Update: Marvin Gaye's Family Accuses Pharrell of Perjury in 'Blurred Lines' Dispute

[JamesG]

Robin Thicke Sues To Protect 'Blurred Lines' from Marvin Gaye's Family (Exclusive)
8/15/2013
by Eriq Gardner


In order to shield 'Blurred Lines', the hottest hit of the summer, Robin Thicke, Pharrell Williams and Clifford Harris Jr. are going to court.

A lawsuit was filed Thursday in California federal court by the trio against Marvin Gaye's family and Bridgeport Music, which owns some of Funkadelic's compositions. At issue are complaints about similarities between 'Blurred Lines' and at least two songs.





According to the suit, a copy of which was obtained by The Hollywood Reporter:

"Plaintiffs, who have the utmost respect for and admiration of Marvin Gaye, Funkadelic and their musical legacies, reluctantly file this action in the face of multiple adverse claims from alleged successors in interest to those artists. Defendants continue to insist that plaintiffs' massively successful composition, 'Blurred Lines,' copies 'their' compositions."





The suit claims the Gaye family is alleging that 'Blurred Lines' and Gaye's 'Got to Give It Up' "feel" or "sound" the same, and that the "Gaye defendants are claiming ownership of an entire genre, as opposed to a specific work."

As for Funkadelic, there's said to be claimed similarity between Thicke's hit and Funakedlic's 'Sexy Ways'.

"But there are no similarities between plaintiffs' composition and those the claimants allege they own, other than commonplace musical elements," states the lawsuit. "Plaintiffs created a hit and did it without copying anyone else's composition."





A New York Times critic has noted that 'Blurred Lines' is "influenced heavily" by Gaye’s 'Got to Give It Up', but the lawsuit makes the point that "being reminiscent of a 'sound' is not copyright infringement. The intent in producing 'Blurred Lines' was to evoke an era."

The Gayes and Bridgeport are said to be threatening litigation should the plaintiffs not pay a monetary settlement. Rather than wait for such a lawsuit to proceed, the plaintiffs are going to court to determine the parties' respective rights and obligations.





In seeking a judgment, Thicke, Williams and Harris Jr. are not only looking for a declaration that their song doesn't violate the defendants' rights by copying their songs, but also that the "Gayes do not have an interest in the copyright to the composition 'Got to Give It Up' sufficient to confer standing on them to pursue claims of infringement of that composition."

The plaintiffs are represented by Howard King and Stephen Rothschild of King Holmes Paterno & Berliner.

THR has reached out to the defendants for comment and will update with a response.





UPDATE: George Clinton, who once led Funkadelic and has feuded with Bridgeport and its leader over the years, tweets, "No sample of #Funkadelic's 'Sexy Ways' in @robinthicke's 'Blurred Lines' - yet Armen Boladian thinks so? We support @robinthicke @Pharrell!"

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr...lurred-607492?

[JamesG]

Marvin Gaye's Children Sue Over Robin Thicke's 'Blurred Lines'
by Associated Press
Oct 30, 2013


Two of Marvin Gaye’s children have countersued Robin Thicke and his collaborators on the hit 'Blurred Lines' for copyright infringement. The suit filed Wednesday in a Los Angeles federal court accuses Thicke, producer Pharrell, and rapper T.I. of copying Gaye’s hit 'Got to Give It Up.'

Nona Marvisa Gaye and Frankie Christian Gaye also accused music company EMI of failing to pursue a copyright infringement claim and trying to intimidate Gaye’s children from filing a lawsuit.

EMI is owned by Sony Music Entertainment, which didn’t immediately return a phone message seeking comment.






Thicke asked a federal judge in August to rule that his song didn’t copy 'Got to Give It Up'.

Thicke’s attorney Howard King says the Gayes’ decision to sue EMI shows the family doesn’t have the authority to pursue claims against his client.

http://music-mix.ew.com/2013/10/30/r...-gaye-lawsuit/

[robyrob]

it doesn't sound like a rip-off too me - although I really don't understand the big deal about Blurred Lines anyways.

[Janice]

I noticed the similarity between the songs before I heard about the lawsuit. I think it's a direct rip-off.

[UMFaninMD]

Originally Posted by Janice

I noticed the similarity between the songs before I heard about the lawsuit. I think it's a direct rip-off.

When I first heard the song I immediately thought they had sampled Got to Give It Up. And Robin Thicke and company trying to prevent legal action first does give some credibility to the family's claims.

[JamesG]

Marvin Gaye's Oldest Son Claims Robin Thicke Copied Four Songs (Exclusive)
11/26/13
by Eriq Gardner


There's a bit of a quirky new twist in Robin Thicke's lawsuit claiming that 'Blurred Lines' wasn't stolen from Marvin Gaye's 'Got to Give It Up'.

Marvin Gaye III, the adopted eldest of the singer's children, has hired his own attorney and has filed his own counterclaim in the lawsuit. He follows Frankie Christian Gaye and Nona Gaye, who filed a countersuit in October claiming that Thicke and his producers Pharrell Williams and Clifford Harris Jr. committed copyright infringement on two songs.

At the time, the non-participation of Gaye III was noted by several media outlets. Gaye III is now standing up on his own.





According to his counterclaim, "Thicke’s “Blurred Lines” (copied from Gaye’s “Got To Give It Up”), Thicke’s “Love After War” (copied from Gaye’s “After The Dance”), Thicke’s “Make U Love Me” (copied from Gaye’s “I Want You”), and Thicke’s “Million Dolla Baby” (copied from Gaye’s “Trouble Man”) all serve as examples of songs so similar to Gaye’s songs as to leave no doubt but that they were each wholly dependent for their very creations upon Thicke’s brazen copying."

While Gaye III alleges copying on four songs, like his siblings, he's only bringing copyright claims on 'Blurred Lines' and 'Love After War'. Unlike the other countersuit, there's no allegation made that EMI April, the song publisher now owned by Sony/ATV, breached a contract and its fiduciary duty by failing to protect Gaye's songs.





If there's squabbling in the Gaye family, it could add a wrinkle to any settlement discussions. And should the lawsuit prove successful, it could necessitate some sorting in the disbursement of damages.

In the short-term, though, with Thicke's lawyer signaling to The Hollywood Reporter a challenge to the Gaye family's standing in bringing a copyright claim, any family strife over rights might come up.





Meanwhile, further court documents reveal that Michael Niborski at Pryor Cashman is now representing Sony/ATV.

An established entertainment litigator, he joins Howard King representing Thicke, Richard Busch representing Frankie Christian Gaye and Nona Gaye and Paul Philips representing Marvin Gaye III.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr...-claims-660382

[TheCars1986]

Did the song in question come out after 1999? Then of course it's an unoriginal ripoff piece of garbage song.

[JamesG]

Marvin Gaye's Kids Settle With Sony over Robin Thicke's 'Blurred Lines'
by Associated Press
Jan 14, 2014


Marvin Gaye’s children have settled claims against a music company owned by Sony over Robin Thicke’s Grammy-nominated hit song 'Blurred Lines'.

The Gayes had accused EMI of not pursuing a copyright infringement case against Thicke because 'Blurred Lines' has similarities to Gaye’s 'Got to Give It Up'.





A Los Angeles judge on Tuesday granted Nona Marvisa Gaye and Frankie Christian Gaye’s dismissal of their lawsuit against EMI, which is owned by Sony/ATV Music Publishing. Documents say the Gayes and Sony have an agreement and claims against Sony can’t be brought again. Terms of the settlement weren’t disclosed.

Dueling lawsuits between the Gaye family and Thicke remain active.





Thicke and his collaborators T.I. and Pharrell Williams asked a federal judge in August to rule they didn’t copy 'Got to Give It Up' for 'Blurred Lines', which is nominated for Record of the Year and other awards at the Jan. 26 Grammy Awards.

Their song has sold 6.6 million tracks and was last year’s biggest hit. It spent 12 weeks on top of the Billboard Hot 100 chart.





Gaye’s children accused the performers in October of copying elements of his music for 'Blurred Lines'. Their lawsuit sought to block Thicke from using elements of their father’s music in other songs and claimed Thicke improperly used Gaye’s 'After the Dance' for his No. 1 R&B hit 'Love After War'.

Representatives for Sony, Thicke, and the Gaye family didn’t immediately reply to emails seeking comment on Tuesday.

http://music-mix.ew.com/2014/01/14/r...blurred-lines/

[JamesG]

'Blurred Lines' Trial Opens as Jurors Hear Dueling Arguments About What's at Stake
2/24/15
by Austin Siegemund-Broka


The 'Blurred Lines' trial is underway in a Los Angeles federal courtroom.

On Tuesday, Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams were on hand for the start of the proceeding examining whether 'Blurred Lines', one of the biggest songs of the century, was improperly derived from Marvin Gaye's 'Got to Give It Up.'






Thicke, Williams and Clifford Harris Jr., better known by his stage name T.I. sued Gaye's family in 2013 to get a declaration that their multiplatinum hit isn't a rip-off of the late soul legend's copyright.

In counterclaims, the singer's children Frankie and Nona Gaye accused the musicians not only of infringing on 'Got To Give It Up,' but also of turning Gaye's 'After the Dance' into Thicke's 'Love After War.'





Thicke — who did nothing but smile today — and Williams are scheduled to testify in judge John Kronstadt's courtroom at the trial, which is anticipated to take eight days.

So will T.I. and Thicke's ex-wife Paula Patton, who co-wrote 'Love After War', Frankie, Nona and several other Gaye family members were present in court as well.









In his opening statement, the Gaye family's attorney Richard Busch focused on the inconsistency between Thicke and Williams' depositions and interviews in the media to promote 'Blurred Lines' in which they credited Gaye and 'Got To Give It Up' for influencing the track.

In Thicke's wild deposition, the singer claims he lied in every one of those interviews and was drunk and high on Vicodin. Busch encouraged jurors not to take the deposition at face value: "They crafted, the evidence will show, a completely different inconsistent story in this case."



Thicke and Williams' attorney Howard King responded in his opening statement that jurors should take the depositions seriously, not the media interviews.

"There are many unsworn interviews of people trying to sell records," he said. "It's going to be easy to get distracted by the perhaps tawdry details of what goes on in the music business."



King went on to repeat Thicke's claims in his deposition that he in fact had little involvement in writing the hit single.

"You're obviously going to hear details that are embarrassing about Mr. Thicke's personal life. But what you're going to hear is that Mr. Thicke did not write that song," said King.

"He was supposed to be in the studio with Mr. Williams, because that's the way Mr. Williams likes it, to have the artist there, but it came to 10 at night and Mr. Thicke was nowhere to be found. Mr. Williams sat down and wrote the song, wrote the music, in an hour."









King spoke to the recent back-and-forth in the case over whether Gaye's full recording could be played in the trial. In recent motions, Thicke and Williams' camp argued the Gaye family held copyrights only for the sheet music of Gaye's compositions, not the recordings themselves.

The judge agreed in a ruling that since Gaye's songs came out before copyright law changed in 1978, only a stripped-down version of the song could be played in court.

(The Gaye family fought the decision in an unsuccessful appeal).



"The sheet music was only consulted a few months ago, after hundreds of thousands of dollars spent, and it was revealed that a lot of elements of the recordings are not in the sheet music," said King.

"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."









Both attorneys gave some estimation of potential damages, with Busch claiming that the musicians' profits from the track totaled roughly $40 million and that according to general practices for licensing, the Gayes were due some fraction around half of that.

King responded that the song was nowhere near that profitable, further arguing that the track's success wasn't due entirely to the music — the racy video and social media promotions should be considered as well.



They previewed their experts, King's including Williams' studio engineer and "in-house musicologist" Andrew Coleman and musicologist Sandy Wilbur, who the attorney said will demonstrate that the notes and chord progressions in the Gaye compositions and Thicke's songs don't resemble one another.

Busch plans to bring musicologist Judith Finell and Harvard professor of African American music Ingrid Monson, who he said would focus on the songs' structural similarities, like the placement of their rap/spoken segments.



He cautioned jurors with regard to Williams and Thicke's testimonies.

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









Earlier in the day, the jury selection process kicked off the festivities and included an unusual question: Who was offended by the music video for 'Blurred Lines,' which features bare-chested, nearly nude women? Some responded they couldn't remain impartial.

"I have two young daughters," said one prospective juror, a teacher, who told the judge the video would affect her judgment. "I'm trying to raise them to be empowered and not use their sexuality to sell things," she said before being dismissed.

In his opening statement, King played a non-explicit version of the video and clarified his party wouldn't play the explicit version. "The version you won't see lacks — clothing," he said.





Other questions in the selection process included whether the prospective jurors played a musical instrument or could read music, whether they knew Williams' work and liked it — Thicke's repertoire wasn't addressed — and whether they could judge celebrities fairly.

"I have to say, I do listen to a lot of oldies. I was weaned on it," volunteered one prospective juror, a retired woman who was later dismissed, when asked if she was familiar with Gaye's work.

"His music was the backdrop when I was in college," responded another. When the judge asked a college student how he knew Williams' work, the juror responded, "He's everywhere."



The jury comprises five women and three men. The trial will continue on Wednesday at 8:30 a.m.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr...lection-777503

[Dude111]

This whole thing is bloody stupid....... Its all about $$$$

WHO GIVES A CRAP IF IT SOUNDS LIKE IT?? (Its not as good @ all)

[JamesG]

'Blurred Lines' Trial Verdict: Robin Thicke, Pharrell To Pay Gaye Family $7.3 Million
by Isabella Biedenharn
3/10/15


The jury in the “Blurred Lines” case has finally reached a verdict: Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams have been ordered to pay $7.3 million to Marvin Gaye’s family for copyright infringement.

Gaye’s family alleged that Williams and Thicke’s 2013 hit, “Blurred Lines,” copied Gaye’s 1977 song “Got to Give It Up.” They sued the two singers and rapper T.I., who also appeared on the song, seeking over $25 million.

“Blurred Lines” has made almost $16.5 million since its release.





Both songs were played during the trial, and while Thicke and Williams denied any theft, Williams did admit, upon hearing the two bass lines, “It sounds like you’re playing the same thing.”

The highly publicized trial was dramatic from the start, with Thicke and Williams both appearing in court in defense of their ostensibly original work (Thicke also performed to prove his point, which apparently, alas, did not help his case).

In April 2014, Thicke confessed to rampant drug use during the writing and recording of “Blurred Lines,” and claimed he had little to do with the song’s creation.





When his answers from previous interviews — in which he discussed Gaye’s influence — were quoted back to him, Thicke admitted:

“I didn’t do a sober interview, so I don’t recall many things that i said. Every day I woke up, I would take a Vicodin to start the day, and then I would fill up a water bottle with vodka and drink it before and during my interviews.”





Neither Thicke nor the surviving heirs of Gaye, who passed away in 1984, have made an official statement on the ruling, though a spokesperson for Williams did tell Rolling Stone:

“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…. 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.”

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/03/10...hicke-pharrell

[Schmoopie]

Wow, that's quite a settlement

[JamesG]

Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams' Lawyer Confirms They'll Appeal 'Blurred Lines' Verdict
by Jennifer Maas
3/11/15


Howard E. King, the attorney who represented Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams in the recent “Blurred Lines” copyright infringement case, told FOX Business Network that he would be appealing the verdict handed down by the jury on Tuesday.

Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams were ordered to pay $7.3 million to Marvin Gaye’s family for copyright infringement. But according to King, the family won’t see any of that money if does his job correctly.





“We owe it to song writers around the world to make sure this verdict doesn’t stand,” King told FOX Business News.

“My clients know that they wrote the song ‘Blurred Lines’ from their hearts and souls and no other source. We are going to exercise every post trial remedy we have to make sure this verdict does not stand. We look at it as being in the seventh inning of a game that could go into extra innings.”





King also addressed whether he believed Pharrell’s song “Happy” would be the target of a lawsuit.

“Pharrell has readily admitted that Marvin Gaye is one of his idols, but it’s silk and rayon,” King said. “If this is the way the law is going to go, then the creator of rayon better look behind him for lawsuits from the owners of silk, because, even though they feel the same they are structurally, completely different just like these songs.”

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/03/11...ealing-blurred

[Dude111]

Good im glad...... IT WAS BLATENT RIP OFF!!!!!

[isiahthomas]

If I was Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams, I wouldn't have paid Marvin Gaye's family nothing hahahahahahahahahaha. Marvin's kids are just trying to get paid because they're probably broke LOL. I get so tired of old r&b singers suing rappers and singers for sampling their music. Artists should be able to sample artists music for free and they shouldn't be sued for it by the artists they sampled. Steely Dan sued rappers Lord Tariq and Peter Gunz for sampling their classic song Black Cow on Deja Vu song. Lord Tariq and Peter Gunz stopped rapping after one album and them being sued is probably part of the reason they stopped rapping because Peter said they lost a lot of money because of the lawsuit. Peter called Steely Dan 2 old white bitter men in a interview I saw he did on Youtube hahahahahahahahaha. Rappers Naughty By Nature also sampled a song by Steely Dan on Live Or Die song and I wonder if they got sued. I love Marvin's daughter Nona Gaye but she's wrong for suing Robin and Pharrell.