Why Blurred Lines copyright case was about cash, not artistic theft
Pop artists have always built on sounds from the past, but should that be seen as theft? The jury in Marvin Gaye family's suit against Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke thought so
The two-week trial featured pop singer Robin Thicke sidling up to a piano to play songs by U2, The Beatles and Michael Jackson. Superstar producer Pharrell Williams attempted under oath to parse the difference between vibe and theft.
Testimony in a Los Angeles federal court to determine whether Thicke's groove-heavy, cowbell-driven 2013 pop hit Blurred Lines infringed on Marvin Gaye's 1977 hit Got to Give it Up was nothing if not entertaining.
But let's not mince words: the lawsuit litigated against Thicke, producer-songwriter Williams, rapper T.I. and their song was about cash, not artistic theft. If it hadn't hit big on the charts, there would have been no lawsuit. And on Tuesday, a jury awarded Gaye's children nearly US$7.4 million after determining that Thicke and Williams had copied their father's music to create Blurred Lines.
Mostly, the trial was about Thicke's ill-advised reference to Gaye's song during interviews and the bid by Gaye's estate and publishers to take advantage of the fuzzy line between inspiration and infringement, and monetise it.
The verdict against Thicke and Williams could have a chilling effect on creators, especially in an era when almost every song in recorded music history can be accessed in seconds. What artist will acknowledge specific inspiration when it could be used as evidence in a copyright infringement suit?
"Feel, but not infringement," Williams said on the stand of the differences between his track and Got to Give it Up, which showcases Gaye's inimitable falsetto and disco-inspired rhythm. "I must've been channelling that feeling, that late-'70s feeling." The Gaye estate, wrote Williams' legal team, was "claiming ownership of an entire genre, as opposed to a specific work".