Terms And Conditions

‘Blurred Lines’ Jury Orders Pharrell, Robin Thicke to Pay $7.3 Million to Marvin Gaye Family

Avatar 48x48 peter rafelson shades beverly hills hotel garden lunch img 3070 cropped isolated img r 0001 export
Peter Rafelson (Music Into Media)
about 9 years ago

In a landmark decision for the music industry, a jury in Los Angeles ordered “Blurred Lines” songwriters Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams to pay $7.3 million to the family of Marvin Gaye for copyright infringement on Tuesday.

Gaye’s family had argued that the 2013 smash hit “Blurred Lines” copied their father’s 1977 song “Got to Give It Up” and sued Thicke, Williams and Clifford Harris Jr., aka T.I., whom all contested the infringement.

Overall, the Gaye family sought more than $25 million in damages.

“Right now, I feel free,” Marvin Gaye’s daughter, Nona Gaye, said after the verdict. “Free from … Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke’s chains and what they tried to keep on us and the lies that were told.”

The attorney for the Gaye family, Richard Busch, will also seek to halt sales of “Blurred Lines,” and said he will file official paperwork by next week.

Nominated for record of the year at the 2013 Grammys, “Blurred Lines” was no. 1 on the Billboard single charts for 10 consecutive weeks. Since it was released, “Blurred Lines” has earned nearly $16.5 million in profits according to court documents, with Williams and Thicke raking in over $5 million each.

Gaye died in 1984.

Both Thicke and Williams appeared in court during the past week to defend their case, with much of the trial featuring comparisons between the songs. Listening to the juxtaposed bass lines of the two songs in question, Williams even admitted the similarities, saying, “It sounds like you’re playing the same thing.”

Still, while testifying last week, Williams said the two songs share “feel — not infringement.”

The proceedings were perhaps most notable for the presence of Thicke, who sang and played the piano as he defended the work as original and said he was intoxicated when he gave media interviews in which he talked about Gaye’s influence on the works. He also said that he was mistaken when he claimed credit for writing part of the song.

The eight-person jury closed its full day of closed-door deliberations on Friday after hearing a week of testimony, with court resuming on Tuesday.

Posts

Avatar 48x48 peter rafelson shades beverly hills hotel garden lunch img 3070 cropped isolated img r 0001 export
Peter Rafelson (Music Into Media)
almost 9 years ago
Size 62x62 artwork
Click to enlarge

Universal Tells 'Blurred Lines' Judge Not to Violate Its Seventh Amendment Right

The right to a jury trial is the latest legal concept that gets blurred in this high-profile case.


As a judge gets set to figure out what to do with a jury's $7.4 million verdict over "Blurred Lines," an argument has erupted between the parties about the meaning of the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. For those in need of a refresher, that's the one that guarantees the right of a jury trial.


In March, a jury decided that Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams had committed copyright infringement on Marvin Gaye's "Got to Give It Up." The same decision, though, gave Clifford Harris, Jr. (aka T.I.), Universal Music, Interscope Records and Star Trak Entertainment a pass.


Jan Gaye Shares The True Story Behind The 'Blurred Lines' Lawsuit


In the days after the verdict came, the Gaye family asked U.S. District Judge John Kronstadt to extend liability to those who, "by virtue of their participation in the creation, manufacture and distribution" of the Williams/Thicke song, infringed the Gaye song, too. It's just one of the many issues now before the judge.


On Monday, Universal Music spoke up in court with a warning that to be held liable itself would violate its constitutional rights.


'Blurred Lines' Judge Asked to Grant New Trial


"The Court may not enter an order declaring that Clifford Harris, Jr., and the Interscope Parties 'are directly liable to the Gaye family for copyright infringement' because the jury found, as to this very issue, that Harris and the Interscope Parties are not liable to the Gaye Parties for copyright infringement," Universal told the judge in a brief. "Once a jury has decided an issue, a court may not 'declare' the opposite on that same issue without violating the prevailing parties’ Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial."


The Gaye family, of course, have a different view.


In their bid for declaratory relief, they argue that because their legal claims against Universal are based on the same set of facts that led the jury to find that “Blurred Lines” infringes, "the Seventh Amendment requires the trial judge to follow the jury’s implicit or explicit factual determinations."


Nile Rodgers Calls 'Blurred Lines' Verdict 'Shocking'


Universal Music would prefer that the judge grant the motion by Thicke and Williams for a new trial. The record giant echoes many of the arguments by those two that the jury's verdict was unsupported by evidence — in particular, the alleged lack of similarity between "Blurred Lines" and the "Got to Give It Up" sheet music deposited at the U.S. Copyright Office.


But if that doesn't work, Universal looks to head off a declaratory ruling about its own liability and stave off an injunction and damages.


"To be sure, from the jury’s conclusion that Thicke and the Williams Parties infringed, the Court could infer that the jury found that Blurred is substantially similar to Give," argue Universal's lawyers at Sidley Austin. "But the reverse is also true. From the jury’s conclusion that Harris and the Interscope Parties did not infringe, the Court also could infer that the jury found that Blurred is not substantially similar to Give. As between these two possible inferences, the latter is at least as well-supported as the former."


This article was first published by The Hollywood Reporter.