# data[].attributes.body
Billboard posted their thoughts of the lawsuit and addresses the notion of restricted creativity due to the set precendent.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Most civil lawsuits, some say 90 percent of them, are settled before they ever go to trial. The same holds true for copyright infringement lawsuits, say music industry lawyers. Most infringement cases are settled before they go to trial.

Lots of writers of hit songs get approached by people who claim infringement under the hopes that the songwriter will choose to make some kind of settlement offer so that they will go away.

Songwriters tend to ignore frivolous infringement claims because they know it's costly for those claiming infringement to mount a lawsuit. But if you are the author of a huge hit song with large revenues coming your way --and some similarities exist between the songs -- you may decide to settle rather than run the risk that of an unpredictable jury trial. Yet the "Blurred Lines" co-writers, Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke (but not third co-writer Clifford "T.I." Harris) started the proceedings that led to the trial. The "Blurred Line" co-writers sued Marvin Gaye's family, seeking declaratory relief from a judge that their song was non-infringing on the Gaye Song, "Got To Give It Up."

What lit the fuse that started the lawsuit?

"Pharrell is a very accomplished songwriter producer and he doesn't want his reputation tarnished as an infringer, which is probably why he sued," says one industry executive. "Thicke's and Williams integrity were being called into question. "
Robin Thicke & Pharrell's Lawyer to Appeal 'Blurred Lines' Verdict
Another reason for the pre-emptive move: the "Blurred" songwriters probably wanted the venue to be in Los Angeles, says Manatt, Phelps & Phillips' entertainment & media litigation practice co-chair Robert Jacobs. The move could have been precedent setting if Thicke and Williams had prevailed, he adds. Other songwriters and lawyers may have started using the pre-emptive lawsuit as a strategy to push back on spurious claims.

While Harvey Geller, with the Los Angeles law firm of Gradstein & Marzano, agreed it was interesting approach, he still questioned the strategy. "If they want to settle and you instead sue, you are guaranteeing yourself a long and nasty legal battle. It was a really odd procedural maneuver. When you sue somebody, the one thing you can practically guarantee is you will get a cross complaint."

Can jurors in an infringement trial understand copyright law and music theory?

"Anytime you go to a jury, you are taking a crap shoot of what they will understand and get out of the testimony," says the music publishing executive. "You could have the musicologist testify for hours and hours, and at the end no one will know which way is up." Besides adds Atlas Music Group ceo Rich Stumpf, "When you talk to the musicologists and you ask them for an opinion, it all seems to be subjective."

But can't the jury just listen to the music and make up their own mind if one song borrows from the other?

Usually, but in this case the Judge ruled that the Gaye family couldn't play the songs at trial. "The Gaye family was limited to what was filed with the copyright office, and that was a lead sheet," says the music publishing executive. But Larry Iser, Managing Partner of Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert, opined out that once the judge ruled against the songs being played "even the Gaye expert struggled to find elements in common in the lead sheets of the two songs. The two songs share more of a genre, style and feel than a note by note copy."
'Blurred Lines' Verdict: Music Lawyers Weigh In
Yet, at the end of the trial, the lawyers for Thicke and Williams played excerpts of the two songs for the jury. Could that have been a factor in the jury's decision, wonders the music publishing executive.

How do publishers and record labels protect themselves in these types of situations?

"When publishers cut deals with songwriters, every song comes with a warranty that indemnifies the publisher," says Atlas Music's Stumpf, who says even with that, if the song sounds like some other song, usually the publisher will go back to the writer and ask about the two songs. Still, "the publishers make songwriters sign that the song is an original work and what proportion of the song they created and that is what the publisher relies on. If there is a successful infringement lawsuit against your writer's song, the publisher could say 'we relied on you so you owe us,' but most publishers wouldn't do that. But when you have a case like this with this amount of money at stake, it reminds you that you have to be careful."

In fact, in cases with this kind of money, the publisher may very well expect the songwriters to write a check to the publisher, if they had to give up their share of the songs' revenue. "Most of the time, the artist and songwriters doesn't have the money to pay back the publishers, so it's more likely they negotiate some kind of business resolution," says Gradstein's Geller.

How will the jury's decision that Blurred Lines infringes on "Got To Give It Up" impact songwriting and infringement lawsuits?

Up until now, the music industry thought you can't copyright a vibe, feeling or a genre," says a music publishing executive. "Infrigement has to be based on some element that is copyrightable." But does the "Blurred Line" decision now change the ballgame, some wonder.
Gaye Family Lawyer: How I Won the 'Blurred Lines' Trial (Guest Column)
But now that the jury ruled against Thicke and Williams, it may inspire other lawyers to sue over "genre and feel" instead of the song as it was written, Kinsella Weitsman's Iser says "The whole point of copyright is to progress the art or transform music. If you want to pay homage to someone like Marvin Gaye and then they can come sue you that would be contrary to the purpose of copyright."

Stumpf agrees and notes, "If you are songwriters you have to be a little nervous. You have all of these years of influence in your sub conscience, it can be a scary situation when you think you own some song you created and then you find out otherwise. And as times goes on and more songs come out, there are sonic things going on in your sub conscience."

Or does nothing change for songwriters?

"The case has the potential to cause songwriters to think twice, but the truth of the matter is that songwriters rely on their own creative juices. I don't think that what happened will change the way people do business," says Manatt Phelps & Phillips Jacobs. "It's just another cautionary tale of what can happen."

Gradstein's Geller says the idea that this lawsuit "will chill artist creativity is nonsense. This is a straight infringement case. You always hear arguments about precedent in cases like this and that the world will end if it is decided a certain way. But the world always goes on. This is not out an out of the ordinary infringement case. I just don't see the precedent-setting issue here. Its a run of the mill infringement case."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Blurred Lines' Verdict: How It Started, Why It Backfired on Robin Thicke and Why Songwriters Should Be Nervous

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Most civil lawsuits, some say 90 percent of them, are settled before they ever go to trial. The same holds true for copyright infringement lawsuits, say music industry lawyers. Most infringement cases are settled before they go to trial.

# data[].attributes.headline
Complex's Breakdown of Thicke and Gaye suit

# data[].attributes.subject
Complex's Breakdown of Thicke and Gaye suit

# data[].attributes.body
A general overview of the lawsuit from Marvin Gaye's family on Robin Thicke

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Robin Thicke's "Blurred Lines" Copied Marvin Gaye's "Got To Give It Up," Jury Awards 7.3 Million

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams are balling hard from the earnings of their 2013 hit song "Blurred Lines," according to attorneys involved in an ongoing copyright infringement lawsuit with Marvin Gaye's family. Business Insider reports that the song made over $16.6 million, which was split between the artists and their respective record labels.

# data[].attributes.body
Jennifer Jenkins, an instructor at Duke Law School explains what she believes should have happened and explains why it didn't happen. She also hints at restriction of creativity due to the precedent set by this case.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Abrams, vice provost for faculty affairs and professor of law at the University of Virginia, is a leading scholar of immigration and family law.

# data[].attributes.body
Pharrell Williams, and Robin Thicke will have to pay seven million to Marvin Gaye's family for copyright infringement. The court ruled that "Blurred Lines" was too similar to "Got to Give it Up," which was a violation of the copyright.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A jury awarded Marvin Gaye's children nearly $7.4m on Tuesday after determining singers Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams copied their father's music to create Blurred Lines, the biggest hit song of 2013.

Marvin Gaye's daughter Nona Gaye wept as the verdict was being read and was hugged by her attorney, Richard Busch.

"Right now, I feel free," Nona Gaye said after the verdict. "Free from ... Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke's chains and what they tried to keep on us and the lies that were told."

The verdict could tarnish the legacy of Williams, a reliable hit-maker who has won Grammy awards and appears on NBC's music competition show The Voice.

An attorney for Thicke and Williams has said a decision in favor of Gaye's heirs could have a chilling effect on musicians who try to emulate an era or another artist's sound.

The Gayes' lawyer branded Williams and Thicke liars who went beyond trying to emulate the sound of Gaye's late-1970s music and copied the R&B legend's hit Got to Give It Up outright.

"They fought this fight despite every odd being against them," Busch said of the Gaye family outside court.

Thicke told jurors he didn't write Blurred Lines, which Williams testified he crafted in about an hour in mid-2012.

Williams told jurors that Gaye's music was part of the soundtrack of his youth. But the seven-time Grammy winner said he didn't use any of it to create Blurred Lines.

Gaye's children - Nona, Frankie and Marvin Gaye III - sued the singers in 2013 and were present when the verdict was read.

The verdict may face years of appeals.

Blurred Lines has sold more than 7.3m copies in the US alone, according to Nielsen SoundScan figures. It earned a Grammy nomination and netted Williams and Thicke millions of dollars.

The case was a struggle between two of music's biggest names: Williams has sold more than 100m records worldwide during his career as a singer-producer, and Gaye performed hits such as Sexual Healing and How Sweet It Is (To be Loved by You) remain popular.

During closing arguments, Busch accused Thicke and Williams of lying about how the song was created. He told jurors they could award Gaye's children millions of dollars if they determined the copyright to Got to Give It Up was infringed.

Howard King, lead attorney for Williams and Thicke, told the panel that a verdict in favor of the Gaye family would have a chilling effect on musicians who were trying to recreate a genre or homage to another artist's sound.

King denied there were any substantial similarities between Blurred Lines and the sheet music Gaye submitted to obtain copyright protection.

Williams has become a household name - known simply as Pharrell - thanks to his hit song Happy and his work as a judge on the The Voice. He wrote the majority of Blurred Lines and recorded it in one night with Thicke. A segment by rapper TI was added later.

Williams, 41, also signed a document stating he didn't use any other artists' work in the music and would be responsible if a successful copyright claim was raised.

Thicke testified he wasn't present when the song was written, despite receiving credit.

The trial focused on detailed analyses of chords and notes in both Blurred Lines and Got to Give It Up.

Jurors repeatedly heard the upbeat song Blurred Lines and saw snippets of its music video, but Gaye's music was represented during the trial in a less polished form. Jurors did not hear Got to Give It Up as Gaye recorded it, but rather a version created based solely on sheet music submitted to gain copyright protection.

That version lacked many of the elements - including Gaye's voice - that helped make the song a hit in 1977. Busch derisively called the version used in court a "Frankenstein-like monster" that didn't accurately represent Gaye's work.

An expert for the Gaye family said there were eight distinct elements from Got to Give It Up that were used in Blurred Lines, but an expert for Williams and Thicke denied those similarities existed.

Gaye died in April 1984, leaving his children the copyrights to his music.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke to pay $7.4m to Marvin Gaye's family over Blurred Lines

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A jury awarded Marvin Gaye's children nearly $7.4m on Tuesday after determining singers Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams copied their father's music to create Blurred Lines, the biggest hit song of 2013. Marvin Gaye's daughter Nona Gaye wept as the verdict was being read and was hugged by her attorney, Richard Busch.