Robin Thicke Finally Speaks About 'Blurred Lines' Lawsuit; Huffington Post, 7/2/15

Julia Brucculieri, Huffington Post; Robin Thicke Finally Speaks About 'Blurred Lines' Lawsuit:

"In an interview with the New York Times, Thicke explains, "I know the difference between inspiration and theft. I’m constantly inspired, but I would never steal. And neither would Pharrell."

He continues, "As a songwriter, you’re obviously trying to create a brand-new feeling that comes from your heart. But you can’t help but be inspired by all of the greatness that came before you."

Thicke admits to being "careless" during the trial, as he was going through a very messy public divorce with his former wife, Paula Patton...

Thicke and Williams ultimately lost the case and the jury awarded Gaye's children $4 million in damages plus $3.4 million in profits the two artists had made from their copyright infringement. They went on to appeal the case.

Thicke notes the verdict could have a negative effect on the music industry as a whole, saying, "If the verdict holds up, I believe that it will have a ripple effect on the arts and the industry in general. I mean, if you made the first superhero movie, do you own the concept of the superhero?""

‘Blurred Lines’ Infringed on Marvin Gaye Copyright, Jury Rules; New York Times, 3/10/15

Ben Sisario and Noah Smith, New York Times; ‘Blurred Lines’ Infringed on Marvin Gaye Copyright, Jury Rules:

"According to the jury’s decision, Nona and Frankie Gaye, two of Marvin Gaye’s children, are to receive $4 million in damages, plus $3.3 million in profits attributed to Mr. Thicke and Mr. Williams, as well as about $9,000 in statutory damages for the infringement of copyright. Clifford Harris Jr., better known as T.I., who contributed a rap in the song, was found not liable.

The decision is one of the largest damage awards in a music copyright case, some legal experts said. In one of the few comparable cases, Michael Bolton and Sony were ordered to pay $5.4 million in 1994 for infringing on a 1960s song by the soul group the Isley Brothers."

Pharrell Williams Acknowledges Similarity to Gaye Song in ‘Blurred Lines’ Case; New York Times, 3/4/15

Ben Sisario and Noah Smith, New York Times; Pharrell Williams Acknowledges Similarity to Gaye Song in ‘Blurred Lines’ Case:

"How closely does Robin Thicke’s hit “Blurred Lines” resemble a classic by Marvin Gaye?

That question is central to a closely watched copyright case here, and on Wednesday, Pharrell Williams, the producer behind “Blurred Lines,” acknowledged a similarity to Gaye’s 1977 song “Got to Give It Up” but denied that there had been any intention to copy it.

“I must have been channeling that feeling, that late-’70s feeling,” Mr. Williams testified in the case, which pits him and Mr. Thicke against the family of Gaye, who died in 1984...

Mr. Busch then asked Mr. Williams whether “Blurred Lines” had a similar “feel” to “Got to Give It Up” and others from its era.

“Feel,” Mr. Williams said, “not infringement.”"

Industry Issues Intrude in ‘Blurred Lines’ Case; New York Times, 3/1/15

Ben Sisario, New York Times; Industry Issues Intrude in ‘Blurred Lines’ Case:

"Copyright cases can be esoteric affairs. But the “Blurred Lines” trial, which began Tuesday before Judge John A. Kronstadt in United States District Court for the Central District of California, has provided a rare window into an unseemly and embarrassing side of the music industry. Testimony and a flurry of pretrial documents have revealed lurid details of drugs, unearned songwriting credits, and intentional deception of the news media employed as a standard promotional practice...

If Mr. Thicke’s side loses, the potential damages could be large. “Blurred Lines” has sold 7.3 million copies in the United States, and Richard S. Busch, the Gaye family’s lawyer, claimed in his opening statement that the song had earned at least $30 million in profit — a figure Mr. Thicke’s lawyers disputed. If Mr. Thicke’s side is found liable of infringement, then the jury would decide what percentage of the song’s profits should be shared with the Gayes as damages."

Robin Thicke, Fair Use, Jackson v. AEG: Entertainment's Top Legal Disputes of 2013; Billboard, 12/27/13

Eriq Gardner, Billboard; Robin Thicke, Fair Use, Jackson v. AEG: Entertainment's Top Legal Disputes of 2013: "The year was so jam-packed with legal tussling that many show-stopping developments failed to make the cut of our top legal disputes from 2013...But in our view, here, in reverse order, are the ones that were the most gripping from 2013:... 7. Robin Thicke looks to protect "Blurred Lines" from theft claims For as long as there has been pop music, there's been fighting over who stole or borrowed or sampled what from whom. When Robin Thicke and his producers filed a lawsuit this past summer against Marvin Gaye's children, a few things raised the bar: The lawsuit was a preemptive strike against allegations that the year's most successful song was a derivative of Gaye's "Got to Give It Up." The litigation now involves both sides enlisting some of the industry's most esteemed lawyers to wrangle over the issue of when similarity in songcraft rises to copyright infringement. Now there's even a counterclaim that raises the issue of a conflict and lack of diligence by one of the industry's biggest song publishers... 5. "Fair Use" explodes as a public issue Technology has made duplication easier than ever. A counterpoint to copyright is fair use, or lawful exceptions to a rights-holder's ability to control derivatives. This past year brought two huge decisions on this front. First, after a nearly decade-long fight, Google got a federal judge to declare that its scanning of some 20 million library books was a fair use. Second, an appeals court concluded that artist Richard Prince had made fair use of most of photographer Patrick Cariou's work. Both cases are ongoing (on appeal or back at the trial court). Meanwhile, the issue of what's transformative and what's not has entered the public stream of conscious in other ways -- from Sony Pictures' win over a William Faulkner quote referenced in Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris to the recent controversy over a toy company's use of The Beastie Boys' "Girls.""

In Dispute Over a Song, Marvin Gaye’s Family Files a Countersuit; New York Times, 10/30/13

Ben Sisario, New York Times; In Dispute Over a Song, Marvin Gaye’s Family Files a Countersuit: "According to the suit, which was first reported by The Hollywood Reporter, a musicologist, Judith Finell, studied “Blurred Lines” and “Got to Give It Up” and found “a constellation of at least eight distinctive and important compositional elements” between them... In a statement, Sony/ATV said that another musicologist had determined that “Blurred Lines” did not infringe on “Got to Give It Up,” and also defended its corporate role as a steward for songwriters."