Arbwyth said:

While I'm at it, I would like to lodge a complaint about this bit of fuckery:

"Gaye defendants are claiming ownership of an entire genre."

Um, no. They are saying that THIS ONE SPECIFIC SONG sounds like ANOTHER SPECIFIC SONG. If they were claiming ownership of an entire genre, they'd be suing more people than Prince.

nd33 said:

2) There is no melodic similarity. If you think there is, please point out the reference times on each track.

3) You cannot copyright a kick/snare/hihat/cowbell pattern. If you swapped that pattern out of BL for another drum pattern, no-one would have even considered any similarity between these two songs.

Interestingly,when I first the song,I thought of Madonna's "Give It 2 Me",a song that Pharrell co-wrote and produced for her Hard Candy album.

You cannot copyright a kick/snare/hihat/cowbell pattern

Very good point.

nd33 said:

Arbwyth said:

I'm pretty sure there's no legally established basis for what constitutes a sample -- and even if there is, I really, really doubt that ONLY jacking a melody counts as a sample. If that's the case, why even bother paying producers since that would essentially mean their original work doesn't matter as long as somebody else wrote the melody? Honestly, the first time I heard Blurred Lines, I immediately thought of Got to Give it Up -- I don't think there's much similarity in the Funkadelic song, but I find it absolutely STUNNING that anybody would say BL and GTGIU aren't damn near the same EXCEPT for the melody. I always tend to listen to my music on headphones, so I don't know if that makes the similarities more obvious or what. At any rate, I've been telling everybody since Blurred Lines came out that they should just listen to Marvin's song instead since, you know, Marvin wasn't a flaming misogynist.

Also, let's remember that Thicke and his attorneys said there are "no similarities" between Blurred Lines and Got to Give it Up. I'm sorry, but only a total lunatic would think there are no similarities between the two.

I don't think anyone disputes that it evokes GTGIU. I certainly thought that about 2 bars after hearing Blurred Lines for the first time ever. Still, there's no melodic similarity, and that's what the law will look at.

Robin has always said that this song was inspired by the Marvin Gaye hit.He's never tried to hide that.But it's not a straight rip-off,and it obviously doesn't feature a sample.

Arbwyth said:

While I'm at it, I would like to lodge a complaint about this bit of fuckery:

"Gaye defendants are claiming ownership of an entire genre."

Um, no. They are saying that THIS ONE SPECIFIC SONG sounds like ANOTHER SPECIFIC SONG. If they were claiming ownership of an entire genre, they'd be suing more people than Prince.

but if they're so sure that Robin ripped off Marvin's song,why didn't they simply file a lawsuit? Before Robin's pre-emptive strike?

as for the Funkadelic track...I don't know what that guy is smoking Even George Clinton has said that "Blurred Lines" does not sample that song at all.

SoulAlive said:

AlexdeParis said:

Not even close. "My Sweet Lord" is clearly a rip-off (conscious or not) of "He's So Fine." It's also a much better song, so there's that.

It's like I said earlier....many songs have similiar chords/melodies.We mentioned "Billie Jean"/I Can't Go For That",but someone on this site once mentioned that "Billie Jean" actually borrows from Steely Dan's "Do It Again" not sure I see alot of similarity there,but it proves that,in pop music, everything is influeced by what came before it.

Madonna's "Like a Virgin" borrows the bass line from "Billie Jean" also...

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

SoulAlive said:

It's like I said earlier....many songs have similiar chords/melodies.We mentioned "Billie Jean"/I Can't Go For That",but someone on this site once mentioned that "Billie Jean" actually borrows from Steely Dan's "Do It Again" not sure I see alot of similarity there,but it proves that,in pop music, everything is influeced by what came before it.

Madonna's "Like a Virgin" borrows the bass line from "Billie Jean" also...

that's my whole point.There are MANY songs that are similiar to other songs.Look at many of the Bar-Kay's early 80s hits...."Freakshow On The Dancefloor" was obviously influenced/inspired by "No Parking On The Dancefloor".But I don't see it as being a straight-up rip off.

nd33 said:

Arbwyth said:

I'm pretty sure there's no legally established basis for what constitutes a sample -- and even if there is, I really, really doubt that ONLY jacking a melody counts as a sample. If that's the case, why even bother paying producers since that would essentially mean their original work doesn't matter as long as somebody else wrote the melody? Honestly, the first time I heard Blurred Lines, I immediately thought of Got to Give it Up -- I don't think there's much similarity in the Funkadelic song, but I find it absolutely STUNNING that anybody would say BL and GTGIU aren't damn near the same EXCEPT for the melody. I always tend to listen to my music on headphones, so I don't know if that makes the similarities more obvious or what. At any rate, I've been telling everybody since Blurred Lines came out that they should just listen to Marvin's song instead since, you know, Marvin wasn't a flaming misogynist.

Also, let's remember that Thicke and his attorneys said there are "no similarities" between Blurred Lines and Got to Give it Up. I'm sorry, but only a total lunatic would think there are no similarities between the two.

I don't think anyone disputes that it evokes GTGIU. I certainly thought that about 2 bars after hearing Blurred Lines for the first time ever. Still, there's no melodic similarity, and that's what the law will look at.

OK, I see what you're saying. I looked up how copyright law views anything other than lyrics and melody, and yeah, that is the main thing that courts look at. However, another key component is that the song or part in question has to be "sufficiently original" to constitute infringement. Now, there are not a whole lot of songs out there that sound like GTGIU, and everybody I know who's heard GTGIU thought Blurred Lines was a copy of GTGIU the first time they heard it. And infringement of melody or lyrics isn't required to win a lawsuit, it's just the most straightforward way. It's not ridiculous to think that in this day and age, that might change because songs increasingly rely on an overall arrangement to make them original -- as lyrics and melodies get simpler, songs are increasingly relying on other elements to distinguish themselves. Under certain circumstances, arrangements can be protected, even if the melody and/or words have been changed (parodies are treated differently, of course). So, it won't be as open and shut a case as if Thicke had ripped off the melody or lyrics, but it doesn't mean there is no case, and I wouldn't be surprised if this one turns out to be egregious enough to be the exception. Especially since Thicke's team said, verbatim, that there are "no similarities" between the two.

[Edited 8/18/13 2:44am]

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

The Gaye estate is fiercely protective of Marvin's legacy. Its the reason why they won't approve of any of his muziq being used in any attempts at making movies on Marvin's life. Most likely their going to have to settle for major undisclosed funds or stop distribution of the mega hit.

Marvin's family are very shady.I remember something that Carlos Santana said about them.He is a huge Marvin Gaye fan and he was putting together a compilation of the artists who inspired him.He wanted to use a few Marvin Gaye live recordings.The family agreed,but they weren't "very nice" about it,according to Carlos....and they only allowed him to use sub-par recordings.

They are the main reason why we haven't seen a proper Marvin Gaye biopic.I think they're afraid that it would be overly negative,but everyone knows about Marvin's troubled life.No need to hide that.

if it every reached the point were legal tenor stated sampled would no longer be allowed

this industry would be finished and everyone involved knows it

there would be tons of dry air on the airwaves

this is a straight up hijack, but Robin isn't the only person culpable in this activity

it's been going on for decades

stealing entire musical compositions, not that of a single worded expression

I believe this is the hijacked that kicked off the proliferation of sampling...........

and these guys received critical acclaim for the hijack

regarding sampling.....we wouldn't be in this mess if in 1980,when "Rapper's Delight" came out,the industry had taken a stronger stance against sampling.That song blatantly stole the music from Chic's "Good Times" and seemingly nobody cared.

SoulAlive said:

regarding sampling.....we wouldn't be in this mess if in 1980,when "Rapper's Delight" came out,the industry had taken a stronger stance against sampling.That song blatantly stole the music from Chic's "Good Times" and seemingly nobody cared.

the forefathers's who constructed the elements of hip-hop

those from the NYC burrough who blood, sweated and teared to create the dynamic

they issued a warning as early as 1977

they said if hip-hop/rap was ever commercialized it would be destroyed

it was never meant for commercialization, it was meant to provide a voice to those who was rendered voiceless

ABeautifulOne said:

I feel as if the person/people that wrote Shalamar's Take That To The Bank will eventually come forward and call bullshit on Robin because Ain't No Hat 4 That is a rip of that song as well. Robin is talented but he bit a lot of classics for this new album even though I love it.

Bull That's stretching things a bit."Ain't No Hat For That" is,in no way,a rip off of that Shalamar song.Remember,just because a song "feels like" or is "reminiscent" of another song,that cannot be considered copyright infringement.

^^If that was the case,bands like Jamiroquai would be getting sued,left and right.Many of their songs have an Old School feel/influence.But that's not the same thing as copyright infringement.

SoulAlive said:

ABeautifulOne said:

I feel as if the person/people that wrote Shalamar's Take That To The Bank will eventually come forward and call bullshit on Robin because Ain't No Hat 4 That is a rip of that song as well. Robin is talented but he bit a lot of classics for this new album even though I love it.

Bull That's stretching things a bit."Ain't No Hat For That" is,in no way,a rip off of that Shalamar song.Remember,just because a song "feels like" or is "reminiscent" of another song,that cannot be considered copyright infringement.

he hijacked that song too....the melody between verses is carbon copy

professional hijacker......hide your wallet.....

Scorp said:

SoulAlive said:

Bull That's stretching things a bit."Ain't No Hat For That" is,in no way,a rip off of that Shalamar song.Remember,just because a song "feels like" or is "reminiscent" of another song,that cannot be considered copyright infringement.

he hijacked that song too....the melody between verses is carbon copy

professional hijacker......hide your wallet.....

LOL..no he didn't

Scorp said:

SoulAlive said:

regarding sampling.....we wouldn't be in this mess if in 1980,when "Rapper's Delight" came out,the industry had taken a stronger stance against sampling.That song blatantly stole the music from Chic's "Good Times" and seemingly nobody cared.

the forefathers's who constructed the elements of hip-hop

those from the NYC burrough who blood, sweated and teared to create the dynamic

they issued a warning as early as 1977

they said if hip-hop/rap was ever commercialized it would be destroyed

it was never meant for commercialization, it was meant to provide a voice to those who was rendered voiceless

If the industry had outlawed sampling in 1980 (around the time of "Rapper's Delight"),non-musicians like Puff Daddy would have never had a music career.

SoulAlive said:

Scorp said:

the forefathers's who constructed the elements of hip-hop

those from the NYC burrough who blood, sweated and teared to create the dynamic

they issued a warning as early as 1977

they said if hip-hop/rap was ever commercialized it would be destroyed

it was never meant for commercialization, it was meant to provide a voice to those who was rendered voiceless

If the industry had outlawed sampling in 1980 (around the time of "Rapper's Delight"),non-musicians like Puff Daddy would have never had a music career.

I definitely agree with that along w/a slue of other people also

I think in the case of Rapper's Delight, I aint gone lie, I loved that song as a kid, but that jam came about spontaneously as Sugar HIll Gang freestyled over the "Good Times" when it was being played at some concert Chic was performing at, and it just evolved into an actual record

all this sampling over time shows that the music of the 70s and 80s from all cultures was so rich and viable, the artists who have come forth in the past 26 years find it almost impossible to refrain from tapping into it

[Edited 8/18/13 5:55am]

deebee said:

I would guess that, in principle, it ultimately comes down to what a jury in a trial - guided, I suppose, by 'expert witnesses' from each side - would agree did or didn't constitute theft of intellectual property. And, in practice (here's the rub!), it would come down to who's got the legal clout, and who can successfully play the system to protect their interests. I mean, Robin and his 'people' are one up by doing the latter, but that must be because they realise there's at least a chance that the former would go against them.

I think Robin,Pharrell and T.I are smart for filing this pre-emptive lawsuit.The Gaye family has spent all of this time "threatening" a lawsuit,and presumably,making these claims unofficially.In essence,they've been "bullying" Robin,behind the scenes.I never like that kind of behavior.If they think that "Blurred Lines" is an example of copyright infringement,they should step forward and file a lawsuit.None of this behind the scenes crap.Let's get it all out in the open and take the battle to court.The fact that they didn't file a lawsuit first,or even responded to Robin's lawsuit,shows that they're probably not very confident in their case.

I have heard about copyright infringement cases in the past where the composer(s) of the track actually comes to court,sets up his equipment,and plays the music for the court....bascially demonstrating how they came up with the groove I wonder if this case would go that far?

Scorp said:

SoulAlive said:

If the industry had outlawed sampling in 1980 (around the time of "Rapper's Delight"),non-musicians like Puff Daddy would have never had a music career.

I definitely agree with that along w/a slue of other people also

I blame the industry and the supporters of those songs,for allowing sampling to continue.They are the reasons why Puff Daddy became so famous.Can you imagine how music would have developed and evolved if sampling was never allowed? Hip-hop artists would have had to use "real music" on their tracks,which is actually what many of the early rap artists/groups were doing (Run DMC,Grandmaster Flash,etc),for the most part.

Cinny said:

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"?

Pharrell is known for plagiarism. This isn't new. He has done it before and he will do it again. You want to see evidence?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPLLz2OuUPY

I find it interesting what Peven had to say about Qtip saying Pharrell was interested in his work. You don't even hear Pharrell acknowledge Peven at all.

Alot of people don't realize it,but Pharrell is actually a real musician.He plays keyboards and drums.I think that,because he's associated with the hip-hop wolrd,people often assume that he's just sampling all the time.

SoulAlive said:

Scorp said:

I definitely agree with that along w/a slue of other people also

I blame the industry and the supporters of those songs,for allowing sampling to continue.They are the reasons why Puff Daddy became so famous.Can you imagine how music would have developed and evolved if sampling was never allowed? Hip-hop artists would have had to use "real music" on their tracks,which is actually what many of the early rap artists/groups were doing (Run DMC,Grandmaster Flash,etc),for the most part.

I agree 150%

the industry never stopped sampling, but actually created the environment that encouraged it. They did it because this was the means to tap into culture definitely in order to exploit it to the tilt for commercial exploitation and untold financial gain.....

SoulAlive said:

Alot of people don't realize it,but Pharrell is actually a real musician.He plays keyboards and drums.I think that,because he's associated with the hip-hop wolrd,people often assume that he's just sampling all the time.

He can play in the sense of doing chords but he is extremely limited as a musician. His talents lie in his ability as an arranger/producer, that's where he matters. He's like Linda McCartney on the keys.

Trickology said:

SoulAlive said:

Alot of people don't realize it,but Pharrell is actually a real musician.He plays keyboards and drums.I think that,because he's associated with the hip-hop wolrd,people often assume that he's just sampling all the time.

He can play in the sense of doing chords but he is extremely limited as a musician. His talents lie in his ability as an arranger/producer, that's where he matters. He's like Linda McCartney on the keys.

he can play well enough to construct a song from scratch,which many of these other "producers" can't do.Some of them are just beatmakers.

Arbwyth said:

SoulAlive said:

speaking of "Billie Jean"....Billy Ocean's 1984 hit "Carribean Queen (No More Love On The Run)" borrows heavily from the MJ hit...far more than "Blurred Lines" borrows from GTGIU.

I don't really like Caribbean Queen, but I disagree. The synth and bassline and the guitar lick are really similar, but Caribbean Queen doesn't rely on Billie Jean for its entire groove or sound -- there are a lot of elements in CQ aside from what it takes from Billie Jean. If you look at it as a full package, Blurred Lines is a bigger ripoff. Basically everything that's awesome and memorable about Blurred Lines is from GTGIU, and once you take out the parts from GTGIU, there's hardly anything left to the song.

I think this is the main point of contention in this thread. You're arguing that taking or incorporating a piece of an older song is less of a violation than recreating the vibe of an older song, but years of copyright litigation suggests the very opposite. Borrowing (and slightly modifying) the chant in Pt. 2 of GTGIU — like the Jacksons did on "Shake Your Body (Down to the Ground)" — could be considered infringement (e.g. see Men at Work's "Down Under" and George Michael's "Waiting for That Day"). OTOH, this case is very similar to the complaints lodged against Babyface back in his heyday for writing "the same song." Even though the songs were melodically different, the entire vibe told you it was Face right off the bat. Someone brought up the Whispers' "Rock Steady" and Paula Abdul's "Knocked Out"; those are two LaFace songs that are eerily similar because of their vibe more than anything else.

Bottom line: once you discern that they aren't melodic similarities, this case comes down to accusing Thicke and Pharrell of stealing Marvin's style instead of the song itself. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know of any cases where style biting was labeled copyright infringing.

Also, I stand corrected on saying that this is probably a sample, since it seems like they just re-did the production of GTGIU rather than directly using the recording (although there are one or two parts that I'm not entirely certain of even on that). However, sampling is far from the only form of musical copyright infringement, so I'm not sure why there's such a huge fixation here on whether it is or isn't a direct sample. If it copies Marvin too closely, it's infringement regardless of the technology used.

If there isn't a direct sample (and there isn't), they'll be looking for melodic similarities.

Arbwyth said:

SoulAlive said:

speaking of "Billie Jean"....Billy Ocean's 1984 hit "Carribean Queen (No More Love On The Run)" borrows heavily from the MJ hit...far more than "Blurred Lines" borrows from GTGIU.

I don't really like Caribbean Queen, but I disagree. The synth and bassline and the guitar lick are really similar, but Caribbean Queen doesn't rely on Billie Jean for its entire groove or sound -- there are a lot of elements in CQ aside from what it takes from Billie Jean. If you look at it as a full package, Blurred Lines is a bigger ripoff. Basically everything that's awesome and memorable about Blurred Lines is from GTGIU, and once you take out the parts from GTGIU, there's hardly anything left to the song.

I totally disagree.Most of the people buying "Blurred Lines" were probably not even born when "Got to Give It Up" was released. Songs that become Number One for weeks on end,are not being bought by the older crowd It is a hit song on its own merits,not because of the Marvin Gaye connection.As for the Billy Ocean song....I remember when it was released in 1984,everyone was saying that it sounds just like "Billie Jean".But it goes back to what I keep saying....MANY songs borrow from other songs,today more than ever.But making a song that's reminiswcent of another song,is not the same thing as copyright infringement.

I don't see how anyone with ears could deny that Blurred Lines is an interpolation of a piece of Got To Give It Up.

If this were a Prince song, the org would be full of hate for Robin. The org has gone nuts over less. Because it is a dead black R&B singer that some people on here are unfamiliar with, there is a lot of indifference about it because there is less attachment to the original artist and the source material.
The fact is, they tried to cleverly copy GTGIU, and everybody was cool with it until Marvin's family decided to say something. Now its denial, denial, denial.

Suing the original artist over something you KNOW you stole? That's just downright disgusting. No R&B head in their right mind should support these fools ever again. Robin and Pharrell should have their careers severed at the head and T.I.'s ass should be put on notice just for good measure .

T.I. 'll be like "What did I do? and folks 'll say "You was with 'em!"

Its up to people that support a genre of music to preserve its integrity.

Maybe a few years down the line, someone will do the same thing to "Lost Without You" like Kevin Hart did jokingly and Robin will feel the same sting.

[Edited 8/18/13 7:51am]

Arbwyth said:

Interestingly enough, if you Google "Take That To the Bank" and "Robin Thicke," the second result is the YouTube audio of "Ain't No Hat For That." I hadn't heard Thicke's song, but the similarities are really uncanny. In that one, even the melody is similar. I also hope Shalamar comes forward and points this out.

Many of Justin Timberlake's songs remind of MJ and the Off The Wall album.Is that copyright infringement,too? "Ain't No Hat For That" is not even remotely similiar to "Take That To The Bank",so I'm not sure where folks are getting that from.I love that Shalamar song,but I don't think of it when I listen to Robin's track.I think people are getting confused.Just because a song reminds you of another song,that is not necessarily copyright infringement.Michael Jackson admitted to Hall and Oates that he borrowed elements of "I Can't Go For That" when he created "Billie Jean",but that's obviously not a case of copyright infringement.You gotta know the difference.