- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Robin Thicke Apologetically Sues Marvin Gaye's Heirs
Posted on 8/20/13 at 12:47 pm
Posted on 8/20/13 at 12:47 pm
Here is the 411:
1. Lawyers representing Marvin Gaye's family and Bridgeport Music -- the company that owns the rights to Marvin Gaye's recordings -- have been sending nasty letters to the lawyers who represent Robin Thicke and his label, saying (in my words):
"Blurred Lines" sounds a lot like "Got To Give It Up"....so much alike, in fact, that we think it constitutes copyright infringement. So pay us a shitload of money, or we're suing your bitch asses.
2. The lawyers representing Thicke and his label don't think that the other guys have a valid copyright infringement claim -- and I agree with them....a song sounding like another one or borrowing stylistically from another one does not copyright infringement make -- and they're sick of getting all these nasty, threatening letters in the mail.
3. So they're going to the local courthouse and saying to the judge: "please tell these frickers that we aren't infringing their copyright...I'm sick of reading their nasty letters." In other words, they're suing the Gaye family to prevent the Gaye family from suing them.
4. And they're being very polite about the whole thing.
Here is a pdf of the lawsuit: LINK
And a news article that says basically what I wrote above: LINK
1. Lawyers representing Marvin Gaye's family and Bridgeport Music -- the company that owns the rights to Marvin Gaye's recordings -- have been sending nasty letters to the lawyers who represent Robin Thicke and his label, saying (in my words):
"Blurred Lines" sounds a lot like "Got To Give It Up"....so much alike, in fact, that we think it constitutes copyright infringement. So pay us a shitload of money, or we're suing your bitch asses.
2. The lawyers representing Thicke and his label don't think that the other guys have a valid copyright infringement claim -- and I agree with them....a song sounding like another one or borrowing stylistically from another one does not copyright infringement make -- and they're sick of getting all these nasty, threatening letters in the mail.
3. So they're going to the local courthouse and saying to the judge: "please tell these frickers that we aren't infringing their copyright...I'm sick of reading their nasty letters." In other words, they're suing the Gaye family to prevent the Gaye family from suing them.
4. And they're being very polite about the whole thing.
quote:
"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.
Here is a pdf of the lawsuit: LINK
And a news article that says basically what I wrote above: LINK
This post was edited on 8/20/13 at 12:50 pm
4
Posted on 8/20/13 at 1:06 pm to bobbyray21
Can't copyright a sound, otherwise music would cease to exist.
Posted on 8/20/13 at 1:36 pm to bobbyray21
In Brian McKnight's "Find Myself in You" he sings an exact replication of a vocal run performed in Marvin Gaye's "Let's Get it On." Same key and everything. Sings it twice as a matter of fact.
Similarites will happen in music, especially in the case of Thicke, who no doubt is influenced by Gaye's music. While the song has a similar feel, it is far from identical, and in my opinion does not consitute copyright infringement.
Similarites will happen in music, especially in the case of Thicke, who no doubt is influenced by Gaye's music. While the song has a similar feel, it is far from identical, and in my opinion does not consitute copyright infringement.
This post was edited on 8/20/13 at 1:40 pm
Posted on 8/20/13 at 1:52 pm to bobbyray21
Similar but not the same.
If this were the case, almost every Dubstep artist would be filing lawsuits against each other.
If this were the case, almost every Dubstep artist would be filing lawsuits against each other.
Posted on 8/20/13 at 1:52 pm to BCMCubs
Until an artist starts using exact verses from songs or literally note for note, I don't see copyright issues.
But I don't know the laws either.
But I don't know the laws either.
Posted on 8/20/13 at 1:54 pm to moon
BTW, Marvin Gaye would laugh at this song!(and then probably snort coke off of a hooker's arse).
Posted on 8/20/13 at 2:21 pm to bobbyray21
Sounds like Marvin Gaye's family is looking for a handout. Thicke oughta go after them for all they got.
Posted on 8/20/13 at 3:11 pm to TexasTiger1185
quote:
Can't copyright a sound, otherwise music would cease to exist.
I don't think "sound" is the word I would have gone with. But I understand what you're getting at.
Posted on 8/20/13 at 3:14 pm to moon
quote:
BTW, Marvin Gaye would laugh at this song!(and then probably snort coke off of a hooker's arse).
Fwiw, George Clinton -- mr. funkadelic himself* -- is on Robin Thicke's side.
*Bridgeport music is the company that owns funkadelic recordings, which is who owns Gaye's recordings.
Posted on 8/20/13 at 3:15 pm to MasCervezas
quote:
Sounds like Marvin Gaye's family is looking for a handout. Thicke oughta go after them for all they got.
Again, Thicke isn't going after them. He's seeking a declaratory judgment -- a ruling from the judge that they (the Gaye family) can't sue him.
Posted on 8/20/13 at 3:25 pm to TexasTiger1185
quote:
Until an artist starts using exact verses from songs or literally note for note, I don't see copyright issues.
But I don't know the laws either.
Copyright is a tricky area. Actually more muddy than tricky. There really isn't much law to know. At least not in cases like this. If the Gaye family were to sue Thicke and it went to trial, the judge tells the jury to go figure out whether the one song infringes on the other.
In some cases the result is fricking ridiculous (like when a Dr. Dre song was found to infringe a George Clinton song based on a -- literally -- unrecognizable two second sample.
In other cases, the result makes perfect sense. Like when Vanilla Ice tried to add an extra "ding" onto Queen's "Under Pressure" riff and claimed that the extra ding differentiated the two songs.
And in England, if the Rolling Stones sue you, the Rolling Stones win. Google "Richard Ashcroft Bittersweet Symphony Rolling Stones" and read about how that went down. But make sure your kids aren't around the computer because Richard Ashcroft actually gets fricked in the arse.
Posted on 8/20/13 at 3:28 pm to bobbyray21
quote:
And in England, if the Rolling Stones sue you, the Rolling Stones win. Google "Richard Ashcroft Bittersweet Symphony Rolling Stones" and read about how that went down. But make sure your kids aren't around the computer because Richard Ashcroft actually gets fricked in the arse.
yeah, that was bullshite...and so was george harrison getting sued (and paying over a million and a half dollars) for the "my sweet lord"/"he's so fine" crap.
Posted on 8/20/13 at 3:38 pm to pussywillows
quote:
and so was george harrison getting sued (and paying over a million and a half dollars) for the "my sweet lord"/"he's so fine" crap
I haven't heard this story. What happened?
Posted on 8/20/13 at 3:42 pm to bobbyray21
the company that owned the rights to the lyrics of "he's so fine" by the chiffons sued george harrison, saying that "my sweet lord" was a ripoff of their song...he ended up having to pay them close to $1.6 million, and that was in '76, so it was a HUGE amount of money for that time...maybe it's because i'm not a musician, but i never thought they were similar enough to justify that kind of judgment.
Posted on 8/20/13 at 3:48 pm to bobbyray21
quote:
Copyright is a tricky area. Actually more muddy than tricky. There really isn't much law to know.
I guess one could say there are some "Blurred Lines" with that.
Posted on 8/20/13 at 3:50 pm to moon
quote:
I guess one could say there are some "Blurred Lines" with that.
He's gonna be here all week.
Posted on 8/20/13 at 3:51 pm to bobbyray21
I think the Bittersweet Symphony screw job deserves it's own thread.
Posted on 8/20/13 at 3:58 pm to bobbyray21
quote:
He's gonna be here all week.
:rimshot:
Posted on 8/20/13 at 4:54 pm to moon
quote:
moon
I'm not a fan of emoticons, but that one is freaking awesome. Actually laughed out loud.
Posted on 8/20/13 at 5:17 pm to pussywillows
quote:
.he ended up having to pay them close to $1.6 million, and that was in '76, so it was a HUGE amount of money for that time...maybe it's because i'm not a musician, but i never thought they were similar enough to justify that kind of judgment.
I love Harrison and MSL is a good track, but he lifted that chorus and melody, albeit unintentionally. He reached out to the Chiffons and offered 40% of the rights to MSL prior to trial. Music experts testified as to how similar they were.
Quote from Harrison:
quote:
In I Me Mine, Harrison admits to having thought "Why didn't I realise?" when others started pointing out the similarity between the two songs
Quote from Lennon:
quote:
"He must have known, you know. He's smarter than that ... He could have changed a couple of bars in that song and nobody could ever have touched him, but he just let it go and paid the price."
The money was a reflection of how popular George's version was of it. That number wasn't pulled out of thin air.
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News