The jury awarded the estate of Marvin Gaye more than $7 million today in a copyright infringement decision against artist Robin Thicke and songwriters Pharrell Williams and T.I. over their huge 2013 hit “Blurred Lines.” The jury decided that the song was just too similar to Gaye’s 1977 hit “Got To Give It Up” to be a coincidence, even thought that’s probably exactly what it was.
This is just another example of the blurred line (pun intended) between a copy and an influence that permeates not only modern music, but just about any creative endeavor.
We’re all influenced by the art and/or craft that we love, and that influence seeps into our every creation whether we like it or not. Sometimes in music it’s totally obvious (the famous George Harrison “My Sweet Lord” vs. “He’s So Fine” by The Chiffons lawsuit), and other times its less so (Sam Smith’s “Stay With Me” vs. Tom Petty’s “I Won’t Back Down”), but with only 12 notes and a limited number of chord progressions that are pleasing to the Western ear, one might think that it’s surprising that there aren’t more lawsuits for copyright infringement than there already are.
Take the blues, for instance. Pick just about any blues album and you’ll find that not only does each song liberally borrow from countless blues songs by countless blues artists before, but even from songs on the same album. 12 bar blues is that for a reason, and although it’s nice when there’s a variation, you won’t find too many artists messing with a formula that’s worked for 75 years. Do we see any copyright infringement suits there?
Robin Thick "Blurred Lines" (source: Wikipedia)
The answer, of course, is no, but the real reason has nothing to do with the art but more with the commerce of it. The fact is that there’s not enough money even on a hit blues album to make it worth anyone’s while to enter into a lawsuit, and therein lies the heart of the matter. If “Blurred Lines” was just another song on a Robin Thicke album with limited airplay, then this story wouldn’t be in the news today. Only the fact that it’s a hit (as with “Stay With Me”) makes it worth the fight.
And there was plenty of money involved, according to court testimony during the trial. “Blurred Lines” generated a total of $16,675,690 in income, and the Gaye estate was awarded $7.4 million of it, with $4 million in copyright damages plus profits attributable to infringement of $1.8 million from Thicke and $1.6 million from Williams. There were no additional statutory damages as the infringement was found not to be willful, which makes my case. Most legitimate artists don’t intentionally steal from another. Borrowing because of an influence regularly occurs however, and it’s more frequent than you’d think, but it’s bound to happen given the parameters of the music that we’re attracted to.
While the defense suggested that the ruling will have a chilling effect on music creation in the future, that’s unlikely to happen. Creators will continue to create as always, and those that intentionally copy (like in the advertising jingle business, for example) will continue to push the boundaries right up to the edge. Infringement lawsuits will also occasionally continue to happen when there’s enough money involved, except that most cases will never see a jury, as in the Sam Smith/Tom Petty case.
In other words, tomorrow it’s back to business as usual.
