In August 2013 Pharrell and Robin Thicke filed a pre-emptive lawsuit essentially asking the judge to rule “declaratory relief that “Blurred Lines” was non-infringing, painting the defendant as attempting to claim ownership of an entire genre.” This prompted the Gaye family to respond with their own lawsuit and both sides trotted out musicologists to argue their own side.
The end result is Judge Kronstadt’s conclusion that the case shouldn’t end now. Ultimately, U.S. District Judge John Kronstadt decided that there is enough material similarity and copyright precedent to allow the Gaye family to sue, if they so choose.
The Gaye family, he writes, “have made a sufficient showing that elements of ‘Blurred Lines’ may be substantially similar to protected, original elements of ‘Got to Give It Up.’ Defendants have identified these with particularity for purposes of analytic dissection.”
“Blurred Lines” may have come and gone as a summer anthem, but the litigation over the Robin Thicke and Pharrell hit song and its relationship to Marvin Gaye’s “Got to Give it Up” wages on. Here’s the short of the story:
Specifically, the judge points to genuine issues of material fact existing as to the substantial similarity of signature phrases, hooks, bass lines, keyboard chords, harmonic structures and vocal melodies of the two songs. The judge also writes that the Gaye family has offered sufficient evidence to create triable issues about whether their 11-note signature phrase, four-note hook, four-bar bass line, 16-bar harmonic structure and four-note vocal melody are protectable expressions.
The judge also refuses to allow Williams and Thicke to win at this juncture on claims tied to “Love After War.”
Read the full article on Billboard.com
Tags: blurred lines, Marvin Gaye, pharrell, Robin Thicke
Share On Facebook
Tweet It
