The songs have a similar groove ... but I don't think they are the same.









[www.rollingstone.com]



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-18 17:15 by schillid.

blurred Lines samples got to give it up, does it not?

Quote
ryanpow
blurred Lines samples got to give it up, does it not?

I don't think so but the rhythm and groove is pretty similar. Strangely, the Gaye estate only owned the copyright for the sheet music and that doesn't include the rhythm track.

As much as I think the tune was HIGHLY influenced by the Gaye track, I think this was a pretty poor decision. If copied beats were grounds for copyright infringement I'm afraid the courts would be clogged up for years to come. I'm guessing the Gaye estate had a damn good lawyer and a clueless jury.

peace

Really poor decision. The songs are different.

But this is good news for the Bo Diddley estate.

I am an attorney, have dealt with copyright issues, and have a hard time understanding this decision. I haven't listened to the songs closely or studied the music but my initial reaction is that there isn't enough to support a copyright infringement claim.

I wonder if the jury was properly instructed. Appeal.

Wrong decision or not, I love both of these songs!! Got to Give It Up is probably the sexiest and most irresistible dance song ever recorded, and Blurred Lines is not far behind.

Drew

Forgive my ignorance but what was the reference about Bo Diddley estate?

Quote
woodyweaving
Forgive my ignorance but what was the reference about Bo Diddley estate?

Well, who hasn't ripped off the Bo Diddley beat?

Did you see Marvins daughter blubbering away on an interview, and she's just pocketed $7.2 million.

It's no big tragedy luv . No one got hurt or died over it, and I would have a big smile on my face.

Yeah, no idea why she was crying.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
ryanpow
blurred Lines samples got to give it up, does it not?

I don't think so but the rhythm and groove is pretty similar. Strangely, the Gaye estate only owned the copyright for the sheet music and that doesn't include the rhythm track.

As much as I think the tune was HIGHLY influenced by the Gaye track, I think this was a pretty poor decision. If copied beats were grounds for copyright infringement I'm afraid the courts would be clogged up for years to come. I'm guessing the Gaye estate had a damn good lawyer and a clueless jury.

peace

I'm not defending the decision, I don't see anything wrong with sampling. It sounds so similar I always just assumed it was a sample.

Quote
drbryant
I am an attorney, have dealt with copyright issues, and have a hard time understanding this decision. I haven't listened to the songs closely or studied the music but my initial reaction is that there isn't enough to support a copyright infringement claim.

I wonder if the jury was properly instructed. Appeal.

Do you know how they'd have to go about it?...
The legal process, that is, if they want to appeal the verdict?

For what it's worth, Robin Thick was quoted in the past as saying he indeed used the Marvin Gaye track as a direct source of inspiration for Blurred Lines.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
BowieStone

Quote

what was the reference about Bo Diddley estate?

Well, who hasn't ripped off the Bo Diddley beat?

Exactly.
Could Bo Diddley or Chuck Berry have sued the Stones for various songs that were inspired by/ taken from those artists?

Quote
schillid

Quote
drbryant
I am an attorney, have dealt with copyright issues, and have a hard time understanding this decision. I haven't listened to the songs closely or studied the music but my initial reaction is that there isn't enough to support a copyright infringement claim.

I wonder if the jury was properly instructed. Appeal.

Do you know how they'd have to go about it?...
The legal process, that is, if they want to appeal the verdict?

Yes. If they believe that a mistake was made in the application of the law, they can appeal to an federal court of appeals. The problem that I have is that while the songs sound similar, most of the similarity is based on which I believe are "non-protected" elements. That is why the reports are that the jury was not allowed to listen to the whole track and spent most of its time with sheet music. But just casual listening tells me that the protectible elements aren't very similar. That said, I haven't studied the organ parts, the melody, the lyrics, etc., which are all protectible.

I'll wait for articles by legal professionals, but it's definitely an interesting case. The one thing I do know - it's clear that you can still make money in the music industry!

Quote
drbryant

Quote
schillid

Quote
drbryant
I am an attorney, have dealt with copyright issues, and have a hard time understanding this decision. I haven't listened to the songs closely or studied the music but my initial reaction is that there isn't enough to support a copyright infringement claim.

I wonder if the jury was properly instructed. Appeal.

Do you know how they'd have to go about it?...
The legal process, that is, if they want to appeal the verdict?

Yes. If they believe that a mistake was made in the application of the law, they can appeal to an federal court of appeals. The problem that I have is that while the songs sound similar, most of the similarity is based on which I believe are "non-protected" elements. That is why the reports are that the jury was not allowed to listen to the whole track and spent most of its time with sheet music. But just casual listening tells me that the protectible elements aren't very similar. That said, I haven't studied the organ parts, the melody, the lyrics, etc., which are all protectible.

I'll wait for articles by legal professionals, but it's definitely an interesting case. The one thing I do know - it's clear that you can still make money in the music industry!

I was a bit shocked at the money involved too! It's obvious someone is still buying music, I guess just not much rock and roll. Look for a Mick Jagger Pharrell Williams composition soon.

I'm not a lawyer but as a musician I did do a quick study of the melody and lyrics and found them plenty different enough to think this judgement won't stand a chance in a competent appeals court.....probably why Marvin Gaye's daughter was "crying" during the interview. That was a pretty pathetic show for the media..."finally I can be free of the pain"...next she'll be wanting money for her pain and suffering.

peace

THE AUSTRALIAN -- 12 March 2015



ROCKMAN

I want to read more about the shrimp (prawn) on the barbie

Quote
BluzDude
I want to read more about the shrimp (prawn) on the barbie

Yes! ><

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Ed Sheeran's new song will be the next big hit to pay the Marvin Gaye estate. Decent song, great guitar work, which is rare for a top 40 song these days, but the chord progression is 'Let's Get It On' for sure. I don't even know the name of the song but I've heard it a few times and instantly I hear "We're all sensitive people..."

[www.non-filters.com]

Screw 'em, just goes to show they aint got an original thought in their head....on a similar note but not exactly this shows how ya don't have to know but one song to write what they call new country(PUKE!!!) but nobody is gonna sue because its all the same anyway...


[www.youtube.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-12 05:29 by scottkeef.

....maybe all the chord patterns have been used up by now

The first time I heard the song I immediately thought it was a rip of the Gaye tune.

JUST for you LA Al ....





ROCKMAN

Ice Ice Baby, the song was clearly lifted. Was my first thought first time I heard the song

Maybe I'm missing something here, but doesn't all art reflect what came before it? As Chuck Berry said, "there is nothing new under the sun".

Just to take an example that came to mind today, check out the choruses of these 2 songs.






Drew

I have to say that the first time I heard Blurred Lines, I thought it was Got to Give It Up. Isn't most everything derivative anyway? This ruling is absurd and can open up a legal can of worms. (Can I say "can of worms" without being sued by someone who claims to have coined the phrase??)

whoever invented the blues is gonna make a stink load of money.