[Music] Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams hit for 7 mil in "Blurred Lines" verdict

GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Wasn't quite sure whether I should put this under music or politics, but here goes.

A jury found that "Blurred Lines" does indeed infringe on "Got to Give it Up" by Marvin Gaye, and ordered Thicke and Williams to pay 7.4 million to Gaye's children.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...s-copyright-trial-verdict-20150310-story.html

On the one hand, I always crack a smile when musical charlatans get comeuppance... but on the other hand (as many of you will no doubt recall) I am a vocal critic of standing copyright law, especially where it pertains to music, movies, TV shows and books.

It's been almost 40 years since "Got to Give it Up" was published, Gaye died over 30 years ago. We've argued back and forth about exactly how long a copyright should extend - I think the middle-of-the-road argument was author's life plus 7 years? Or was it 20? or something like that. In any case, I can see a strong argument for saying it's time for Gaye's (grown-ass) kids to get weaned off the royalties teat by now.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Charlie Don't Surf said:
it would be nice if that much money were donated to battered women's shelters and rape crisis centers too
Click to expand...
As tiresome as your continued tendency to chime in with your own personal irrelevant axes to grind is, if the Gaye kids REALLY wanted to rub their victory in Thicke/Williams' faces, that's exactly what they'd do - turn around and donate that money as you describe.

But somehow I don't think they will, due to the same motivation that led them to sue in the first place.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Bowielee said:
To be fair to Charlie, it is one of the most date rapey songs ever written.
Click to expand...
Do you feel that lyrical content that is discomforting or disagreeable should have bearing on copyright ownership? Or that there should be some sort of authority that dictates what is acceptable to sing about?
 
Bowielee

Bowielee

GasBandit said:
Do you feel that lyrical content that is discomforting or disagreeable should have bearing on copyright ownership? Or that there should be some sort of authority that dictates what is acceptable to sing about?
Click to expand...
How the hell did you get that out of what I said?
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Bowielee said:
Wow, they are WAY off about the song Father Figure.

Now let me think... why would a gay man write a song about love being a crime.... in the early 80s. You know, when sodomy was still illegal in many places.
Click to expand...
When I was a kid in the 80s, and only half listening to song lyrics, I was under the impression that that song was literally George Michael singing to his (possibly adopted) offspring based upon the "I will be your Daddy" and "Put your tiny hands in mine" lines.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
Do you feel that lyrical content that is discomforting or disagreeable should have bearing on copyright ownership? Or that there should be some sort of authority that dictates what is acceptable to sing about?
Click to expand...
No, I most certainly do not believe there should be any such thing.


I hope this gets enough media attention to start actual copyright reform. Barring that, I would like to see whether or not there is a legitimate claim that the newer work was sufficiently "transformative" that this should not apply.
Also I feel the same about people who are obviously not Marvin Gaye continuing to profit from work done by Marvin Gaye that does not directly benefit Marvin Gaye himself in any way.

--Patrick
 
Yoshimickster

Yoshimickster

Bowielee said:
Wow, they are WAY off about the song Father Figure.

Now let me think... why would a gay man write a song about love being a crime.... in the early 80s. You know, when sodomy was still illegal in many places.
Click to expand...
Yeah a lot of Cracked list have a weak point or two, like how in their "5 Cartoons That Tried (and failed) to tackle serious issues" list, where they mention how in the show they make Harley Quinn seem like SHE is to blame for her abusive relationship in the Joker even going so far to say "This fact is never explored or condemned in the show" even though in season four they actually DID explore/condemn their relationship in Harley's origin episode. Just...just lazy.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

No, because "Word Crimes" is protected under the 1st Amendment as "parody," regardless of its source material.

--Patrick
 
HCGLNS

HCGLNS

Would it require a forced recall of previously published items citing the erroneous source and going forward all new printed material cites the proper source. So any single of Word Crimes thus published becomes a collectible?
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

No, because the source didn't actually change. The source is still "Blurred Lines." That didn't change. The legal case was not about whether Blurred Lines was an exact copy of Gaye's work, it was about whether or not it was similar enough in character that they should have sought the permission of the Gaye estate before release. People do covers all the time, it's just that they generally seek the permission of the rights holder before doing so. The giant jury award is because the song was found similar enough to where they should've sought permission...but didn't.

--Patrick
 
jwhouk

jwhouk

Uh, I've listened to the first verse or so of "Got To Give It Up", and I'm thinking that that song is more of a rip off of "Knock On Wood" that maybe Eddie Floyd's family should be getting ready to sue Gaye's family...
 
blotsfan

blotsfan

I've never gotten the date rape argument about blurred lines. He's trying to get a girl to cheat on her boyfriend with him, but the phrase "you know you want it" does not automatically mean rape. He isn't drugging her drink. He isn't forcing her. He's try to tempt her. Its slimy (intentionally), but its not rape.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

Not enough, in my opinion.
I continue to assert that Al will someday be regarded as one of the great entertainers, like Victor Borge or Marcel Marceau.

--Patrick
 
Bowielee

Bowielee

blotsfan said:
I've never gotten the date rape argument about blurred lines. He's trying to get a girl to cheat on her boyfriend with him, but the phrase "you know you want it" does not automatically mean rape. He isn't drugging her drink. He isn't forcing her. He's try to tempt her. Its slimy (intentionally), but its not rape.
Click to expand...
T.I. said:
Nothing like your last guy, he too square for you
He don't smack that ass and pull your hair like that
So I just watch and wait for you to salute
But you didn't pick
Not many women can refuse this pimpin'
I'm a nice guy, but don't get it if you get with me
Click to expand...
He's also getting her high in the song lyrics.

That coupled with the "blurred lines" does indicate that the man singing doesn't understand the difference between a woman wanting him and not wanting him. He's basically berating her for coming to him and not putting out. Coercion of someone under the influence is also date rape, for the record.
 
Last edited:
Bowielee

Bowielee

GasBandit said:
When I was a kid in the 80s, and only half listening to song lyrics, I was under the impression that that song was literally George Michael singing to his (possibly adopted) offspring based upon the "I will be your Daddy" and "Put your tiny hands in mine" lines.
Click to expand...
I mean, I see that could be an interpretation, but it assumes that it was written by a straight man, which it wasn't. See: Daddy Bear. Whether you agree with it or not, many gay men formed their own families and some relationships, particularly back when young gay men were displaced from their homes due to their sexuality did form ersatz paternal type relationships with older gay men, but there were also romantic trappings involved.

You do have to consider the time, place, and context of some stuff.

I think that's one of the reasons that the Blurred Lines thing is so egregious by comparison. In this day and age of awareness of no meaning no, the song comes of doubly unacceptable. Had this song been made in an earlier decade, it may have been just as sleazy, but wouldn't have been interpreted so harshly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top