SoulAlive said:

I seem to recall the lawyer mentioning this in the statement immediately after the verdict. That ruling only covered royalties from the time period up to that point. Presumably, they now have to negotiate some kind of deal for royalties from that point onwards - and I guess the first step is to stop all copying, distributing and performing of the song until that's ironed out.

deebee said:

I seem to recall the lawyer mentioning this in the statement immediately after the verdict. That ruling only covered royalties from the time period up to that point. Presumably, they now have to negotiate some kind of deal for royalties from that point onwards - and I guess the first step is to stop all copying, distributing and performing of the song until that's ironed out.

Ok.

deebee said:

I seem to recall the lawyer mentioning this in the statement immediately after the verdict. That ruling only covered royalties from the time period up to that point. Presumably, they now have to negotiate some kind of deal for royalties from that point onwards - and I guess the first step is to stop all copying, distributing and performing of the song until that's ironed out.

okay that makes sense, because now I am hearing about injunction details like including Star Trak, T.I., Universal, etc.

babynoz said:

Graycap23 said:

It could be but it is so over the top.

Seems like a lawyer suggested move. (To bill more hours)

Namepeace is right. This is routine procedure pending an appeal. If the motion is granted they could possibly prohibit the defendants from getting any further benefit from the song until the appeal is decided.

It's a legitimate strategy to either force a settlement or get the defense to file their appeal in a timely manner instead of dragging it out for years.

deebee also raises a good point based on what Richard Busch, the family's lawyer, said. Thinking on it some more, while it provides some leverage for negotiating a quick settlement, if granted, an injunction might force the sides to address royalty calculations in the short term rather than a year or two (or more) down the line.

namepeace said:

babynoz said:

Namepeace is right. This is routine procedure pending an appeal. If the motion is granted they could possibly prohibit the defendants from getting any further benefit from the song until the appeal is decided.

It's a legitimate strategy to either force a settlement or get the defense to file their appeal in a timely manner instead of dragging it out for years.

deebee also raises a good point based on what Richard Busch, the family's lawyer, said. Thinking on it some more, while it provides some leverage for negotiating a quick settlement, if granted, an injunction might force the sides to address royalty calculations in the short term rather than a year or two (or more) down the line.

TD3 said:

SoulAlive said:

can you imagine Prince being married to that?! She says that he was gonna marry her in the 90s then quickly announced that he's marrying Mayte instead

This is a lawsuit about copyright infringment. Yet, with all that could be discussed here Nona looks comes into play?

Well..Yeah, it's linked. It's not like she's going to be grabbing any movie roles again or anything looking like that. A lack of prospects might be another reason for that lawsuit.

This video statement is way over the top too.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1166203/Nona-Gayes-emotional-statement-following-Blurred-Lines-trial.html

Jeez.

[Edited 3/20/15 17:05pm]

TD3 said:

SoulAlive said:

can you imagine Prince being married to that?! She says that he was gonna marry her in the 90s then quickly announced that he's marrying Mayte instead

This is a lawsuit about copyright infringment. Yet, with all that could be discussed here Nona looks comes into play?

You should see how she was dragged on the other thread....

Like I said on that thread, I doubt we would see this much pearl clutching, garment rending and knashing of teeth if not for the personalities and sums involved.

babynoz said:

TD3 said:

SoulAlive said: This is a lawsuit about copyright infringment. Yet, with all that could be discussed here Nona looks comes into play?

You should see how she was dragged on the other thread....

Like I said on that thread, I doubt we would see this much pearl clutching, garment rending and knashing of teeth if not for the personalities and sums involved.

I think all this represents a crucible of sorts where proponents of sampling and appropriation vs those against it would finally confront each other in a major legal stand off

People with no pics slamming Nona...

Whatever the case, the family won the case...

mjscarousal said:

SoulAlive said:

What's interesting about this particular case is....it seems that,to me,the opinions are evenly divided.Some people think the song is a rip-off,and some people think it's not.Both sides seem to have a valid argument.

My opinion has always been...the song is an obvious throwback,inspired by the Gaye song,but I don't consider it a direct rip-off.There are many,many,clear examples of songs that blatantly rip off other songs.I don't consider Blurred Lines to be one of those songs.I can hear many differences in both songs,like Niles pointed out.

but it's all over.Time for everyone to just move on I don't think it's a good idea for Thicke and Pharrell to appeal.The case will drag on for years.Just write a check and move on to the next project.

[Edited 3/19/15 21:56pm]

All good points.

I am more disturbed with the way Pharrell and Thicke have handled this situation. Why not just quietly talk with the Gaye family (out of respect) about the differences in composition? Why sue them or make a case? I honestly would not be surprised if there were other unauthorized samples in the Blurred Lines song like the MJ one in which is not credited. Thats what makes me side eye Pharrell.

The pre-emptive suit by them was more like a "Closed fist", and not an "open hand" policy. Nobody knows who really reached-out to whom first...yet. Everything else is speculation by people who do not really know.

[Edited 3/21/15 18:55pm]

nd33 said:

.

Nile Rodgers and Stevie Wonder know what they're talking about. Everything comes from everything before.

.

"Blurred Lines" sounds like a "Break-down" of a remix of "Got to Give it Up"..

Hiphop is like a constant break-down segments of real tracks..hits from established artists.--being looped by DJs in the radio mix.

I taped local mixes as a boy, and loved when dance tracks were looped by the DJ.. I still have those tapes.. I would play those more than the CDs...

Hip Hop production is looping a popular sound-bite, or segment of a famous loop, beat, or something simlar, and putting a beat to it that fits, and makes it Hip Hop.

"My Anaconda don't...My Anaconda don't....My Anaconda..."

I like Niles... I think he likes Pharrell...

I think that it is not exactly "Got to Give it UP", but it wanted older folks to say, "Oh no they didn't ..these dudes made a new beat out of Got to Give it Up"...

I would get repsonses from HipHop fans who would enjoy how a producer "flipped an Old School beat"..This is the mentality.., but...

I better re-evalute what I do now..

Double post

[Edited 3/21/15 11:28am]

Linn4days said:

mjscarousal said:

All good points.

I am more disturbed with the way Pharrell and Thicke have handled this situation. Why not just quietly talk with the Gaye family (out of respect) about the differences in composition? Why sue them or make a case? I honestly would not be surprised if there were other unauthorized samples in the Blurred Lines song like the MJ one in which is not credited. Thats what makes me side eye Pharrell.

The pre-emptive suit by them was more like a "Closed fist",a nd not an "open hand" policy. Nobody knows who really reached-out to whom first...yet. Everythin else is speculation by people who do not really know.

The only reason Pharrell/ Thicke iniated it was because the Gaye family spoke out publicly against the song . Your right I dont know what was said behind close doors but I have a hard time believing the Gayes would complain to the press if Thicke and Pharrell asked for permission to sample the song.

mjscarousal said:

John Legend on 'Blurred Lines'

Associated Press

MESFIN FEKADUMarch 21, 2015

^^John Legend makes a good point.There are many songs that "feel" like other songs,but it's not necessarily copyright infringement.We don't wanna start seeing numerous lawsuits all the time.We gotta respect the fact that everything is influenced by what came before it.

SoulAlive said:

^^John Legend makes a good point.There are many songs that "feel" like other songs,but it's not necessarily copyright infringement.We don't wanna start seeing numerous lawsuits all the time.We gotta respect the fact that everything is influenced by what came before it.

.

.

SoulAlive said:

^^John Legend makes a good point.There are many songs that "feel" like other songs,but it's not necessarily copyright infringement.We don't wanna start seeing numerous lawsuits all the time.We gotta respect the fact that everything is influenced by what came before it.

Everybody knows that.

Why do people keep acting brand new like this is some huge deal?

It's not.

babynoz said:

SoulAlive said:

^^John Legend makes a good point.There are many songs that "feel" like other songs,but it's not necessarily copyright infringement.We don't wanna start seeing numerous lawsuits all the time.We gotta respect the fact that everything is influenced by what came before it.

Everybody knows that.

Why do people keep acting brand new like this is some huge deal?

It's not.

Everybody knows that.....except for the Gaye family.

SoulAlive said:

babynoz said:

Everybody knows that.

Why do people keep acting brand new like this is some huge deal?

It's not.

Everybody knows that.....except for the Gaye family.

Once again, the Gaye family did NOT file the first lawsuit....the defendants did that.

The Gaye family did not make statements in the media and at trial that caused the defendants to lose the case...they did that to themselves.

Nona's Gaye's personal shortcomings have nothing to do with the case either...no reason to keep making personal attacks on her.

mjscarousal said:

Linn4days said:

The pre-emptive suit by them was more like a "Closed fist",a nd not an "open hand" policy. Nobody knows who really reached-out to whom first...yet. Everythin else is speculation by people who do not really know.

The only reason Pharrell/ Thicke iniated it was because the Gaye family spoke out publicly against the song . Your right I dont know what was said behind close doors but I have a hard time believing the Gayes would complain to the press if Thicke and Pharrell asked for permission to sample the song.

Why would they? They didn't sample the song.

I remember years ago when I would tell fans of Kriss Kross that Jermaine Dupri sampled Aretha Franklin's summer smash hit of 1982 "Jump To It" to make their song "Jump"...

Cats swore at me up and down that I was trippin and no way did Dupri sample anything song from Aretha Franklin........they just knew he didn't

until....................................

Scorp said:

I remember years ago when I would tell fans of Kriss Kross that Jermaine Dupri sampled Aretha Franklin's summer smash hit of 1982 "Jump To It" to make their song "Jump"...

Cats swore at me up and down that I was trippin and no way did Dupri sample anything song from Aretha Franklin........they just knew he didn't

until....................................

And you're STILL wrong to this very day!

People can't use the word 'jump'? Seriously, Kris Kross sampled a lot of stuff on that song but not Aretha Franklin.

Cinny said:

PatrickS77 said:

mjscarousal said:

The only reason Pharrell/ Thicke iniated it was because the Gaye family spoke out publicly against the song . Your right I dont know what was said behind close doors but I have a hard time believing the Gayes would complain to the press if Thicke and Pharrell asked for permission to sample the song.

Why would they? They didn't sample the song.

Just like they didn't sampled MJ's Dont Stop Till You Get Enough? His sampled and he is not credited.