They are not similar enough. I'd say that sure, there was clearly some inspiration, as with all art. Sometimes there is more sometimes there is less, sometimes the inspiration is obvious.
This lawsuit definitely does set a dangerous and unfortunate precedent. Can't say I'm surprised about it. :(
The standard in my mind for actual musical theft is George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord" vs Spector's "He's So Fine" -- a clear rip-off, chords, melody, both verse and chorus. But Lines vs Gaye, it's just not enough.
The jury must be tone deaf.
It would be a pretty big coincidence if this copyright case and the level of hate the song has received have nothing to do with each other. The feminists I know are giddy about this.
[0] - I heard that, looked up the lyrics and immediately dismissed it.
You die, your live's work should become public domain, meaning, no one can use it and pervert it or change it or use it for profit, but it should not be controllable or some "estate", i.e., your parasitic children and dependents, start suing to extract even more undeserved, unearned, and unwarranted wealth.
Perhaps you wish to see the world become less dependent on fossil fuels and you've spent your life building a business and cultural following in green tech. You've shared your opinions on why it's so important with students, twitter followers, employees, as well as your children. Why is it not your prerogative to give those you trust the ability to continue your work?
Obviously there are people who don't leave behind progressive and innovative marks on the world, but perhaps they just want the world to be a little bit less dumb and they believe their children are moving the world in that direction (which I think most parents believe of their children). Why can't them give them every advantage they wish to?
Not all children are parasitic and their wealth isn't unearned. It was earned by their parents and rather than shuffling it into a fund for the "public good" they can choose to leave it to their children. The public (including you and I) are just as undeserving of Marvin Gaye's wealth and intellectual property as his children.
On the other hand, these songs don't sound that similar to me and this lawsuit is bullshit.
Although I don't have the details fleshed out, the effect would be that in spite of what you may believe, the outcome is that the incentive to perform and improve and build would be wildly stronger than currently the incentive structure allows for. What if none of your success was taxed, i.e., taken away from you until your work was successful and you then were responsible to pay back society for all the social, intangible aspects that assisted in your success. You still get to enjoy the fruits of your labor, but you also cannot simply externalize costs and risks, while also not paying your investors ... society at large.
There is something inherently supremacist, hypocritical, manipulative, heinous, and rather racist about inheritance that simply perpetuates the evils of the past and undercuts an even remotely equal chance at life, more often than not simply determined based on race. But please also don't simply focus on the race aspect, because there is a larger issue at hand, that everyone, no matter their race should have the same or very similar advantages or opportunities in life not just the wealthy who happened to win the genetic lottery get to inherit all the cheat codes to life and those who lost the genetic lottery get to inherit all the pitfalls, traps, pain, suffering, and disadvantages.
It is one aspect that is absolutely required for humanity to evolve to the next stage if it wishes to progress beyond the current rather primal state we are still in. There is simply no other way than thinking bigger than the selfishness of giving your genetic mashup an unearned advantage over others of the human race. But like I said, it's only one of several things that have to change for humanity to evolve into the next level. No matter whether all other requirements are met, without that step, we will never evolve past the state we are currently in.
If, once you had your retirement set, you could only pass a small percentage of your income on to your friends and family (IANAL... and charities?), then why keep working? What about the people making valuable contributions to society: inventors, doctors, entrepreneurs, etc? Doesn't society have an interest in encouraging them to work past having $X million in their bank accounts?
People have been successfully sued for less than this, many times before...
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/sam-smith--tom-petty-...
But that's a very simple chord progression with common vocal hits, whereas this case seems to hinge on a very distinctive bass line and percussive style.
Would still have been pretty ridiculous if a verdict had been made that this counted as copyright infringement. (They settled it amicably)
As we've seen with the growth of media content on the web, creators gonna create. Whether compensation for one's creation is something shared among many creators fairly in the light of day or consolidated in the hands of a few (while the rest scrape at charity) is really the question that this sort of legal decision raises.
If it's not "Look! Pirates! We're all going to die!!! We need to strengthen copyright NOW!"
Then it's: "Ouch! I lost a copyright lawsuit! We're all going to die!!! WHO is responsible for this insanity?"
The first is about taking a precise and full replica of a copyrighted work and putting it on a file sharing system.
The second is about borrowing, perhaps heavily, from a copyrighted work to create a derivative work.
I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to consider the first infringement and the second fair use.
I'm not sure this justifies a copyright infringement, particularly in the era of remixes. If we can legally use actual samples of another song to build your own, why is a re-imagining which builds upon and modifies the original illegal?
If a musician can be sued for being inspired by another, then dark times are ahead for all musicians.
"What was your inspiration for this song?" "No comment."
The lack of computational methods to abstract and describe the material on either side is particularly bizarre considering the judge's decision to preclude original song material from being played by the Gaye family. I'm convinced that science, rather than expert insider testimony that culminated in a courtroom live-performance jam, could have prevailed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29wNCH4RBrk
These songs are very extremely similar. There is a fine line between being influenced and covering(or sampling) music. I think this song crosses that line. People get sued all the time for sampling without clearing the sample. To essentially copy distinct percussion and rhythms and keyboard rhythm and melody would definitely fall under infringement in my eyes since as any producers would tell you those elements drive the entire song. Even how the song starts with open percussion elements is the same. Its almost like the Mcdonalds vs Mcdowells absurd argument and just a clever way to steal ideas without paying tribute to the individuals who originated and copyrighted those ideas.
There is a really big difference between taking "inspiration" from an artist's style or a certain song's sound versus sitting down, listening to a song, and writing one in the same tempo that hits the same cues just by fiddling with the scale a little bit. Pharell is totally trying to argue a different point than what the lawsuit was about, and he's goat roping as many other things in as he can to try and save face. It's absolutely laughable for him to say "This is about protecting the intellectual rights of people who have ideas" when he just lost a lawsuit based on taking something from another artist.
Look, I'm all for revising the copyright laws on the books, cleaning up some of the issues regarding sampling, and eventually modernizing the commercial avenue by which musicians and other artists like cinema professionals make their money. Genuinely, I want to see things change for the better, not constantly be lobbied and pushed the wrong direction by monied interests (Disney) or legacy inheritors of material. The system is messed up, and I get that, which is why I've avoided the "traditional" system and held on to my rights through Copyright or Creative Commons for years and years and years and have no plans to change that.
Pharrell had his chance ON THE STAND to make his case, and the jury didn't buy it. The jury didn't listen to the recordings and render a verdict about the "sound" or "inspiration" of the tune. The jury listened to the notes being played based on the sheet music, and ruled that it was a ripoff. Why? Because it was a ripoff. Pharrell got busted and now he's doing damage control PR.
Besides, the music industry has ALWAYS been tied up with lawsuits...which is why people use caution when clearing samples (ex: Lemon Jelly), negotiating songwriting credits before/after the fact (ex: Sam Smtih), or defending sync rights when somebody is clearly trying to abuse the system (ex: GoldiBlox vs. Beastie Boys).
Oh, and don't forget the most typical lawsuits in the music business: artists suing the big labels for screwing them out of money:
http://www.completemusicupdate.com/article/universal-prepari...
Not that many who sympathise with Pharrell will give this the time of day, but I do think the Gaye family's public statement is a very coherent explanation and should be held up for comparison purposes:
http://www.completemusicupdate.com/article/open-letter-from-...
Williams' song basically adapted 'the groove'. If I was on that jury I would have probably voted the same way. Inspiration is one thing but adaptation is another.
Okay, so first that that pops up is that the children of Marvin Gaye were the ones being sued. It's also revealed that Williams describes the issue in such a way that makes it sound like he wrote Blurred Lines in an hour while this Marvin Gaye song was playing in the room (just to be clear, for a typical length pop song, writing it in an hour is _remarkably, exceptionally fast_).
Now, surely this is enough to have us step back and be slightly more circumspect about this -- whatever the facts are, they are neither simple nor provided in the article. Honestly, I'd wait for a legal analysis. Lawyers are not so exceedingly stupid as to think feelings are copyrightable, and neither is the judge who issued the fines.
I think you'd find that the vast majority of pop hits are written fairly quickly. Yes producing, recording, finishing a pop song, adding everything that makes a pop song.. pop... can take a long time. But the actual writing is literally just
1. Get an idea
2. put it into the standard pop song structure
Especially for someone like Pharrell who has probably written a hundred songs or so.
It's by no means _remarkably, exceptionally fast_.
Edit:
Look at the way Notch writes code. Yes okay, we could call it remarkably fast. But he does it consistently. It's not a surprise when he finishes a game during a game jam.
Just as I do not find it surprising that one of the most accomplished songwriters of his generation writes a song in an hour
Plus, unless you've worked with the person, I'm not sure you have a place in suggesting how long it takes them to accomplish a task.
Finally, there are stupid outcomes to legal cases all the time. Logic and justice do not always prevail in a court of law.
What about the jury? This was a jury case.
It's worth remembering that nobody knows the original composer of the "Superman" theme. While John Williams is credited with arranging the cinematic version, his arrangement was based on the television show theme. That theme was purchased sans-crédit from a French artist via a system intentionally architected to leverage the at-the-time gaps in international law to minimize Hollywood's cost burden for music scores.
To maintain this protection, they intentionally did not track the pedigree of the theme. This is a loss for history.
What happens in the print world when a the idea of a "revenge fantasy" becomes copyrightable? When the use of certain chord progressions can cost you the revenue from a particular song? When a movie containing "triumph in the face of adversity through superhuman powers" can't be done because someone else did it first?
* Suggesting this is a fishy case of copyright infringement?
* Pointing out a powerful political group has been attacking the song since it came out?
* Disagreeing with their half-baked critique of the song?
* Or maybe because I noticed that they're now celebrating the verdict?
When Robin Thicke was attacked for penning a "date-rape anthem" were you the voice of reason in that conversation encouraging people to actually look up the lyrics and act like adults?
Yeah, I'm looking for a reason this verdict came out because the case for actual copyright infringement is really weak. http://flavorwire.com/508795/heres-why-the-blurred-lines-cop...
Related, do you think the public perception of 2 Live Crew had nothing to do with them losing their case and having to go all the way to the Supreme Court[0]? Justice isn't blind, the law generally doesn't favor pariahs and social outcasts. All it would take to turn the jury against Thicke would be one or two jurors who halfway through the trial remembered it's "that date-rapey song". I don't think that's very far-fetched.
I have no idea what the judge's personal politics are beyond knowing that Obama appointed him which means he probably leans left. Overall it's been a pretty weird case[1].
[0] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_I.... [1] - http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/marvin-gaye-s...
Also, I've seen lots of commentary from supposed experts in the field that have concluded the opposite.
You're absolutely right about people writing fast though. Even Bob Dylan wrote some of his songs in under 20 minutes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pharrell_Williams_song...
Depending on your feelings about the songs, of course.
Diamonds makes me cringe.
Of course, I imagine that most artists work out contracts with the copyright owners and simply pay the royalties simply because it's less expensive than a protracted copyright lawsuit. This doesn't make it a legal standard, however.
not a formal analysis, just the comment before mine :)