Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: A jury awarded Marvin Gaye’s children nearly $7.4 million 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.
4 comments:
I honestly think that this case should not have even happened. I remember when the song first became popular, my dad played "Got To Give it Up" by Gaye so that I could hear the "similarities" between the two songs. He heard them, but I did not. I thought that they both had the same funky style and feel but in no form or fashion did I think that the songs identically matched. I did not even think there were similar elements that constructed the song. Even if there were, couldn't you say the same for any country song that is played on the radio? I would say that about half of the songs played on today's modern country radio stations sound the same with the same guitar cords as well as chord progressions. There are many songs out there that sound similar to one another but you don't see anybody getting upset and suing over it. I just feel as if this lawsuit was fueled out of money and greed. We should all just sit back and relax because they are both fantastic songs that will BOTH be played until the end of time.
I’m glad to be able to read a follow up on this piece, as I commented on the first article that talked about the ongoing trial. As I said in that article, my mother recognized the track as Marvin Gaye’s the moment it came on the radio, and was fairly upset when the song that played was Blurred Lines. I did not recognize the song. This was most likely due to my age; I had heard it before, but only in my adolescent years and as a result of my mother playing occasionally. This causes me to wonder: at what point does a song become common property? Not to say that this is the case with this music, or even music from say the 1930’s. Just as a general question when does music become open for everyone to use without royalty and copyright issues? I personally think that as long as there are surviving offspring then the money should just continue to go to them.
So yes, the trial has concluded and the verdict has been decided. However, this case in a larger scope was never about what the Gaye family deserved to be honest. It was a statement for the music industry and for the creation of art in general. I would like to make a disclaimer quickly, I don’t per say think that “Blurred Lines” is art, but I respect the creation of music. In terms of the issue, artists need inspiration, without it we don’t create anything. So, where is the line drawn? Does it, like this case, need to be mathematically proven with sheet music and other materials? But what about visual art? There is no system in place to decide how inspired something is. But I think that’s okay. We, as individuals involved with the arts, have to recognize that our work is inspired by others and we inspire others to make art. It is the way our craft works. I don’t have an answer in response to whether “Blurred Lines” copied Martin Gaye, but there is a larger issue at hand.
I find it really sad that this is what society has come to. As artist we are always pulling inspiration from other especially music. I would have found this lawsuit to be treated differently had it been coming from Marvin Gay himself but no its coming from his children. The worst part I feel like is that no one would have no or cared had Blurred Lines hadn't been as popular as it was. That just shows this entire case is based on pure greed and that is truly sad. It also very well opens up the question than what is copy righted. Pretty much every song is derived from something else. We as human beings have been recording and documenting ourselves for too long to be able to come up with anything completely original anymore. We are just rearranging the same tools in ways that fill our personal expression.
Post a Comment