Skip to content
Advertisement

The politics of copyright infringement redux

Advertisement

Ever wonder what ultimately happened in the “Blurred Lines” copyright infringement lawsuit after the eight-person jury unanimously voted that Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke infringed on the Gaye family’s copyright for Marvin Gaye’s 1977 hit, “Got to Give it Up?” Well, plenty.

Pharrell and Robin Thicke, through their lawyers, went on a public relations campaign lambasting the jury, the verdict and a perceived lack of fairness. Their viewpoint garnered some public support. The jury members stayed mum, as they were—as a group—demonized. Eventually, there may be a book deal or a movie coming out.

The judge in the case, U.S. District Judge John Kronstadt, was asked in post-trial proceedings to overrule the jury’s verdict, or to at least grant a new trial on the merits of the case. He refused both requests. The Gaye family asked the judge to bar any more distribution of the “Blurred Lines” song, but he refused that too, although radio airplay for the song has virtually disappeared already. What the judge did do was to reduce the size of the award decided upon by the jury from $7.3 million down to $5.3 million. He also said that rapper T.I. (Clifford Harris), originally not assigned any blame or obligation to pay in the jury verdict, would now also have to pay part of that judgement fee and share the verdict as a copyright thief. Additionally, the Gaye family would get 50 percent of any royalties resulting from distribution of the song after the trial.

This judgement of copyright infringement currently stands against the very popular Mr. Williams, and the less popular, Mr. Thicke. Together, they have vowed to appeal the court’s decision, but no public notice of an appeal has yet been announced as of September 2015. Mr. Williams is a 10-time Grammy Award winner, responsible for sales of more than a 100 million copies of his songs worldwide as both  producer and singer. His latest hit song, “Happy,” along with his appearances on the TV show, “The Voice,” have made him a household name. The copyright infringement verdict, while embarrassing, has not lessened his stature or popularity in the music world, nor does it threaten to do so.

A number of huge artists have commented on the court finding, including Stevie Wonder. In an interview with TMZ, he has said, “I don’t think it’s a steal from Marvin Gaye. I’ve been through lawsuits for songs and all that. I think that the groove is very similar but you have to remember he is a big fan of Marvin Gaye’s so that’s okay. But the song is not like Marvin Gaye’s. It is not the same.” He also advised the Gaye family to beware of attorneys who may advise them to keep hunting and fighting for other song similarities. He said that’s a good way to lose a lot of money over crap.

Hmmm. Clearly, Stevie Wonder remains a giant in the industry, and he certainly knows songwriting. His view, however, is not the legal standard.

Before this ruling, the most high-profile plagiarism case over a song was the 1973 accusation that George Harrison (former Beatle) had infringed the copyright of the song “He’s So Fine” by the Chiffons for his monster solo hit, “My Sweet Lord.” He initially lost in court, but after 16 years and several complicated appeals, he won out, actually owning the “He’s So Fine” copyright. The Williams-Thicke-Harris case will supplant that 1973 case in its impact on the music industry.

Unless, as discussed in a previous column, the “what does a reasonable man hear?” basis of such cases change, there will be many more such copyright infringement situations, and the view of musicologists such as Stevie Wonder will not be the definitive position. The “reasonable man hearing” is still the state of the law, and there does not yet appear to be any public action to have it changed.

This writer does not think it needs to be changed.

Professor David L. Horne is founder and executive director of PAPPEI, the Pan African Public Policy and Ethical Institute, which is a new 501(c)(3) pending community-based organization or non-governmental organization (NGO). It is the stepparent organization for the California Black Think Tank which still operates and which meets every fourth Friday.

DISCLAIMER: The beliefs and viewpoints expressed in opinion pieces, letters to the editor, by columnists and/or contributing writers are not necessarily those of OurWeekly.

Advertisement

Latest