GAYE V WILLIAMS & THICK: HOW A FEELING WAS COPYRIGHT'ED

Let take our minds to across the ocean, to a jurisdiction in another continent. Youtube sometimes loves, as its algorithm recommended a video of an interview between the two greatest musical ears of our time, an interview wherein Rick Rubin talks with Pharell William, also know as P or skate board P. I will attach the link to the video at the end of this.

They touched on alot of subjects in this interview, but the one subject which inspired this post is the discussion they began to have on the copyright infringement judgment handed against Pharell for his song "Blurred lines". The estate of Gaye (Marvin Gaye- one of the goats) claimed Pharell and Robin Thick infringed their copyright entitlment by copying the Marvin Gaye song "Got To Give It Up" in their making of Blurred line. The jury agreed, matter went to appeal and the court agreed with the jury's finding that P basically stole Marvin Gayes song. I remember Blurred lines, it had everyone on this side of the pond in a chokehold. Pharell indicated in this interview with Rick Rubin that he was hurt by the judgment as the judgment indicated that the Gayes had a copyright to a feeling. When he said that, I knew I had to read the judgement. The level of injustice, which I felt when he mentioned that, is the reason why we are taking a quick dive in the written judgement of Gaye v Williams.

& IT WENT LIKE THIS:

The question before the court in this matter was whether Blurred line was sufficiently similar to Got To Give it Up. During the course of my research, i had the priviledge of listening to two records and from my ears sensory perception, i can say these are not the same songs. Same feeling, same grove, just about the same vibe, but not the same song.

But that not what the 9th district circuit found to the case as they ruled in favour of Gaye family in finding that Pharell and Robin infringed the copyright to the song Got to give it up, when they made Blurred lines.

The stories goes like this:

Pharell William, one of the greatest producers to ever live and Robin Thicke, thee hit maker of his time, got in the studio, shared ideas, exchanged music tastes, told stories and boom Blurred Line was born

Note: I will be adding some spices in between to add some texture to the stories. So some of the things are fictional but based on a logic inference of what could have happened.

Back to the programme.

When Blurred lines was born, these two knew what this song meant. They knew where the birth of this song came from. During the conversation of exchanging ideas, music tastes and blasting records on the speaker, they knew when Blurred Line was born. From the moment the conversation landed on a memory Pharell probably had connected to the Marvin Gaye song "Got To Give It Up" , they both connected on how that song made them feel the first time they heard it in their childhood. Ofcourse that lead to the song being put on the aux and the next thing they knew was Blurred Line being born.

I think they knew that it would be hit, because the song was created from a feeling, a happy positive feeling that they once felt in their lives. As Pharell mentioned in his interview with Rick Rubin, what they did with Blurred Line was reserve engineer a feeling so that they could make something that could allow them to go back to that feeling. And that exactly what they did, they made a feel in musical form through Blurred line. I imagine once it was done, they heard worries about the song eliciting similar feelings to that experienced whem they first heard Got To Give Up. But they placed so worries aside, as at the time i imagine, non of them could have thought that they could get in trouble for "reserve engineering a feeling" in order to make what they love.

Blurred Lines comes out, the song is gaining traction, playing on radio, mtv, urban trace, everywhere. I guess the Gaye family gets wind of this and they approach Pharell and Robin about the song. They demanded that their song is an infringement to the copyright of the song of their dad and grandfather and that they need to make this right. Negotiation ensue, but no proper settlement get reached through this negotiation. Pharell being the world renowned producer x songwriter that he is, beats the Gaye family to the curb and approaches the court seeking a declaratory order, asking the court to declare that Blurred Line does not infringe on the copyright protection attached to Marvin Gayes "Got To Give Up".

(I dont know if this was a smart move from the attorney who represented Pharell to approach the court first asking for such a declaration, because thats where this case's can of worms officially get open as per court records. Maby if Pharell didnt go to court first, sat down over coffee to reason with the Gaye family, maby something could have been reached. I dont know, maby during the negotiation, Pharell saw that the Gaye family would go public with this, so in trying to prevent his name being associated with a copy cat, he went to the court to get this nipped under the bud and handled before it got out. According to JOHN QUAGLIARIELLO, writer of the Havard review paper Blurring the Line :Impact of Williams V Gaye Opinion Pharell approached the courts first in order to control the narrative because he forsaw that the Gaye family would institute copyright infringement action against Pharell and Robin Thicke.)

So Pharell approached the court for the declaration, the Gaye family in turn counter-claim and provide that Blurred Line does infringe on the copyright of Got To Give It Up, and that they want compensation for damages and a cut in profit generated by Blurred Lines.

Pharell and Robin, said "hell nah" to their lawyers and took requested a summary judgment from the court. Court denied the request for summary judgment and the matter went to trial to be decided by a "jury of their peers" as they would say in the movies.

Trial commences, arguments are presented, evidence laid on the table for the consideration of the jury, with the most vital evidence being the expert witness testimony provided by expert musicologist. The expert witness testifying on behalf of the Williams and Thicke team advanced that the songs are not similar The copyright protected elements in the songs as per the music sheet handed in the copyrght office by Gaye was not used in Blurred Line. The song, given that it belongs to the same genre of music as Got To Give It Up, only shares the same groove, the same vibe as Got To Give It Up. But besides the songs being made by goat musician, and sharing a genre, nothing about the songs is similar.

(I listened to the songs, twice, and i can without a doubt say that these arent the same songs. You get the same feeling listening to them, but they are two songs, with two different themes. There is a level of perversion that you feel in Blurred Lines that you dont get when listening to Got To Give It Up)

The musicologist, testifying on behalf of the Gaye team, advanced that the songs are sufficiently similar as Pharell and Thicke had a ton of access to the record. The court supported that view by providing that the degree of proving that the songs are sufficiently similar to establish a successful copyright infringement claim is lesser where the plaintiff can show that the defendants had alot of access to the song. On a number of occassion Robin mentions that the song was inspired by Got To Give it Up. Even at trial, the artist conceded that the inspiration for Blurred lines was drawn from Got To Give It Up. So on that premise, the court did not require much from he Gaye Attorneys besides showing on a preponderance of possibilities that the songs are similar. Ofcourse they advanced the technicalities of how the songs are similar, but where they hooked and sunk the jury was subconsiously putting in the minds of the jury that because the songs provide the same grove, same vibe, that means the songs are similiar for the purpose of copyright infringement.

The court found that the Pharell and Robin infringed the copyright of Got To Give It Up and they were ordered to pay four millions of damages and 1. something million from the profits.

CONCLUSION

The songs are not the same. Blurred Line could never be mistaken with Got To Give It Up. No person who has ever listened to the two songs, will immediately come to the conclusion that Blurred line is a stolen version of Got To Give It Up. Judge Nguyen in her Dissenting opinion in the William v Gaye case, put my feelings into words when she wrote that " the songs are not objectively similar, they differ in melody, harmony and rhythm". Nothing about how the songs hits the ears, does it scream its the same song in my mind. It does have a similar feel, similar groove, similar vibe, but that is expected from songs that share their place in a genre of music. Judge Nguyen said the same thing. And it can unequivocally be advanced that copyright does not apply to groove or vibe or feeling. And thats where the judgment from the majority erred, without even noticing they supported the copyright of a feeling. The court in the majority supported a copyright to how something can make you feel. Thats like copyrighting air, because someone used the same air that you use, and because the air is in your yard for example, then that means they stealing. It made no sense how the majority reached that conclusion. Maby its because its a different jurisdiction, and the laws that i understand are not applied the same in parts of this blue rock. But it made no sense.

Anyway, that how a copyright infringement claim on the basis of feeling was successful.

Many have mixed feelings about the judgment. Some believe it will cause a fear to create, therefore stiffling music from being created. Some feel that this judgment will come back to bite the Gaye family because then that leaves their fathers work to the potential of such claims because previous songs made before Got To Give It Up provided listeners with the same feeling.

Me personally, i dont think artist should be punished for creating from inspiration. The purpose of art from my understanding is to evolve the species. Its to allow those coming ahead to do it better, to make it better, and to do it so that people are more happier and connected. Art is a beautiful thing and it should be left to live. Technicalities and the laws of man should to kept from interfering unncessarily. And thats what i feel happened here, the majority focused on the procedural aspect of this judgment and less on the whether the music sound the same.

The songs dont sound the same. Its just the same feeling. And feeling cannot be copyrighted. Morally thats questionable.

Disclaimer

The views and opinion expressed are those of my own, based on my own experiences and my subjective interpretation of the subject matter. They are not authority nor should they be construed to be authority. Do your research, read further, gain knowledge and do what you want with it. Non of the views expressed herein are legal advice. Always seek a legal practitioner for your legal problems. All views expressed are views founded on opinion and subjective perspective. ITS NOT AUTHORITY.

source of inspiration:

Pharrell and Rick Rubin Have an Epic Conversation | GQ (youtube.com)