That news that the estate of Marvin Gaye won a big court victory isnt quite what it seems. Yes, the court ruled that the case will go to trial but that was expected all along. The court could only rule at this stage if there were no material facts in dispute. So the victory for the estate is a big yawner. Beyond the fact that this will be tried (unless it is settled), the decision for the estate was pretty much horrible. If you heard the two songs, you might be surprised that there was bad news for the family of Marvin Gaye. After all, its hard to argue that, to the ear of the casual listener, the hit Blurred Lines is not a ripoff of Marvin Gayes Got to Give It Up. You dont even have to listen. Robin Thicke, one of the co-writers (although he denies it now), said this in an interview with GQ Magazine: Pharrell [Williams] and I were in the studio and I told him that one of my favorite songs of all time was Marvin Gaye’s ‘Got to Give it Up.’ I was like, ‘Damn, we should make something like that, something with that groove.’ Then he started playing a little something and we literally wrote the song in about a half hour and recorded it. The case is black-and-white but not in the way that you might expect. I mean that its literally black-and-white -- and that what you hear in those mash-ups dont mean a thing. The problem for the Gaye estate is that the 1977 Marvin Gaye hit is subject to the Copyright Act of 1909. The Copyright Act of 1976 applies to compositions beginning January 1, 1978. Fixing this date was a blow to the estate (although they never contested the date) because, as the court also ruled, under the 1909 law, the copyright is limited to what you see in the sheet music that was filed with the copyright office -- and nothing more. That will very likely crush them in court when the case moves into the next phase. Remember, up above, where Thicke is quoted as saying he was trying to make something with that groove? Well, in ordering that the case will go to trial, the judge also slammed the estate with this bad news: the 1909 copyright law doesnt extend to the groove or any of the other stylistic elements that make the recording or the performance distinctive. Its literally black and white. The fact finder will have to look at the sheet music that was filed by Marvin Gaye (actually by some unknown studio lackey who deciphered the sheet music after the record was recorded) -- and compare it to the sheet music of Blurred Lines in order to see if any of it was copied. That requires a finding of fact -- and when the court has to make a factual finding, you have to go to trial. Interestingly, all of this comes under the umbrella of the music publishing giant, EMI. Marvin Gayes music and Pharrell Williams music are handled by EMI and a separate claim in this case involves EMI taking sides with Williams against the Gaye estate. EMIs chairman allegedly told the Gaye family to back down because they were killing the goose that laid the golden egg. According to the family, he claimed that their allegations against Thicke cost the song a Grammy and other awards. The family is claiming a breach of duty to them owed by EMI and they are seeking damages and the right to break free from EMI. Even if the copyright case goes south, which is now more likely given the courts ruling, the conflict-of-interest angle raised by the estate makes this case compelling. [Okay, I posted an entertaining link just to get your attention and amass lots of likes so that I can be deluded into thinking that a couple of those likes relates to this background piece on the legal status of the case. To see the full text of the courts summary judgment decision that nobody would bother to like, you can click here. JH
Posted on: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 18:54:47 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015