Marvin Gaye-Pharrell Williams-Robin Thicke

[L.Kizzle]

What do yall think of the verdict? I think it opens up the floodgates for everybody to sue everybody. If one note is played, they will say "sounds like my song, attorney get on it.'

[BurningHammer]

That's pretty cheesy $7.3 millions earn.

They sounds alike but they are not the same.

[Rolando]

I think the ruling is stupid. All music references previous material.

Lenny Kravitz is probably crapping his pants right now....

[iamgine]

Decision will be appealed and overturned...many years later.

[Knicks101]

I'm sure you can find more, TLC's song "Unpretty" is a ripoff of "Mmm-Bop" but nobody cared. Doubt it's going to become a common thing.

[L.Kizzle]

What happened to the Tom Petty-Sam Smith ordeal?

[JerrySeinfeld]

unless they can find an intent from pharrell to copy the song, it's a dumb ruling.

[Giaodollo]

I took a listen to the Marvin Gaye song, and they ripped of the whole thing. The way I see it, there shouldn't be a problem with people copying other and doing their versions. But when they do, they should acknowledge that and pay for what they are using.

These are the same people crying out that people are pirating their music and they aren't being paid fair. And now Robin Thicke and Pharell are mad that when they pirate someone elses song there is consequences. If it was up to me I'd strip them of all their earnings from this song, just for their bluntness, taking it to court and still fighting despite obvious similarities. I am sure if they made a deal with her before doing this they could have gotten the rights for less than a million but they decided to be greedy.

Marvin created this, his daughter holds the right to what he created, pay her for what she owns, it isn't very hard.

[Giaodollo]

unless they can find an intent from pharrell to copy the song, it's a dumb ruling.

:biggums:

Just listen to the song.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fp7Q1OAzITM

[L.Kizzle]

I took a listen to the Marvin Gaye song, and they ripped of the whole thing. The way I see it, there shouldn't be a problem with people copying other and doing their versions. But when they do, they should acknowledge that and pay for what they are using.

These are the same people crying out that people are pirating their music and they aren't being paid fair. And now Robin Thicke and Pharell are mad that when they pirate someone elses song there is consequences. If it was up to me I'd strip them of all their earnings from this song, just for their bluntness, taking it to court and still fighting despite obvious similarities. I am sure if they made a deal with her before doing this they could have gotten the rights for less than a million but they decided to be greedy.

Marvin created this, his daughter holds the right to what he created, pay her for what she owns, it isn't very hard.
You can do this for countless songs. For example listen to the song On Your Face by Earth Wind and Firem Now listen to Bar-Kays Shine?

[BurningHammer]

:biggums:

Just listen to the song.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fp7Q1OAzITM
Sound alike and nothing else.

[Giaodollo]

You can do this for countless songs. For example listen to the song On Your Face by Earth Wind and Firem Now listen to Bar-Kays Shine?

As I said I have no problem with artists sampling other peoples work. But have the decency to pay for it. I'll listen to these songs but I do not know the back story behind this. Did they pay? Did the one getting sampled care?

A lot of variables.

If I create something that I put a lot of work in, I would be pissed to if someone came and stole it and made millions of it. I understand the daugther frustration and I am glad the court did the right thing.

[Giaodollo]

Sound alike and nothing else.

So you are saying when Pharell produced this song he didn't have this song as the main inspiration for the background music?

[L.Kizzle]

As I said I have no problem with artists sampling other peoples work. But have the decency to pay for it. I'll listen to these songs but I do not know the back story behind this. Did they pay? Did the one getting sampled care?

A lot of variables.

If I create something that I put a lot of work in, I would be pissed to if someone came and stole it and made millions of it. I understand the daugther frustration and I am glad the court did the right thing.
Sounding similar and stealing are totally different.

[Giaodollo]

Sounding similar and stealing are totally different.


Alright, if you want to get technical about this. This is more along the lines of stealing then sounding similar.

[oh the horror]

Those songs sound more than just "alike". Come on now. Friggin melody is almost identical. Pharrel and co. claiming they created the entire song. :oldlol:

[L.Kizzle]

So you are saying when Pharell produced this song he didn' hve this song as the main inspiration for the background music?
Tempos aren't even the same. Actually sounds more similar to Mike Jacksons Don't Stop Til Get Enough.

[Crown&Coke]

What happened to the Tom Petty-Sam Smith ordeal?

Smith gave Petty writing credit

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/sam-smith-tom-petty-credit-stay-article-1.2092126

[BurningHammer]

So you are saying when Pharell produced this song he didn't have this song as the main inspiration for the background music?
Sure, every musicians do get inspiration from somewhere and that's why they sounds alike, but it still doesn't mean they are the same.

[JerrySeinfeld]

:biggums:

Just listen to the song.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fp7Q1OAzITM

I see the similarities, but who decides when something is close enough sounding and when it isn't?

I don't like the idea of having that much grey area in the legal process. They need to figure out a set way to determine when something is too closely related to another, rather than judging each case individually based purely on listening and comparing.

[Giaodollo]

Sure, every musicians do get inspiration from somewhere and that's why they sounds alike, but it still doesn't mean they are the same.
Thing is they are the same.


Smith gave Petty writing credit

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/sam-smith-tom-petty-credit-stay-article-1.2092126

This is how you do, give the one that you stole it from credit and you won't have to to court.

[L.Kizzle]

I see the similarities, but who decides when something is close enough sounding and when it isn't?

I don't like the idea of having that much grey area in the legal process. They need to figure out a set way to determine when something is too closely related to another, rather than judging each case individually based purely on listening and comparing.
Are notes and chord changes even the same?

I know with Sam Smith notes and chords were damn near identical and he sang almost the same just made his own words.

[DeuceWallaces]

They're not close enough to warrant a payout. I'm really surprised by the ruling. Hell, Fogerty got away and his sounded way more similar. At least in my opinion.

[ThePhantomCreep]

They're not close enough to warrant a payout. I'm really surprised by the ruling. Hell, Fogerty got away and his sounded way more similar. At least in my opinion.

Fogerty got away with it because he wrote both songs--he was being accused of plagiarizing himself. :lol

There are strong similarities in the bass line and drum track of "Lines" and "Give It Up". The songs don't sound completely similar, but those two elements border on samples.

[LJJ]

I think one of the keys here is that being inspired would be "I'm gonna write a song that sounds like 70s Marvin Gaye", while ripping off a song would be "I'm gonna 'write' a song that sounds exactly like Gotta Give It Up".

It's pretty obvious Pharrell and Thicke were completely riffing off one specific song, at that point just give credit. It's not hard. All the people saying that this creates some kind of huge precedent are hyperbolic crybabies.

[Akrazotile]

They're not close enough to warrant a payout. I'm really surprised by the ruling. Hell, Fogerty got away and his sounded way more similar. At least in my opinion.


Agreed with this

[DeuceWallaces]

The ruling was based on the dissimilarities, and not the fact that he wrote both songs.

[lakers_forever]

Robin Thicke in an interview

[bagelred]

They are similar, but the dead giveaway, is the people cheering/partying in the background. I mean, you rarely ever hear that in a song but just happens to be in both these two songs.

Personally, I don't think it's similar enough to warrant winning a lawsuit. I don't know..it's close..

How is it that today's "artists" who simply sample a popular tune from an older song and then add their own (usually worse) lyrics get away with that? That's much worse in my opinion. Kanye West shouldn't even have a career. :oldlol: He samples everything.

[Akrazotile]

They are similar, but the dead giveaway, is the people cheering/partying in the background. I mean, you rarely ever hear that in a song but just happens to be in both these two songs.

Personally, I don't think it's similar enough to warrant winning a lawsuit. I don't know..it's close..

How is it that today's "artists" who simply sample a popular tune from an older song and then add their own (usually worse) lyrics get away with that? That's much worse in my opinion. Kanye West shouldn't even have a career. :oldlol: He samples everything.


Well if you legally obtain clearance from whomever owns the rights to it, it's not a problem.

Incidentally one of the most serial offenders of artistic piracy ever is Led Zeppelin. They're honestly practically a cover band. Plant himself even said himself that their "songwriting" method was to put their own take on various songs and hope other people don't make the connection. And if they do, you just pay up because by that time you're already rich anyway.


There are tons of songs in the history of recorded music that sound similar to each other. Sometimes intentional, sometimes not. Sounding similar (in the case of blurred lines) does not equate to sounding the same. I don't think sounding similar should be enough for a random judge to decide one party has to compensate another with millions.

[dude77]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhr3XL78mk8

the background music sounds damn near identical lol .. pretty blatant there

[Overdrive]

They are similar, but if that's lawsuit worthy every reggae song would be, too.

I once read a rip off has to have a sequence of atleast 7 notes identical in rhythm and interval.

[dude77]

listen to that mashup .. background music is basically identical .. they just added their own lyrics

[InfiniteBaskets]

How about ice ice baby and under pressure?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk6NhjD3Dbg


Apparently Vanilla Ice said something like "if you listen close it's dun dun dun da da dun da instead of dun dun dun da da dun dee" lol crazy dude.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-1_9-z9rbY

[L.Kizzle]

Got To Give It Up is a more sparse production than Blurred Lines.

[BurningHammer]

He later gave them credit and loyalties.

A lot of rap acts didn't have to give credits or loyalties in the 80's/early 90's. Beastie Boys' Licensed To Ill sampled a lot of Led Zeppelin and Van Halen.
LZ themselves also ripped others' works off mentioned few posts ago. :oldlol:

[L.Kizzle]

As I said I have no problem with artists sampling other peoples work. But have the decency to pay for it. I'll listen to these songs but I do not know the back story behind this. Did they pay? Did the one getting sampled care?

A lot of variables.

If I create something that I put a lot of work in, I would be pissed to if someone came and stole it and made millions of it. I understand the daugther frustration and I am glad the court did the right thing.
Earth, Wind & Fire: On Your Face (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KO5PK3qgbI)

Bar-Kays: Shine (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3-p-SN1MBs)

[32jazz]

Tempos aren't even the same. Actually sounds more similar to Mike Jacksons Don't Stop Til Get Enough.

Actually says that Jackson got the inspiration directly from Gaye on that Song & shows you how talented he was to be inspired & not make a close copy. Jackson even sings falsetto throughout the song which he rarely did.


Unfortunately for Thicke/Williams Marvin Gaye is so brilliant & his song so unique that few even bothered reproducing the sound over the past 30 plus years.

When most people hear it they immediately think , Marvin Gaye.

Smokey Robinson( best friend of Marvin & family friend) says it is obvious a theft of Gaye song.


I don't know whether I agree with the decision ,but I think they played it a bit too close & left themselves open.

[NumberSix]

They obviously intended to emulate the sound of the song. The music itself is not even close though. This judgement is beyond ridiculous. This is the equivalent is saying somebody "owns" the sound of a female voice singing over an acoustic guitar.

[32jazz]

Just saw on NBC that the Gaye family is also looking into similiarities between Williams huge hit "Happy" & Gayes' "Ain't That Peculiar" :wtf:


Those 2 songs(Peculiar/Happy) don't sound alike & Gaye did not write it.

Peculiar was written by Smokey Robinson & other songwriters . Perhaps the family is trying to pay Smokey back for publicly supporting them & claiming "Blurred Lines" was obviously stolen from Gaye?

[BurningHammer]

Now the judge has ruled Thicke and Pharrell will have to pay Gaye Family $5.3 millions, down from $7.4 mils at the first ruling, but with 50% cut from "Blurred Lines" future loyalties.

Gaye Family wins even more :applause:

[Droid101]

Limit all music/movie/character copyright laws to 15 years. That's plenty of time to become set for life. Then let this shit the **** go.

[NumberSix]

Limit all music/movie/character copyright laws to 15 years. That's plenty of time to become set for life. Then let this shit the **** go.
Copyrights already have a time limit. I think its 75 years after death in the United States. 15 years is just ridiculously low.

[KevinNYC]

Limit all music/movie/character copyright laws to 15 years. That's plenty of time to become set for life. Then let this shit the **** go.
You're talking for the top .001%

[Charlie Sheen]

Copyrights already have a time limit. I think its 75 years after death in the United States. 15 years is just ridiculously low.

Being a creative artist in 2015 is a little like posting in the NBA forum. Everything has been said and done before I ever post in the thread. Not saying he's right or wrong, but I get where he's coming from