Stop Till You Get Enough is sampled (which Im sure he more than likely got permission to sample... I hope).

Ive watched a few interviews where Robin talks about Blurred Lines and he never mentions Marvin Gaye's Got To Give It Up as an inspiration. Do you think that is kind of a cop out?

I can see why the family would be a little disappointed when it was heavily inspired by "Got To Give It Up".

I still like Robin and I'm still happy for him lol

Graycap23 said:

This is a smart marketing move. The "scandal" will cause enough people to go to youtube to listen to the song and, therefore, help keep it in the #1 spot on Billboard a little while longer.

Robin Thicke Is Really Sorry to Sue Marvin Gaye's Heirs

Here’s something you don’t find in the court files every day: a really apologetic lawsuit.

The superpolite intellectual property litigation (pdf) comes courtesy of singer Robin Thicke, whose Blurred Lines is the summer’s monster hit. Thicke and co-composers Pharrell Williams and Clifford Harris went to federal court in Los Angeles on Aug. 15 seeking to preempt legal claims that Blurred Lines borrows too aggressively from late soul legend Marvin Gaye and the group Funkadelic.

“Plaintiffs, who have the utmost respect for and admiration of Marvin Gaye, Funkadelic, and their musical legacies, reluctantly file this action in the face of multiple adverse claims from alleged successors in interest to those artists,” the Thicke suit states. “Defendants continue to insist that plaintiffs’ massively successful composition, Blurred Lines, copies ‘their’ compositions.” Named as defendants are members of Gaye’s family and a company called Bridgeport Music, which owns some of Funkadelic’s songs.

The suit states that the Gaye family is complaining about similarities to Got to Give It Up. The Funkadelic song in question is Sexy Ways. The suit requests a judicial order clarifying that “there are no similarities between plaintiffs’ composition and those the claimants allege they own, other than commonplace musical elements.” The Gaye family, according to the suit, recently “notified plaintiffs that, if plaintiffs do not pay a monetary settlement of the Gayes’ claim, the Gayes intend to initiate litigation for copyright infringement against plaintiffs.”

The Hollywood Reporter has generously assembled the deferential lawsuit, as well as recordings of Gaye’s Got to Give It Up and Thicke’s Blurred Lines. So, in this case, you can be your own judge. The relevant legal standard is that the plaintiffs have to show by “a preponderance of the evidence” (that’s legalese for “more likely than not”) that Thicke’s song doesn’t violate the defendants’ copyrights.

Here’s my verdict. The songs are definitely similar: heavy bass line, falsetto vocals, lots of loose percussion and background noise. They’re fun and bouncy. And I had no difficulty telling them apart, as Thicke’s work sounds like a slightly tinny knockoff of the Gaye classic.

If that constitutes a copyright violation, Thicke and his colleagues are on the hook. But if every pop music copycat had to lawyer up and pay up, no one would ever have the time or money to write “new” songs or get into the recording studio.

http://www.businessweek.c...ayes-heirs

[Edited 8/16/13 13:47pm]

kitbradley said:

This is a smart marketing move. The "scandal" will cause enough people to go to youtube to listen to the song and, therefore, help keep it in the #1 spot on Billboard a little while longer.

Or just the opposite, make people long for the original.

phunkdaddy said:

Who's fooling who here? The very first time I heard the song I said it was Got To Give It Up. No matter how you slice it whether you call it sampling or an interpolation they should credit Marvin with the song period. Let's not BS the people Robin.

phunkdaddy said:

Who's fooling who here? The very first time I heard the song I said it was Got To Give It Up. No matter how you slice it whether you call it sampling or an interpolation they should credit Marvin with the song period. Let's not BS the people Robin.

it's all out hijacking....he don't want to kick out the money for stealing the song.....

because of the abuse of sampling, music has grown stagnant, thus, as predictable, record sales have practically stopped to a screeching halt.

If I was an artist, I would feel so satisfied and proud to create a body of music that was truly authentic.....the sense of exhiliration from that would be out of this body experience

God, that would be an awesome feeling.....it couldn't get no better than that as an artist, the sales would take care of itself

I would feel bad knowing I hijacked someone's creative input and be the recipienct of record breaking response knowing the idea wasn't mine to begin with....

I know Marvin Gaye was on cloud nine when he made this record

[Edited 8/16/13 14:37pm]

I thought the redone MJ'ish "Woooo!!" was there as a placeholder for the crowd noise in the GTGIU groove.

I have the CD, and there are only 3 writers (Robin, Pharrell, and T.I.) and their 3 respective publishing companies credited.

Pharrell knows how to play rhythmically to create a groove, and write different melodies to make something new. You can't copyright a chord progression or a drum pattern. Infringement begins when the original mechanical masters are used, and the same melody (lyric) is put on top of the same chord.

Additionally, the copyright law was created to protect NEW songs from being re-recorded and released shortly after as "direct competition" sales-wise.

Remember when everyone thought this Pharrell production sounded like "Screams Of Passion"?

Always thought this intro was a reference no one else heard:

Anyway... I think "Blurred Lines" just sounds similarly arranged, especially rhythmically.

It became very obvious to me how melodically different "Blurred Lines" is to "Got To Give It Up" when I heard it played like this:

NOW tell me what sounds like Marvin Gaye to you

[Edited 8/16/13 15:02pm]

Cinny said:

Anyway... I think "Blurred Lines" just sounds similarly arranged, especially rhythmically.

It became very obvious to me how melodically different "Blurred Lines" is to "Got To Give It Up" when I heard it played like this:

NOW tell me what sounds like Marvin Gaye to you

[Edited 8/16/13 15:02pm]

The entire bass line!