The publishing company was accused of protecting Robin Thicke's hit song.

Anthony Mandler

Robin Thicke

The heavyweight copyright lawsuit over "Blurred Lines" isn't over, but thanks to a settlement among some of the parties, the case will no longer put one music giant in an uncomfortable position.

)

Robin Thicke was the first to bring litigation andsought declaratory relief that his mega-hit song wasn't an improper copy of Marvin Gaye's "Got to Give It Up."

In response, Gaye's children not only brought counterclaims against Thicke and his producers, but also targeted EMI April, owned by Sony/ATV, for allegedly breaching its obligations to protect the Gaye catalogue. According to the Gaye family's court papers, EMI also administered rights on "Blurred Lines" and didn't want Gaye's family getting in the way of the song's ongoing success. The chairman of EMI is even said to have contacted Gaye's legal representative with warnings about making a frivolous claim.

Put in the cross-fire, Sony/ATV responded that the family's move to rescind their contractual relationship had been "ill-advised." Now, comes a settlement agreement between Gaye's family and the music publisher. Terms haven't been made public.

The agreement means that Sony/ATV won't have to defend their impartiality in administering copyrights to both Thicke's work and Gaye's. It will also release the company from having to address what was said to have been a conflict inherent in owning 30 percent of the music publishing market.

However, it won't completely finish the involvement of Sony/ATV in the lingering dispute between Thicke and Gaye's children. As discovery is pursued, and as the case pushes its way to a potential trial, Thicke's camp will likely want a jury to hear exactly why Sony concluded the songs were not substantially similar.

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

The agreement means that Sony/ATV won't have to defend their impartiality in administering copyrights to both Thicke's work and Gaye's. It will also release the company from having to address what was said to have been a conflict inherent in owning 30 percent of the music publishing market.

Woo I bet they got PAIDDDDD. Those kinda secrets, hypocrisy, and potential for sample-related legal chaos.

Its gotta be a good day to be in Marvin's family.

they know Thicke and his producers hijacked Marvin Gaye.....

Scorp said:

they know Thicke and his producers hijacked Marvin Gaye.....

You know, I know, and anyone with half a brain cell in a coma knows.

My CAT knows they hijacked that song. Two people on my job got INTO it over this mess.

scriptgirl said:

My CAT knows they hijacked that song. Two people on my job got INTO it over this mess.

lollllll

scriptgirl said:

My CAT knows they hijacked that song. Two people on my job got INTO it over this mess.

I know rhythmically it inspired Pharrell, but all the melodies are different. WOW at the Gayes eating off this new hit.

Cinny said:

I know rhythmically it inspired Pharrell, but all the melodies are different. WOW at the Gayes eating off this new hit.

technically, Robin and Pharrell did not sample GOT TO GIVE IT UP

they interpolated the music, which in a sense is even worse

at least when u sample, you have to credit on your album who u borrowed the music from

but interpolating, that's not a requirement

that's why this situation has been so difficult to resolve

Sad thing is that 99% of those who bought the song, overplayed it, danced to it whatever to it, DONT EVEN KNOW the original and most dont even know marvin gaye. Scary fact but its true, that is the disconnect that today has with yesterday. Blame it on the seperation and the consolidation of media in this world, there is no music business anymore, its the media business. This will be news for about a month cause the song was almost half a century ago, thicke's audience now is about 18-25 year olds, Marvin was dead almost a decade when they were born. Its like when George Harrison and also Men At Work lost similar suits, meant nothing, just to accountants.

Am I in the minority that is hearing two completely different songs here? Just curious. I don't hear much similarity between the two except perhaps in the percussion. "Blurred Lines" may have been inspired/influenced by "GTGIU," but it's not a ripoff; at least MY ears don't hear that. Anybody else feel like I do with regard to this ridiculous lawsuit?

lastdecember said:

Sad thing is that 99% of those who bought the song, overplayed it, danced to it whatever to it, DONT EVEN KNOW the original and most dont even know marvin gaye. Scary fact but its true, that is the disconnect that today has with yesterday. Blame it on the seperation and the consolidation of media in this world, there is no music business anymore, its the media business. This will be news for about a month cause the song was almost half a century ago, thicke's audience now is about 18-25 year olds, Marvin was dead almost a decade when they were born. Its like when George Harrison and also Men At Work lost similar suits, meant nothing, just to accountants.

excellent points

lastdecember said:

Sad thing is that 99% of those who bought the song, overplayed it, danced to it whatever to it, DONT EVEN KNOW the original and most dont even know marvin gaye. Scary fact but its true, that is the disconnect that today has with yesterday. Blame it on the seperation and the consolidation of media in this world, there is no music business anymore, its the media business. This will be news for about a month cause the song was almost half a century ago, thicke's audience now is about 18-25 year olds, Marvin was dead almost a decade when they were born. Its like when George Harrison and also Men At Work lost similar suits, meant nothing, just to accountants.

Preach!

If I was Robin Thicke's Advisor I'd tell'em to settle out of court. Mamma Sony did the right thing by coughing up money and he should follow their lead. The WORST thing that could do is go to Court and GAMBLE with his hard-core R&B base. R&B radio play his music 24/7. He might get painted as a "White Artist stealing a Black Legends music"....He better settle out of court and end all of this...

The issue isn't whether the media or the public remembers these events 6 months from now.The issue is, artist and /or their heirs making sure their intellectual property is protected.

Chancellor said:

If I was Robin Thicke's Advisor I'd tell'em to settle out of court. Mamma Sony did the right thing by coughing up money and he should follow their lead. The WORST thing that could do is go to Court and GAMBLE with his hard-core R&B base. R&B radio play his music 24/7. He might get painted as a "White Artist stealing a Black Legends music"....He better settle out of court and end all of this...

HELLO!

lastdecember said:

Sad thing is that 99% of those who bought the song, overplayed it, danced to it whatever to it, DONT EVEN KNOW the original and most dont even know marvin gaye. Scary fact but its true, that is the disconnect that today has with yesterday. Blame it on the seperation and the consolidation of media in this world, there is no music business anymore, its the media business. This will be news for about a month cause the song was almost half a century ago, thicke's audience now is about 18-25 year olds, Marvin was dead almost a decade when they were born. Its like when George Harrison and also Men At Work lost similar suits, meant nothing, just to accountants.

Excuse me, but I have to respectfully say "bullshit" at the current young generation of music fans on that lame excuse. In this age of social media, they can look up "Marvin Gaye" & "Got To Give It Up" on YouTube and hear the original for themselves.

whitechocolatebrotha said:

Am I in the minority that is hearing two completely different songs here? Just curious. I don't hear much similarity between the two except perhaps in the percussion. "Blurred Lines" may have been inspired/influenced by "GTGIU," but it's not a ripoff; at least MY ears don't hear that. Anybody else feel like I do with regard to this ridiculous lawsuit?

I don't hear it really either. The instrumentation ís kinda similar and the percussion part (cowbell) is the most clear giveaway that "GTGIU" was used as an inspiration for Blurred Lines, but the melodies are completely different. So yes, the song is very likely inspired by the SOUND of Marvin's tune but in my eyes not a complete ripoff. It is more of an hommage if you ask me than plagiarism.

Chancellor said:

If I was Robin Thicke's Advisor I'd tell'em to settle out of court. Mamma Sony did the right thing by coughing up money and he should follow their lead. The WORST thing that could do is go to Court and GAMBLE with his hard-core R&B base. R&B radio play his music 24/7. He might get painted as a "White Artist stealing a Black Legends music"....He better settle out of court and end all of this...

I have TWO WORDS for Robln Thicke: Michael Boltan

Remember when the Isley Brothers sued Michael because his song, Love Is A Wonderful Thing, sounded like a Isley Brothers' classic song with damn nearly THE same title?!? Well if Robin Thicke doesn't do the right thing by giving The Marvin Gaye Estate their royalies AND given Marvin co-songwriting credit for Blurred Lines, this will not end well for him career wise.

lastdecember said:

Sad thing is that 99% of those who bought the song, overplayed it, danced to it whatever to it, DONT EVEN KNOW the original and most dont even know marvin gaye. Scary fact but its true, that is the disconnect that today has with yesterday. Blame it on the seperation and the consolidation of media in this world, there is no music business anymore, its the media business. This will be news for about a month cause the song was almost half a century ago, thicke's audience now is about 18-25 year olds, Marvin was dead almost a decade when they were born. Its like when George Harrison and also Men At Work lost similar suits, meant nothing, just to accountants.

Such a great post! I agree with everything but especially the bolded. I think some of that disconnect is due to the fact that the music industry never pays homage or tributes the older acts like they should. If there were award shows honoring legendary singers instead of giving "made up" awards to overrated singers of today, the youth of today might be more aware of these past great artists. The problem is the music business is not really a business about music. It is a business about money, marketing, media, etc. They don't care whether the youth is exposed to the real icons and legends. They don't care about exposing the past to the youth. They don't care about quality music or talent. They just want to make as much money as possible.

funkaholic1972 said:

whitechocolatebrotha said:

Am I in the minority that is hearing two completely different songs here? Just curious. I don't hear much similarity between the two except perhaps in the percussion. "Blurred Lines" may have been inspired/influenced by "GTGIU," but it's not a ripoff; at least MY ears don't hear that. Anybody else feel like I do with regard to this ridiculous lawsuit?

I don't hear it really either. The instrumentation ís kinda similar and the percussion part (cowbell) is the most clear giveaway that "GTGIU" was used as an inspiration for Blurred Lines, but the melodies are completely different. So yes, the song is very likely inspired by the SOUND of Marvin's tune but in my eyes not a complete ripoff. It is more of an hommage if you ask me than plagiarism.

Oh, GOOD! I'm not alone! Inspired, YES, but not a rip-off by ANY means!

funkaholic1972 said:

whitechocolatebrotha said:

Am I in the minority that is hearing two completely different songs here? Just curious. I don't hear much similarity between the two except perhaps in the percussion. "Blurred Lines" may have been inspired/influenced by "GTGIU," but it's not a ripoff; at least MY ears don't hear that. Anybody else feel like I do with regard to this ridiculous lawsuit?

I don't hear it really either. The instrumentation ís kinda similar and the percussion part (cowbell) is the most clear giveaway that "GTGIU" was used as an inspiration for Blurred Lines, but the melodies are completely different. So yes, the song is very likely inspired by the SOUND of Marvin's tune but in my eyes not a complete ripoff. It is more of an hommage if you ask me than plagiarism.

I agree with both of you.The two songs are not the same.I can name numerous other songs that are better examples of copyright infringement than "Blurred Lines".

whitechocolatebrotha said:

Am I in the minority that is hearing two completely different songs here? Just curious. I don't hear much similarity between the two except perhaps in the percussion. "Blurred Lines" may have been inspired/influenced by "GTGIU," but it's not a ripoff; at least MY ears don't hear that. Anybody else feel like I do with regard to this ridiculous lawsuit?

--------

Yes, I knew this was Got To Give It Up when I first heard Blurred Lines. The intro is exaclty the same and the all song builds on that intro. If you ever hear the extended version of GTGIU you would hear it even better.

Young people do not know this because they are not forced to listen to oldies like Generation X. My parents played GTGIU continuoulsy and I had no choice but to listen.

Scorp said:

TonyVanDam said:

Cinny said:

I know rhythmically it inspired Pharrell, but all the melodies are different...

Interesting point. Most lawsuits in this vein are based on chunks of lifted Melodies. But certainly song songs have distinctive enough rhythms, too, that they stand to be recognized.

Let's say I wrote a fresh melody, but totally ripped off the beat of -- I dunno -- "Raspberry Beret" or "Top Billin'." Would there be grounds for Prince or Audio Two, respectively, to successfully sue? Have there been any such cases?

[Edited 1/15/14 15:46pm]

Lammastide said:

Cinny said:

I know rhythmically it inspired Pharrell, but all the melodies are different...

Interesting point. Most lawsuits in this vein are based on chunks of lifted melodies. But certainly some songs have distinctive enough rhythms, too, that they stand to be recognized, no?

Let's stay I wrote a fresh melody, but totally ripped off the beat of -- I dunno -- "Raspberry Beret" or "Top Billin'." would there be grounds for Prince or Audio Two, respectively, to successfully sue? Have there been any such cases?

Funny you mention "Top Billin" which sampled "Impeach The President" drums, but totally chopped up. The guy who owns "Impeach The President" has sued people who used parts of the melody (bassline, vocals), not just the drums. I hear it sampled ALL THE TIME like it is stock drums and people don't even know what they are sampling anymore. The last major one I heard with zero credit to Honeydrippers was LANA DEL REY (orgnote if you care to hear).

I actually never hear people sue over drums unless there is a voice on top, like James Brown laughing during "Funky Drummer", or Syl Johnson grunting through the "Diff'rent Strokes" drums.

And anyone can say they ran a Linn Drum through a guitar pedal and claim they never used "Raspberry Beret". It gets tougher when it's Prince counting on top, or whatever.

Lammastide said:

Let's stay I wrote a fresh melody, but totally ripped off the beat of -- I dunno -- "Top Billin'."

Let's just say I don't think THIS would fly today:

Cinny said:

Lammastide said:

Let's stay I wrote a fresh melody, but totally ripped off the beat of -- I dunno -- "Top Billin'."

Let's just say I don't think THIS would fly today:

One of the most egregrious lifts in all of music, as far as I'm concerned. Do you know if she credited Audio Two or The Honey Drippers?

Lammastide said:

Cinny said:

Let's just say I don't think THIS would fly today:

One of the most egregrious lifts in all of music, as far as I'm concerned. Do you know if she credited Audio Two or The Honey Drippers?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...Blige_song) The writers are credited NOW (Robinsons are Audio Two, Roy C. Hammond wrote Impeach) but the What's The 411 liner notes don't list them.