http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/blurred-lines-jury-orders-robin-779445

Good artists borrow. Great artists steal. On Tuesday, a California federal jury delivered its own message to artists everywhere that inspiration can rise to copyright infringement.

The verdict was reached after eight days of trial testimony examining whether Robin Thicke's andPharrell Williams' "Blurred Lines," one of the most successful songs of the young century, was improperly drawn from a soulful hallmark from the prior one —Marvin Gaye's 1977 hit "Got to Give It Up." Ultimately, a jury comprised of five women and three men heard dueling opinions regarding "Blurred Lines" and decided to order Thicke and Williams to pay $4 million in copyright damages plus profits attributable to infringement, which for Thicke was determined to be $1.8 million and for Williams was determined to be $1.6 million.

The hardly predictable outcome over a song that made more than $16 million in profits will resonate in the music industry where copyright lawsuits are commonplace, but few such suits ever make it to trial. Most never get past the summary judgment phase because judges carefully draw the line on any lawsuits alleging misappropriation of non-protectable ideas. The highest profile disputes like the one between Tom Petty and Sam Smith over "Stay With Me" usually settle. Not only did the "Blurred Lines" case go the distance, both sides brought esteemed entertainment litigators to convince the jury.

Howard King, representing Thicke, Williams and rapper T.I (a.k.a. Clifford HarrisJr.), spoke how artists need wide berth in their creative pursuits. During opening arguments, he told the jury, "We're going to show you what you already know: that no one owns a genre or a style or a groove. To be inspired by Marvin Gaye is an honorable thing."

Over the next week-and-a-half, King would execute a two-pronged strategy: First, he emphasized that Frankie and Nona Gaye only owned compositional elements in the "Got to Give It Up" sheet music, leaving out more recognizable elements of the recording like the percussion and singing. Second, he had witnesses testifying both to the differences of "Blurred Lines" and "Got To Give It Up" as well as the similarities in other famous songs.

The case has been tough on Thicke thanks to depositions revealing he lied in media interviews and was drunk and high on Vicodin. But the singer attempted to do himself a favor by showcasing that songs can be stitched together with ease and that perceptions about similarity can be deceiving. On the witness stand, he sang a medley of U2's "With Or Without You," The Beatles' "Let It Be," Alphaville's "Forever Young," Bob Marley's "No Woman No Cry" and Michael Jackson's "Man In the Mirror."

Williams also testified about his song creation process, admitting to jurors that "Blurred Lines" channels "that '70s feeling" and that he looked up to Gaye, but that to feel, isn't copyright infringement. "The last thing you want to do as a creator is take something of someone else's when you love him," said Williams, expressing a point-of-view that's in contrast to the maxim that good artists borrow and great artists steal.

Richard Busch, attorney for the Gayes, appeared to know he'd need to overcome the celebrity charisma of his counterparts.

"They will smile at you and they will be charming," he said in opening arguments. "Keep one thing in mind: They are professional performers."

The Gaye family was handicapped by U.S. District Judge John Kronstadt's decision to preclude use at trial of the original sound recording of "Got to Give It Up" because Gaye's copyrights on the song were limited to the sheet music compositions. Before the trial began, Busch wondered whether his side would get a fair trial, and while the judge eventually allowed a stripped-down version of Gaye's song to be played for the jury's ears, the attorney was disturbed by comments made by the Thicke side that he argued had"poisoned" the trial. The judge dismissed those concerns. Any lingering unhappiness over the judge's decision leading to the jury's verdict will likely be taken on appeal.

To demonstrate copyright infringement, Busch instead leaned on the musicologists, who testified of similarities in signature phrase, hook, keyboard-bass interplay, lyrics and theme of the songs. Although "Blurred Lines" was the headliner, the Gaye family also attempted to prove that Thicke's "Love After War" was an infringement of Gaye's "After the Dance" too.

Then, there was the rare peek at "Blurred Lines" financial success as the Gaye family made their case for damages. Busch had accounting experts speak about all the money made — including $5.6 million in profits to Thicke, $5.2 million to Williams and $700K to T.I. and the rest of the $16.7 million in overall profits to record companies Interscope, UMG Distribution and Star Trak. The Gayes also wanted some of the $11 million in touring income attributable to "Blurred Lines" success as well as money for overhead costs and statutory damages for willful infringement.

All told, the Gaye family was seeking more than $25 million — a mammoth demand that would shatter the song plagiarism high-water mark of $5.4 million that a California court ordered Michael Bolton and Sony to pay two decades ago for infringing The Isley Brothers' "Love is a Wonderful Thing."

In closing arguments, Busch raised the issue of Thicke's credibility, telling jurors, ""What it boils down to is 'Yes, we copied. Yes, we took it. Yes, we lied about it. Yes, we changed our story every time'... It boils down to this: Who do you believe?... Are you going to believe Robin Thicke, who told us all he's not an honest person?"

King offered a rebuttal.

"Why would Mr. Williams need to copy anyone to create a hit?" he asked the jury. "Why would Mr. Thicke and Mr. Williams endure a proceeding like this, where their personal financial details are revealed to the world?"

In what might now be the landmark legal controversy over songcraft, the jury decided to find that Thicke and Williams infringed both songs. The two were only punished $9,375 for "Love After War," but it will be the multimillion dollar verdict regarding "Blurred Lines" that will sound out for ages.

[Edited 3/10/15 14:45pm]

That's just stupid!

I am not so sure this will hurt Pharrell, but I think it might kill Robin Thicke's career, thank God.

Robin's career seems at a crossroads anyways.

But that doesn't change the fact that "Blurred Lines" made him a one-hit crossover act anyways. Sorta like what "Nothing Compares 2 U" did for Sinead O'Connor. Both had successful careers before the world knew about it, then one song pretty much ruins their lives.

"Blurred Lines" (a song I never really felt) was a curse I tell you!

Thicke is worth $15 million and Pharrell is worth $80 million. I don't think they will lose sleep over this.

scriptgirl said:

I am not so sure this will hurt Pharrell, but I think it might kill Robin Thicke's career, thank God.

LOL! Honestly, when I first heard this song, I thought for a second it was GTGIU. Then Thicke started singing and I released it wasn't Marvin, BUT I as continued to listen, I did think that it was a sample. I was surprised to learn it wasn't, or at least it isn't, supposed to be. I guess the jury thought the same as me. For what it's worth, my mom says she doesn't hear the similarity.

3rdeyedude said:

Thicke is worth $15 million and Pharrell is worth $80 million. I don't think they will lose sleep over this.

>

I hear you but that's a LOT of money to give away, to me unjustly.

Got to pay it up.

Cynic, why do you think it is unjust? I think Robin should pay just cause of how smarmy and smug he was about the the whole thing.

scriptgirl said:

Cynic, why do you think it is unjust? I think Robin should pay just cause of how smarmy and smug he was about the the whole thing.

>

At the end of the day it just doesn't sound enough like "Got To Give It Up". To me it definitely sounds like an homage but the songs just sound like two different songs.

Now Robin was smarmy as f!ck around that time and it was probably the coke. But c'mon, a seven million dollar judgement because he was a coke head? I think not.

It ain't just the coke. Robin is sleazy 24/7. He always seems like he is fresh from a strip club, dripping in juice and I don't mean the kind you drink.

Pharrell is disappointed in the verdict:

http://www.etonline.com/news/160935_marvin_gayes_family_awarded_more_than_7_million_blurred_

lines_trial/

A verdict has been reached in the "Blurred Lines" trial.

Marvin Gaye's children, Frankie and Nona Gaye, won their claim that Robin Thicke, Pharrell Williams and T.I.'s song "Blurred Lines" was too similar to their father's 1977 hit song, "Got to Give it Up." The jury found that the trio did infringe on Gaye's song and awarded his family nearly $7.4 million in damages.

NEWS: The Final Days of the 'Blurred Lines' Trial

The family originally sought $25 million in alleged damages, though the song reportedly made $16,675,690 in profits – the biggest hit of 2013. According to court documents, $5,658,214 went to Thicke, $5,153,457 to Williams, and $704,774 to T.I. The remaining amount went to record companies Interscope, UMG Distribution and Star Trak.

Pharrell acknowledged in court that "Blurred Lines" has the "feel" of "Got to Give it Up," but he pointed out that "feel" does not necessarily equal "infringement."

Following the ruling, Pharrell's lawyers issued a statement expressing their client’s disappointment in the verdict. "While we respect the judicial process, we are extremely disappointed in the ruling made today, which sets a horrible precedent for music and creativity going forward," his attorneys said in a statement to ET. "Pharrell created 'Blurred Lines' from his heart, mind and soul and the song was not taken from anyone or anywhere else. We are reviewing the decision, considering our options and you will hear more from us soon about this matter."

WATCH: Marvin Gaye's Son Talks 'Blurred Lines' Lawsuit

To be the judge for yourself, listen to both songs and see if you find any similarities.

Nona Gaye says they are free from Pharrell and Robin Thicke's "chains"

Video:

http://cbsn.cbsnews.com/?id=iUkiNcR1WOBkpgZk8X0NH1aa5I7WgTe2

"Chains"? WTF is she talking about. Sickening that these money grubbing a-holes get money for a (two) song(s) they had nothing to do with. I hope there will be an appeal and it will take years before any money changes hands.

I'm shocked... just shocked...

You know how you AVOID drama like this?

Write your own music...

scriptgirl said:

Nona Gaye says they are free from Pharrell and Robin Thicke's "chains"

Video:

http://cbsn.cbsnews.com/?id=iUkiNcR1WOBkpgZk8X0NH1aa5I7WgTe2

Very interesting to hear from the lawyer why they could only refer to the sheet music and not the sound recording. Not, as so many people on the internet claimed, because that was some eternal law of copyright, but because that's the only form in which the Marvin Gaye song was copyrighted in 1977. On that basis, they did extraordinarily well. I'm actually rather surprised.

PatrickS77 said:

I don't care who's children they are. They had nothing to do with both songs. Once the composer dies, shit like that should end. Continue making money of the actual song and recording, but don't sue others for songs that have a similar feel. And it was a jury trial, wasn't it? So hardly any experts who made the decision.

[Edited 3/10/15 16:56pm]

PatrickS77 said:

I don't care who's children they are. They had nothing to do with both songs. Once the composer dies, shit like that should end. Continue making money of the actual song and recording, but don't sue others for songs that have a similar feel. And it was a jury trial, wasn't it? So hardly any experts who made the decision.

[Edited 3/10/15 16:56pm]

If u owed that song........u would feel the same way?

isntn almost every song damn near take from another?

LittleBLUECorvette said:

isntn almost every song damn near take from another?

It doesn't help that Pharelle is nothing more that a button pusher.

Graycap23 said:

PatrickS77 said:

I don't care who's children they are. They had nothing to do with both songs. Once the composer dies, shit like that should end. Continue making money of the actual song and recording, but don't sue others for songs that have a similar feel. And it was a jury trial, wasn't it? So hardly any experts who made the decision.

[Edited 3/10/15 16:56pm]

If u owed that song........u would feel the same way?

If I was the composer of the song, maybe not. But that's my point. Only the composer should have a right to object to things like that. Not his fucking children. They should be happy that their father wrote successful music, continue to live off those millions and just stfu. How pathetic to sue someone that was inspired by their father's work? It doesn't affect them and doesn't take any money from them. Also they can not claim that someone is making money off something they created. They had nothing to do with the song. They are just the leeches profiting from their fathers work. And before somebody brings that up, I would also feel the same if Michael's children would start suing people.

[Edited 3/10/15 17:09pm]

Yes! In your face, Skateboard P. But I know you're happy.

So, are Pharrell and Thicke still friends?

scriptgirl said:

deebee said: