# Jury rules that Blurred Lines violates copyright



## JohnG (Mar 10, 2015)

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-31825059

Jurors in Los Angeles decided that the 2013 single by Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke breached the copyright of Gaye's 1977 hit Got To Give It Up.

The family of the late soul singer has been awarded $7.3m (£4.8m) in damages.

Thicke and Williams denied copying the hit, and their lawyer said musicians would find the ruling chilling.

Gaye died in April 1984, leaving his children the copyright to his music.

His children - Nona, Frankie and Marvin Gaye III - sued the singers in 2013. Nona wept as the verdict was read in court.

"Right now, I feel free," she told reporters after the ruling. "Free from... Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke's chains and what they tried to keep on us and the lies that were told."

In court, Williams had told jurors that Gaye's music was part of the soundtrack of his youth but he insisted it was not on his mind when he wrote the song.


----------



## Valérie_D (Mar 10, 2015)

Even with this mashup, I can't find absolutly nothing similar between these 2 songs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhr3XL78mk8

They finally did it. If you don't want to get sued, get out of pop music. Similar tempo or the use of too many cowbells could take you down.


----------



## JohnG (Mar 10, 2015)

I think it's going a bit far to say "nothing similar." I do hear similarities, even substantial ones.

That said, I have to agree with Valérie's main point: if that's infringement, it creates a lot of exposure for a lot of people.


----------



## Valérie_D (Mar 10, 2015)

Well, I understand the "similarities", the tempo, the bells, maybe the mood, but the harmony, melody and arrangments are not the same, that's what I mean by pop music, lots of songs sound alike, this may cause a dangerous precedent.


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 10, 2015)

the background groove sounds similar. which as john pointed out.. a bit troubling. since everyone in the industry does the same when there is the dreadful temp track.


----------



## Reegs (Mar 10, 2015)

I don't know, both songs emphasize beats 2 and 4 instead of 1 and 3...

Lyrics? Not even close.
Chord progression, melody, or bridge? Not even close.
Bass groove: Any bassist would tell you they are different. Gaye's is much more sophisticated.
Style? Yeah, similar, but since when has constituted copyright?



USA Today said:


> Williams' testimony hinged on feelings. "Feel, but not infringement," Williams said when asked whether he recognized similarities between the songs. "I must've been channeling that feeling, that late-'70s feeling."



I'd really like to see an explanation of the jury's reasoning.

Could be a very dangerous precedent for dealing with temp tracks.


----------



## dinerdog (Mar 10, 2015)

It's not a precedent, it's been the way music copyright has worked for a while. Of course you can change the key and tempo etc, but judges & lawyers (some of them defending indie people against mega stars) are a little wiser than that. Some definitions say "Intent" is part of the copyright law.

http://www.music-law.com/copyrightinfringe.html

Some say you don't even need intent. Even if it was accidental, you can still be liable:

http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/copyr ... ition.html

Our actual copyright law also says that "innocent intent" is not a defense:

http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Innocent_infringement

So it wasn't so much the jury's reasoning as it was the judge and lawyers advisement.


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 10, 2015)

Reegs @ Tue Mar 10 said:


> I don't know, both songs emphasize beats 2 and 4 instead of 1 and 3...
> 
> Lyrics? Not even close.
> Chord progression, melody, or bridge? Not even close.
> ...





US courts look for "substantial similarity," not detailed analysis by a musicologist. In doing so the court will apply a number of tests. One of those tests is the "ordinary observer" test. Basically if a lay person listens to the music and hears the similarities, enough to recognize the original work in the alleged infringing work, you have a problem.

There are defenses to infringement, for example "parody." But in that instance the parody has to comment on, or ad some layer of meaning to the original. If you want to know how that works, here's a distilled version from the case that arose out of 2Live Crew's alleged infringement of Roy Orbison's Pretty Woman. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... /case.html

I would say that 99% of the time that you work to a temp track, what you create is not going to fall under any of the copyright defenses. One of the things that courts actually look for is the attempt to make infringement not look like infringement with clumsy differences. 

With respect to 'Blurred Lines," the title turned out to somewhat ironic in that the lines aren't blurry enough. So, while a bunch of composers are saying "we hear a lot of differences," the average person is saying "we hear a lot of similarities," and that unfortunately is upon what the law turns. (in the US).

And....yes this is very problematic for film / TV /media composers, because we work in an industry in which originality is an anathema.


----------



## RiffWraith (Mar 10, 2015)

MichaelL @ Wed Mar 11 said:


> US courts look for "substantial similarity," not detailed analysis by a musicologist. In doing so the court will apply a number of tests. One of those tests is the "ordinary observer" test. Basically if a lay person listens to the music and hears the similarities, enough to recognize the original work in the alleged infringing work, you have a problem.



Michael - do courts actually perform these types of tests? If not, what exactly does the judge look to for criteria? I know the judge in Lady Gaga's CI suit said that "the songs are so utterly dissimilar that reasonable minds could not differ as to a lack of substantial similarity between them" - but if you listen to the two songs, it's clear that's an easy one. If it's not that cut and dry - or easy - what does the judge use to make his/her decision, or use to instruct the jury in a jury trial?


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 10, 2015)

Unfortunately, Jeff, that will vary from one circuit to another. As in our politics, some districts are far more conservative in the application of the law. Lawyers, of course, will argue both ways, as they did in this case.

BUT....it should be noted that the copyright office, in its recently released report, has recommended sweeping changes to the law. I have not read the report, but I've been told that among the recommendations are changes that may have protected Williams and Thicke.


----------



## passenger57 (Mar 10, 2015)

Interesting verdict and surprising. I think I read the jury didn't even hear the original Marvin Gaye recording, instead they had to compare the sheet music and there was someone performing it on a keyboard?

It's very rare I hear something that doesn't resemble some other piece I've heard before. 
I hear scores with similarities to classical composers like Wagner, Prokofiev, Stravinsky and Debussy in soundtracks all the time, big deal. 

Many songs on the radio these days sounds like something I heard growing up.

In the end it all comes down to money.

Blurred Lines was a massive hit and became a target.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 10, 2015)

passenger57 @ Wed Mar 11 said:


> Blurred Lines was a massive hit and became a target.



This.

Truly terrible court decision.


----------



## IvanP (Mar 11, 2015)

Guy Rowland @ Wed Mar 11 said:


> passenger57 @ Wed Mar 11 said:
> 
> 
> > Blurred Lines was a massive hit and became a target.
> ...




+1


----------



## mac4d (Mar 11, 2015)

Robin Thicke said this in a GQ mag interview:

GQ: What's the origin story behind your new single "Blurred Lines"?
Robin Thicke: Pharrell and I were in the studio and I told him that one of my favorite songs of all time was Marvin Gaye's "Got to Give It Up." I was like, "Damn, we should make something like that, something with that groove." Then he started playing a little something and we literally wrote the song in about a half hour and recorded it...

Wasn't the only interview he did where he told this similar story.

Might have something to do with him losing.


----------



## rayinstirling (Mar 11, 2015)

I don't think it's anywhere near as similar as Sam Smith's Tom Petty offering.

Aren't most of these cases being settled out of court?


----------



## lux (Mar 11, 2015)

Absurd. Hope there is a second grade of judgment, 'cause every guy with a bit of musical salt would get the sense of such mistake.

...If not at least they should pay 7 millions to the arranger of the old song, not the author (or family).


----------



## KEnK (Mar 11, 2015)

To me the Thicke song is a complete copy of the Gaye track-
This of course concerns the so called backing track.

It's the mix, the production, the instrumentation.
I don't find it 'similar". I find it to be a copy.

As Marvin Gaye's tune has been a unique pop song for decades now,
standing quite by itself regarding the backing track-
I'm happy about the verdict.

Maybe it will encourage so called "composers" to write music rather than copy it.

This could also be a generational perspective-

I am in fact a child of the 70's.
Even the most mundane pop tunes were at least unique to themselves.

I'm kind of surprised some you don't see it as a blatant copy.

It's to exact to be anything other than a copy.
Sounds to me like they pasted a loop in and just rebuilt it.

The verdict in this case says-
the beat, the rhythm, the instrumentation and the mix matter.
Write your own.

k


----------



## JohnG (Mar 11, 2015)

I hear those who think that, in some intellectual sense, it's a "copy." It's the same idea with the backing "environment" track and there are other substantial similarities too.

But, by that definition, a good bit of underscore that gets written, even by the Big Guys, is a copy. It uses the same instrumentation: orchestra-plus. Uses it in the same way as Prokofiev / Holst / Debussy / Shostakovich / Stravinsky / Sibelius / Vaughan Williams / Bernstein / Barber / Hanson / Varese / etc.

The first five notes of the ET and Star Wars themes are -- the same! And uses that "big orchestral" sound! And yet I would guess Mr. Williams represented that each was original.

So I'm not saying it isn't pretty much a knock-off in an artistic sense, but I am saying that it seems like the case sets a standard that would envelop a lot of music-for-hire.


----------



## IvanP (Mar 11, 2015)

This is absurd and wrong on every basis...

Beatles should sue every pop song since the 70's then?

The only plagiarism I really thought they had a case was the Cyrano VS Batman story...

I remember watching the movie and jumping with my father, at the same time...we said "Batman!". 

Well...judge for yourselves...but I hear similar notes, harmonies, orchestration, structure...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9QjlIx9ohQ

the fact is that Elfman lost the case. So...how could possibly Pharrell lose this time??


----------



## Markus S (Mar 11, 2015)

I think the women look substantially different..


----------



## KEnK (Mar 11, 2015)

JohnG @ Wed Mar 11 said:


> I hear those who think that, in some intellectual sense, it's a "copy." It's the same idea with the backing "environment" track and there are other substantial similarities too.
> 
> But, by that definition, a good bit of underscore that gets written, even by the Big Guys, is a copy. It uses the same instrumentation: orchestra-plus. Uses it in the same way as Prokofiev / Holst / Debussy / Shostakovich / Stravinsky / Sibelius / Vaughan Williams / Bernstein / Barber / Hanson / Varese / etc...


And "The Big Guys" should stop it too.



JohnG @ Wed Mar 11 said:


> ...So I'm not saying it isn't pretty much a knock-off in an artistic sense, but I am saying that it seems like the case sets a standard that would envelop a lot of music-for-hire.


I hope so, but I doubt if it will have much of an effect.

Using the same instruments, even a 'similar' motif, is not the same as blatantly
copying another work.
The composers you listed were not "copying" each other,
they were influenced, even writing the occasional homage. 
But there is no comparison to the fill in the blanks temp score writing
we see so often now.

This has brought us to a point where music is so completely derivative
that people don't even know the difference between copy & paste and actual composing.

Personally I see this verdict as a stance being made for creativity-
a poke in the eye of the derivative methods that plague music today.

Also- it's odd to me that here at this forum, where there is just an extreme
distaste for "piracy", that more don't see using Mavin Gaye's music like this
is practically speaking, exactly that.

k


----------



## JohnG (Mar 11, 2015)

IvanP @ 11th March 2015 said:


> I remember watching the movie and jumping with my father, at the same time...we said "Batman!".
> 
> Well...judge for yourselves...but I hear similar notes, harmonies, orchestration, structure...
> 
> ...



Wow. 100% a lift. I can't believe Elfman lost.


----------



## KEnK (Mar 11, 2015)

IvanP @ Wed Mar 11 said:


> This is absurd and wrong on every basis...
> 
> Beatles should sue every pop song since the 70's then?


Ivan-

Do you not hear that the backing track is exactly the same?
I definitely hear the batman melody in the cyrano piece-
(and Elfman should've won)
but even that is not as exact a duplicate the Thicke track.

Do you think your work should be public domain?
Can I go to your website and make an exact copy
of one of your rhythmic structures, put a slightly different melody
over the top of it and call it my own work?

That is really what happened here-
Even the panning of the Thicke track is the same!

I think all of the "composers" here should be applauding this verdict
rather than chilled by it.

k


----------



## Daryl (Mar 11, 2015)

JohnG @ Wed Mar 11 said:


> IvanP @ 11th March 2015 said:
> 
> 
> > I remember watching the movie and jumping with my father, at the same time...we said "Batman!".
> ...


Possibly because it wasn't that original in the first place. When I saw Batman I started singing "There may be trouble ahead" which straight away tells me that I've heard it before. Of course there are smatterings of the Masquerade Suite Waltz as well...

D


----------



## JohnG (Mar 11, 2015)

I hear what you mean, Daryl, and well spotted, but that doesn't bug me too much. I find the Blurred Lines thing closer, really.

Interesting that k feels so strongly about it. I will listen again.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Mar 11, 2015)

That elfman thing is ridiculous, can't believe he didn't win that. Maybe a similar theme existed before, but that argument doesn't have any real weight until someone finds the specific piece.

I also remember seeing a commercial that had a blatant ripoff of another Elfman piece, I think it was from Back to School. I wonder if action was taken on that one, he should have won that as well.

In this case I definitely think it hurt their case that they talked in interviews about "hey, let's do one like that!" Never a good idea, even if you think yours is substantially different than the earlier one.


----------



## Lannister (Mar 11, 2015)

Very similar "vibe", but eh, that's not enough to call it a copy, imho.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 11, 2015)

JohnG @ Wed Mar 11 said:


> I hear what you mean, Daryl, and well spotted, but that doesn't bug me too much. I find the Blurred Lines thing closer, really.


It doesn't particularly bother me either, because I doubt that it was on purpose. It is also in a completely different context, unlike the Cyrano thing.

D


----------



## Daryl (Mar 11, 2015)

Mike Connelly @ Wed Mar 11 said:


> That elfman thing is ridiculous, can't believe he didn't win that. Maybe a similar theme existed before, but that argument doesn't have any real weight until someone finds the specific piece.


Like I did. :wink: 




Mike Connelly @ Wed Mar 11 said:


> In this case I definitely think it hurt their case that they talked in interviews about "hey, let's do one like that!" Never a good idea, even if you think yours is substantially different than the earlier one.


Yes, that's a rookie error and he's not the first person to make it.

D


----------



## Stephen Rees (Mar 11, 2015)

James Horner is going to be able to sue himself 100 times over after this.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Mar 11, 2015)

Daryl @ Wed Mar 11 said:


> Like I did.



Do you mean Masquerade Suite Waltz? I listened and didn't hear any real similarity to the main Batman theme that Cyrano ripped off. Or is there another cue in the Batman movies that you think is similar to that?


----------



## Marius Masalar (Mar 11, 2015)

Came across this interesting article on the subject by Joe Bennett:

http://joebennett.net/2014/02/01/did-ro ... rvin-gaye/

His approach is as follows:

"The two basslines are transcribed below. I’ve transposed ‘Blurred Lines’ into the same key as ‘Got To Give It Up’ here for ease of comparison, and notated them in A minor (no sharps or flats) partly for simplicity and partly because both basslines are built on notes of the home key’s minor pentatonic scale. This ‘normalisation’ is intended to highlight any similarities that might otherwise be disguised by transcribing ‘Blurred Lines’ in the original key – that is, I’m giving Gaye’s side the best possible chance of proving their assertion that the bassline has been copied."


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 11, 2015)

I wonder when law will come up with a standardized 'soundalike' license like in the case of cover versions. Soundalikes and their makers would then be much more on the safe side and everything could be more transparent (like: yes we made our composer rip the temp track off because we trusted that more than have him compose original music but but see we paid an additional fee for it).


----------



## Daryl (Mar 11, 2015)

Mike Connelly @ Wed Mar 11 said:


> Daryl @ Wed Mar 11 said:
> 
> 
> > Like I did.
> ...


The theme is "Let's Face the Music and Dance", and the chord change, preceded by the chromatic movement in the melody, is the Masquarade Waltz.

To my ears, the main Batman theme has two elements and these are where I have heard them before. However, as I said I'm sure it wasn't conscious.

D


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 11, 2015)

this could be an opportunity to raise licensing prices since now there are more risks :wink:


----------



## passenger57 (Mar 11, 2015)

Elman's Ice Dance used to get ripped off ALL THE TIME in commercials back in the 90s. I think he and one of his friends had a joke about it 'There's another one'

Even Elfman himself borrowed the feel of Batman from Bernard Herrmann's 'Journey to the Center of the Earth' main titles but he did something original with it and took it to a new place. 

I was just watching an interview with director Robert Rodriquez on El Ray network, he was interviewing John Carpenter and telling him that he borrowed alot of famous shots that were inspired by John and asked if that was ok..John said, yes it's flattering just don't take too much! 

It's ok to be inspired by your heros as long as your progressing the idea and making it your own... I'm not talking about flat out plagiarism of course. Everything we do is inspired in part by our heros and influences. Danny's hero is Bernard Herrmann so of course he is going to sound like him a little at least. 

All that said, that Cyrano piece is a straight up copy, no doubt about that!


----------



## british_bpm (Mar 11, 2015)

As a warning to all I would like to tell you a true tale... as a warning. 

To comment on the Blurred Lines case briefly though I believe all parties would have been through hell... and that hell only seems to continue, and in the end their will only be one winner, and that is not who or whom you would expect.

I think music is an evolution, people draw stuff in and make it their heritage, the differing influences within the best of us combine with their/ our own abilities create a tension from which a spark of something original emerges. What the court needed to determine in this case was 1. Passing off "can the track be confused with the 'original'" 2. Would the 'new track' exist if it wasn't for the 'original'. 3. did the accused knowingly and willingly plagiarise. It's a slightly more nuanced argument than just did it sound the same or not. For the latter may simply be down to the accused lack of ability to plagiarise effectively. As many of the films I have worked on are a testament!!

But I feel for both parties:

*Back in the last millennia a very close friend of mine was asked to sing on a dance track. Let's call this friend Leslie. Leslie got on the mic and improvised some lines in the style of "XXX" as recommended by the producers. They thanked Leslie and leslie left the studio not knowing if the track would be used. Leslie was paid and the track found it's way onto the album with a sampled, cut and paste treatment of the vocals. The track became a single, a cult hit and a sync smash. It was the song of our times. A little further down the line Leslie was asked if there was a publishing interest for Leslie. Leslie said no because it was a simple improvisation. Yes but that amounts to composition it was argued. How do you define composition? "Did the melody exist before you sang it?". So Leslie approached the producers to talk about this. One of them said "I always felt guilty you never got a cut of that". This was the last leslie heard from either of them. On investigating the track further it was discovered that the backing track Leslie sang against was a slavish recreation of an existing track. They had already settled on a third out of court with the tracks originators. So take out what THOSE guys did and what Leslie did and you're left with digital silence.

Leslie approached a top legal firm who agreed a no win no fee deal. They wine and dined Leslie, took leslie to awards ceremonies and came to the conclusion millions were coming Leslie's way. All leslie had to do was pay 10% of their usual fee.

4 years passed and nothing had happened. One producer simply didn't answer any of the communications that were passed to him. Even when served in person. A remarkably effective means of defence it seems. The other producer simply issued a single line email "I deny everything". The publisher represented both Leslie and the producers and decided to side with the producers. It seems that making a claim of this type really isn't the done thing.

4 years and that was it. Court was looming and one of the producer's publisher bent. Agreed a 16% concession out of court with a back payment of 6 years of £15,000. Conveniently avoiding the purple years when it was earning serious sync cash, global ads et al.

This is when things took a turn for the worse. Leslie's lawyers recommended she took the settlement. And said they would still go after the other producer and felt that's where the big money really lay. But then at 7 one Friday evening the lawyer contacted Leslie and said. "I have something difficult to discuss with you. Under the conditions of our no-win no-pay deal this £15,000 reward has triggered a success fee. This fee is for all work carried out to-date, is double our going rate (this is how NWNF deals work) and it is now payable within 60 days". "OK how much is this fee"... "The fee is £750,000". "I don't have it". "yes but you have a house"... "No that is owned by my spouse and we weren't married when I signed this deal". "That doesn't matter, can we have a meeting with you and your spouse on Monday, can you ask your spouse to bring a list of assets please, bye". And the phone went down leaving Leslie to contemplate over the weekend with no means of finding anyone who could offer her professional advice on this matter.

Then followed 6 months of sheer hell. Well tailored extortion attempts. With both Leslie and her spouse seriously considering suicide at points. The method in which the lawyer plagued the two of them, by leaving awful messages late in the evening as a means of depriving them of sleep. Foul letters, invoices, accounts departments and all sorts of cognitive dissonance inducing negative projections seemed to point to this firm's culture was to torture people who it felt owed it money into a point of panic induced submission. Eventually surely a rich aunt would come to the rescue, they'd remortgage the house or something.

After employing a second legal firm to fight first and nothing coming of that (except a £50,000 from legal team B) the case came to a close with Leslie finding a friend who was a high powered QC. In a single meeting he wrapped their knuckles, said "this is news worthy, you're bringing our profession into disrepute". And it was all over.

So when I say there's only going to be one winner with Blurred Lines it will be the legal team(s). I offer this up as a warning for anyone considering this route. It creates conflict between two parties and the only people who profit are the people who work in an industry that often profits from conflict. An industry that works by the hour. More conflict, for longer, more hours.*

I beg any of you considering such act to cease and desist!

Best.

C. x


----------



## Mike Greene (Mar 11, 2015)

That’s a tragic story, Christian. My heart goes out to her. And sadly, the results aren’t surprising. The one party that always wins is, indeed, the lawyers.

I’ve often thought that if I were sued (again,) that I would skip hiring a lawyer. I’d probably still hire some cheap lawyer (who does lots of small slip-and-fall cases) to help me out with the basics, like filings and _”Objection, your honor, assumes facts not in evidence!”_ But as far as far as the copyright stuff goes, I’d do all that myself. What does a $300/hour IP attorney know that I don’t know? Sure, he dresses better than I do, but I can make charts and bass-line comparisons without his help, thank you very much. Plus I think I’d be more sympathetic in a jury’s eyes this way.

Hopefully that day never comes, obviously. Although this case scares the hell out of me. “Inspired by” tracks used to be my bread and butter.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 11, 2015)

Christian - gadzooks. Horror.

I'm clinging to the hope this sort of madness only attracts the gold-diggers and lawyers in the case of a big hit (musical, televisual or filmic). Thats the reason why I've so studiously avoided anything even closely resembling one.


----------



## KEnK (Mar 11, 2015)

Moral of the story-

Stop using loops.
Be creative instead of derivative.
Write your own music.

p.s.
The Music Industry is not your friend
and never has been.

k


----------



## José Herring (Mar 11, 2015)

Most horrifying story I've ever heard.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 11, 2015)

It's a soundalike, not a copy. How many soundalikes do you hear every day? There must be 51 billion copies of the Psycho harmonic slurs, 52 billion copies of Jaws, 53 billion copies of Ennio Morricone...and that's just "iconic" film motifs.

Meanwhile...that song sucks. I don't get how it could be a hit.


----------



## guitarman1960 (Mar 11, 2015)

Just compared the two tracks again on youtube, and I think it's a whole lot more than a soundalike. To me it's like in the old Hip Hop days they would use turntables and samplers to get a backing track and then do new vocals over the top and pay the licence fee ( if they had to) to the original record company. In this case they just basically recreated the backing track themselves instead of sampling it, probably to avoid a licence fee, and look what happened!

Sampling the original would have been better on so many levels, it's musically a million times groovier and better sounding for a start, and and paying a licence fee for the sample would have saved them a few million dollars too!.

Maybe Zack Hemsey should sue Steve Jablonsky now!, :D


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 11, 2015)

Can you copyright boom bap cowbell cowbell crowd noise simple bass part?


----------



## José Herring (Mar 11, 2015)

If that's copying then we're all in trouble. That's doing something "like" the original. But it isn't the original.


----------



## guitarman1960 (Mar 11, 2015)

Well, if they had sampled part of the original and put their vocals over the top, it would have been practically the same as the track they say they composed. That's how I see it. All the elements that went to make up the distinctive sound of the original, even down to the crowd noises are being replicated. It's the sum of all those very distinctive elements being recreated that causes the problem in my view.
That is something very different from lots of people using generic musical devices such as horn stabs, ostinatos, or generic rhythm guitar parts.

It's like taking the simple bassline and simple groove of Queen's Another One Bites The Dust, doing your own recording of it, sticking new vocals on it, and then saying you were only 'inspired' by it.


----------



## Lannister (Mar 11, 2015)

This link was posted on page 1 by Marius Masalar, but it's worth posting again for those saying it's an obvious copy...

http://joebennett.net/2014/02/01/did-robin-thicke-steal-a-song-from-marvin-gaye/

It's got a similar feel/vibe to the Gaye song, but it's not the same, at all.


Damn, all those media composers that have been asked over the years to score generic silly action advertisement number 105 with _"something like that Mission Impossible music, you know how it goes, right? Yeah something like that, but ya know, not the same..."_ should be looking nervously over their shoulders about now!


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 11, 2015)

Christian is 100% right. The only winners are the lawyers. (This coming from a lawyer)

But, that is definitely not how a NWNF agreement works! 

As far as "Blurred Lines" goes, Williams and Thicke could appeal. The case could in theory reach the US Supreme Court if it were to grant a Writ of Certiorari. 

However, there are changes in the wind for US Copyright law that could make future cases like this (in the US) a moot point.


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 11, 2015)

KEnK @ Wed Mar 11 said:


> Moral of the story-
> 
> Stop using loops.
> Be creative instead of derivative.
> ...



Excellent solution if you don't want to earn a living. Bean counters are convinced that audiences want what is familiar, and for the most part that's true.


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 11, 2015)

guitarman1960 @ Wed Mar 11 said:


> Well, if they had sampled part of the original and put their vocals over the top, it would have been practically the same as the track they say they composed. That's how I see it. All the elements that went to make up the distinctive sound of the original, even down to the crowd noises are being replicated. It's the sum of all those very distinctive elements being recreated that causes the problem in my view.
> That is something very different from lots of people using generic musical devices such as horn stabs, ostinatos, or generic rhythm guitar parts.
> 
> It's like taking the simple bassline and simple groove of Queen's Another One Bites The Dust, doing your own recording of it, sticking new vocals on it, and then saying you were only 'inspired' by it.




yep, looks like they replicated the background track and added their own melody. which is the issue why we are all bit concerned. 

so any temp track or producers saying to make a track sound LIKE another track, LIKE hans zimmer but change it enough , etc etc. 

so the infringement on this case was not based on melody but on the groove.


----------



## Kejero (Mar 11, 2015)

Man this is a difficult case, and I can see it go both ways. From a purely rational approach, if you'd "analyse" the music with the reverse engineering method that's called 'music theory', in every aspect of the song there are definitely a number of differences. And you'd think those add up... But I can totally see how someone who doesn't know or care about music theory would easily call it a blatant rip-off.

But I suppose Nick pretty much covered that more elegantly: it's a sound-alike. Not a copy.


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 11, 2015)

Kejero @ Wed Mar 11 said:


> Man this is a difficult case, and I can see it go both ways. From a purely rational approach, if you'd "analyse" the music with the reverse engineering method that's called 'music theory', in every aspect of the song there are definitely a number of differences. And you'd think those add up... But I can totally see how someone who doesn't know or care about music theory would easily call it a blatant rip-off.
> 
> But I suppose Nick pretty much covered that more elegantly: it's a sound-alike. Not a copy.



well , the nature of the copyright law, in US at least, is the same as if I put a Disney logo on a shirt and sold thousands and I get all the money. or if I made a logo which is very similar to Disney and called the company Disey instead. and try to make it like its the same company. 

before, seems it was under the idea of melody since a country song could tunr into a rock song but still have the same catchy tune. now, well, its different I guess. its the sound. based on this lawsuit.

so in this vein, I think hans zimmers lawyers will now go nuts and be like "you know how many people we can sue now?!!" :lol:


----------



## JohnG (Mar 11, 2015)

gsilbers @ 11th March 2015 said:


> before, seems it was under the idea of melody since a country song could tunr into a rock song but still have the same catchy tune. now, well, its different I guess. its the sound. based on this lawsuit.



I heard this morning that the plaintiffs actually don't own the master, just the copyright to the music (so, sheet music and so on). So, somewhat narrowly, the case was decided not so much on the "sound" as the actual music.

They argued, further, that no one element was identical, but if you took 8 or 10 of them and look at them all as a group, there was a "constellation" of similarities that made the new song a copy.

Someone confirm this?


----------



## chimuelo (Mar 11, 2015)

At the end of the day never underestimate a jury.
Jury selection is key to winning a trail. 
Plus having members of the family wiping their eyes with tissue, etc.

If I were rich I'd be having parties for Law Firms, buy them expensive vacations, etc.
Walk softly and carry a big law firm....

Teddy Roosevelt I believe during the White Navy display 100 years ago..


----------



## passenger57 (Mar 11, 2015)

> Moral of the story-
> 
> Stop using loops.
> Be creative instead of derivative.
> ...



All well and good in theory. One day you are stoked to land a gig, can finally pay your mortgage and put food on the table. Then the magical moment arrives when the director says 'Can you make it sound like the temp?'
Then you say:
'No, I'm an artist I only write original genius music'. 

Director 'Ok, next composer...'

Sorry this is the real world. There are exceptions of course. I had a guy pay me 40K to write from my heart and do whatever I wanted. Best gig of my life. But sadly most of the time it's the 'make it sound like' scenario which is soul destroying. If you want to be a real innovative artist, don't get into the film music biz... but maybe you'll get lucky


----------



## guitarman1960 (Mar 11, 2015)

JohnG @ Wed Mar 11 said:


> They argued, further, that no one element was identical, but if you took 8 or 10 of them and look at them all as a group, there was a "constellation" of similarities that made the new song a copy.
> 
> Someone confirm this?




Well that was my point really, it's the sum of all the parts being replicated, as if the intent is to re-create the backing track rather than just sample it and pay a licence fee, as used to be the case with older hip hop.

A lot of modern music is not about 'melody' at all, so melody cannot be the main consideration. Look how many mega selling rap records put new vocals over a sampled backing track. If they re-created the backing track instead of sampling it, they are still 'using' that music in their own track, even if the original vocal melody is no longer there.

Doing something 'in the style of' is a totally different thing. If you use the same ostinato pattern and horn arrangement as Batman Begins, then that's your own fault if you get trouble. If you do a similar 'style' then there's no problem, any more than doing a rock music track in a similar style to Jimi Hendrix. If you re-record the wah wah guitar of Voodoo Chile and stick some rap vocals on it though . . . . .


----------



## dinerdog (Mar 11, 2015)

Not sure why this is even a debate, Robin Thicke in GQ:

GQ: What's the origin story behind your new single "Blurred Lines"?

Robin Thicke: Pharrell and I were in the studio and I told him that one of my favorite songs of all time was Marvin Gaye's "Got to Give It Up." I was like, "Damn, we should make something like that, something with that groove." Then he started playing a little something and we literally wrote the song in about a half hour and recorded it".

This is not like a director asking him to follow a temp track.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 11, 2015)

> Bean counters are convinced that audiences want what is familiar, and for the most part that's true.



Sounds like Focus Groupitis.


----------



## guitarman1960 (Mar 11, 2015)

Exactly, there is a massive difference between doing something 'like' or 'in the style of', a temp track, and doing something that recreates almost exactly every element that makes the track what it is and then calling it your own.


----------



## gyprock (Mar 11, 2015)

For those not familiar with the Men at Work case copyright case in Australia, here is an interesting read:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...us-copyright-ruling-against-band-blamed.shtml


----------



## KEnK (Mar 11, 2015)

a sound-a-like _is_ a copy.
it seems absurd to think otherwise.
You are in fact often copying a work right up to illegality.

the subject being discussed is a pop tune,
not film music, though the implications apply.

But it seems unnecessary to bring in these "'it's the real world",
"make it more like the temp" arguments.

For the record, I don't seek out work in film-
it sickens me for the very reasons stated by others.
But I have done them and will do more-
but only when people seek me out for what it is that I do.
Not for how well I can copy someone else's work.
(or the generic flavor of the month)
It's a rat race that doesn't interest me at all.

Again, I'm happy about this verdict.
And if it scares the "bean counters" into 
allowing composers to write instead of copy,
we all win.
Audiences included.


----------



## passenger57 (Mar 11, 2015)

> a sound-a-like is a copy.
> it seems absurd to think otherwise.
> You are in fact often copying a work right up to illegality.
> 
> ...



Glad that your happy. Honestly, I'm trying to get out of this business. I've come to be repulsed by all the negativity, bitterness, neurotic, paranoia and general discontent associated with it. Everyone I know (and i'm talking big time composers as well) are pretty miserable, burned out, jaded and soured by it. Sorry to be a bummer. I used to think down on my lowly composition teacher fretting away his existence writing music for a very limited audience, but now I kinda envy him. 

Ok, if your still interested here is a very level headed interesting article on this subject
http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/what-the ... ge_article


----------



## KEnK (Mar 11, 2015)

passenger57 @ Wed Mar 11 said:


> Glad that your happy. Honestly, I'm trying to get out of this business. I've come to be repulsed by all the negativity, bitterness, neurotic, paranoia and general discontent associated with it. Everyone I know (and i'm talking big time composers as well) are pretty miserable, burned out, jaded and soured by it. Sorry to be a bummer. I used to think down on my lowly composition teacher fretting away his existence writing music for a very limited audience, but now I kinda envy him.
> 
> Ok, if your still interested here is a very level headed interesting article on this subject
> http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/what-the ... ge_article


I appreciate your candor passenger57.
We are not at all different in that regard.
Music "used to mean something".
That's why we all got into it.
I still fight the good fight for Creativity's sake.
(Though it is increasingly Quixotic to do so)

Good article too.
Very encouraging for a proponent of individual creativity


----------



## passenger57 (Mar 11, 2015)

I think this thread inspired me to start a new career. Thanks to the Blurred Lines verdict, I'm going to goto law school and make a business suing every songwriter out there who wrote a song that was 'inspired by' or 'sounds like's something else. 

I'm going to start with suing the Beatles. I think John Lennon said 'Please Please Me' was inspired by Roy Orbison. Anyone have the Orbison's estate info? 
Holy moly I'm going be freakin rich! hahha

Oh here is another article on why this verdict sucks
http://www.laweekly.com/music/great-now ... ry-5427407


----------



## KEnK (Mar 11, 2015)

passenger57 @ Wed Mar 11 said:


> Oh here is another article on why this verdict sucks
> http://www.laweekly.com/music/great-now ... ry-5427407


Interesting-
I liked the 1st article you linked to,
because it validates my perspective that this is a
good and long needed verdict- 
it will have the effect of "chilling" ripping people off-
and furthering individual creativity-

The 2nd article bemoans the verdict and I don't agree w/ that perspective at all.

A personal case in point-
I am variously influenced by B. Herrmann, J. McLaughlin, JB Ulmer-
and a hoard of others.

Even when I write an 'homage' to one of my heroes,
it doesn't sound like their song- it sounds like my song.

Not so w/ Blurred Lines-
It's clearly (to me) a blatant rip-off deserving to lose in court.
And I look forward to any so called "chilling effect" this verdict will have-

We should all be celebrating this, not bemoaning it.

k


----------



## rgames (Mar 11, 2015)

This type of legal lunacy is common in patent law so it's not surprising to see it show up in the music world. Remember, Apple owns the rounded rectangle...

Don't try to inject logic into the process. This is law, not science.

But, I assume there will be an appeal. So maybe the legal system will redeem itself in the end. Let's hope so.

rgames


----------



## passenger57 (Mar 11, 2015)

> Even when I write an 'homage' to one of my heroes,
> it doesn't sound like their song- it sounds like my song.



I'd love to hear one of these original songs of yours. I have an encyclopedic knowledge of many genres of music music and the Shazam app as backup, I bet I can find a few songs that are similar. I'm only asking as a favor as I need to get practice for my future as a litigator and I could use the extra cash. :wink: 
Just kidding - this thread is making me feel snarky. 

And its refreshing to agree with rgames for a change. lol


----------



## guitarman1960 (Mar 12, 2015)

Don't see why people think that verdict is wrong in any way. The backing track was recreated to put new vocals over, and in an interview they even admitted their intention. Recreating someone else's music and then adding a new element over the top is clearly not the same thing as being inspired by something! Oasis were inspired by the Beatles but they didn't recreate a Beatles backing track and stick their new vocals over it. The decision is a correct one in this case in my view.


----------



## mac4d (Mar 12, 2015)

http://www.thewrap.com/blurred-line...s-lose-copyright-case-to-marvin-gayes-family/

This article says the the Gaye side was NOT allowed to play the recording of “Got To Give It Up” for jurors during the trial. 

AND

The Gaye children [only] own the copyright to the Marvin Gaye sheet music registered with the Copyright Office 

- SO what version of Gotta Give It Up did the jury hear I wonder. Or did they just look at the sheet music!


Article also says...

The trial showed video of media interviews with Thicke and Williams saying they were inspired by Marvin Gaye and wanted to channel “Got To Give It Up” with “Blurred Lines.” On the stand, however, Thicke stated that he was high on vodka and Vicodin during all of those interviews [basically saying he lied in those interviews]

- if I'm on the jury, I'm more likely to think he told the truth in the interviews, and is lying on the stand.


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 12, 2015)

KEnK @ Wed Mar 11 said:


> passenger57 @ Wed Mar 11 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh here is another article on why this verdict sucks
> ...



Dude- this is a question I rarely ask here- but do you make your living composing music, and have you been doing it for a good while? Your stance on this is interesting and disturbing to me.


----------



## AC986 (Mar 12, 2015)

There's blatant copying of notes and then there's copying a genre. Different things.

For example. John Williams and Stravinsky.


----------



## guitarman1960 (Mar 12, 2015)

adriancook @ Thu Mar 12 said:


> There's blatant copying of notes and then there's copying a genre. Different things.
> 
> For example. John Williams and Stravinsky.




+100 

Blurred Lines was blatant, plus was also intentional, it's obvious to anyone, whether the listener is a musician or not.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 12, 2015)

guitarman1960 @ Thu Mar 12 said:


> Blurred Lines was blatant, it's obvious to anyone, whether the listener is a musician or not.



Anyone apart from the vast numbers of musicians and non-musicians who disagree with you, you mean.

The issue that John raised about no one element being the same but enough similarity among enough elements almost sounds like a text book description of copying a style as opposed to a song.

The other curious thing about it all is that Marvin Gaye's original was never even played to the court, rather a strict (and apparently awful) copy rendered purely from the "sheet music". Ironic then that much of the ruling seems to be about the production and arrangement, rather than the song itself.

The case seems an absurd but perhaps inevitable consequence of a world with a) rich people and especially b) rich lawyers in it. Wish we could all despise Blurred Lines for the rapey lyrics instead of all this.


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna (Mar 12, 2015)

Wow. According to half of you, John Williams should be in prison.

Americas obsession with suing is ridiculous. 

99% of music is derivative.

Personally, I am of the opinion that we shouldn't pretend that copying artists is rare. It should be embraced. Be flattered, move on. The western worlds obsession with ownership of art is silly - It reminds me of Candy Crush trying to copyright the word "CANDY" for god sakes. Just my opinion.


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 12, 2015)

Hannes_F @ Wed Mar 11 said:


> I wonder when law will come up with a standardized 'soundalike' license like in the case of cover versions. Soundalikes and their makers would then be much more on the safe side and everything could be more transparent (like: yes we made our composer rip the temp track off because we trusted that more than have him compose original music but but see we paid an additional fee for it).



Additionally I suggest that the "50 - 70 years after the death of the creator and 95 years for companies" are way too long. That should be reduced to 15 to 25 years. Where is the reason why grand-children of a composer should benefit from music that they do not have any merit on.

Could it be that those long copyright periods came from a time when it was a major investment to have sheet music of orchestral works (and books of course) set and printed, so the publishing house needed to have such long exploitation times to get back their investment? Also I think that Richard Strauss' idea originally was that the income from that long exploitation times should be used to build a help fond for struggling composers. How good did it work and how relevant are those ideas still today?

I think the copyright laws worldwide need a serious evaluation whether in their current formulation they really achieve their original target any more, and the Blurred Line case will trigger such discussions for sure.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 12, 2015)

passenger57 @ Thu Mar 12 said:


> Oh here is another article on why this verdict sucks
> http://www.laweekly.com/music/great-now ... ry-5427407



Yes, good article, especially this:



> The "Blurred Lines" verdict ignores this, placing for the first time what boils down to "feel" under the heading of copyright infringement. By this logic, the Bob Marley estate can sue pretty much every reggae artist of the past 30 years. The Bo Diddley estate can sue George Michael for "Faith" and Bow Wow Wow for "I Want Candy." Phil Spector can sue The Raveonettes for their entire catalog.
> 
> "If this were to become a standard," musicologist Michael Harrington told USA Today, "it's going to be one of the greatest growth industries of all time, suing people who sound like someone else."



I have a horrible feeling this is exactly what's going to happen. Despite all those who say "this case isn't a precedent", it''s more than enough to launch 50,000 speculative cases. Utterly disastrous.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 12, 2015)

Hannes_F @ Thu Mar 12 said:


> I suggest that the "50 - 70 years after the death of the creator and 95 years for companies" are way too long. That should be reduced to 15 to 25 years. Where is the reason why grand-children of a composer should benefit from music that they do not have any merit on.


Agreed, but there would have to be lots of complicated negotiations to deal with regarding arrangements of PD works. otherwise it could become very unfair for the families to see other people making money from music that their relative wrote.



Hannes_F @ Wed Mar 11 said:


> Could it be that those long copyright periods came from a time when it was a major investment to have sheet music of orchestral works (and books of course) set and printed, so the publishing house needed to have such long exploitation times to get back their investment? Also I think that Richard Strauss' idea originally was that the income from that long exploitation times should be used to build a help fond for struggling composers. How good did it work and how relevant are those ideas still today?


Yes, and I believe that the increase from 50 to 70 years was done at the behest of the French publishers who wanted to keep Ravel in Copyright for a longer period. However, all that needs to happen is have a situation where the length of Copyright is a certain number of years after the piece was registered, or another number of years after the death of the composer, whichever is the latest date. In that way Publishers would be protected for their outlay, if the composer died the day after the music was composed.



Hannes_F @ Wed Mar 11 said:


> I think the copyright laws worldwide need a serious evaluation whether in their current formulation they really achieve their original target any more, and the Blurred Line case will trigger such discussions for sure.


Again, I agree, but part of the problem is that in the commercial world Publishing is very different from the concert world and the abuse and greed is far greater.

D


----------



## AC986 (Mar 12, 2015)

SimonCharlesHanna @ Thu Mar 12 said:


> Wow. According to half of you, John Williams should be in prison.



Not necessarily. Genre. Williams uses a lot of classical composers (some not very well known at all) throughout his career. He doesn't copy notes afaik.

One of the most famous scores of all time is Psycho. Famous, because it changed the way things went in film music from then on in. But the genre is probably Bartok's. Not the notes. Citizen Kane, 20 years previously, also did the same thing musically as well as just about everything else.


----------



## guitarman1960 (Mar 12, 2015)

Still don't get why so many people seem upset by this court case. People panic because they think it sets a precedent and will queer the pitch for everybody. If you don't want to get sued then it's probably a good idea not to recreate the backing track of one of your favourite songs and then call it yours, and then do interviews saying that's what you have done.

If you get asked to do a trailer cue or whatever in the style of Hans Zimmer, and then you recreate the same ostinato pattern and horn arrangement as Batman then you deserve all you get. If you create a similar vibe with your own ostinato pattern and your own horn arrangement, then whats the problem? If you haven't got the skills to create something in the style without blatantly copying then find a new career.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 12, 2015)

guitarman1960 @ Thu Mar 12 said:


> Still don't get why so many people seem upset by this court case.


I think that it is because for the first time ever it has been stated that a similar "vibe" can be a breach of Copyright. This opens a huge can of worms. I have no problem with "intent to copy" because that seems pretty clear to me, but a vibe is so general, that it opens up a potentially expensive problem.

D


----------



## guitarman1960 (Mar 12, 2015)

I can see that, I don't see how you can copyright a 'vibe' that would be ridiculous, but I think it you listen to the two tracks side by side, the backing track is more than just copying the vibe, its pretty much a lift.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 12, 2015)

guitarman1960 @ Thu Mar 12 said:


> I can see that, I don't see how you can copyright a 'vibe' that would be ridiculous, but I think it you listen to the two tracks side by side, the backing track is more than just copying the vibe, its pretty much a lift.


Yes, but the argument is all about the vibe, and I think that's what is scary for a lot of people. The court never heard the tracks side by side, so we can't use that argument for why the action was successful.

D


----------



## Madrigal (Mar 12, 2015)

british_bpm @ Wed Mar 11 said:


> I beg any of you considering such act to cease and desist!



It's crazy how messed-up our society is. We are taught that we live in free countries with civil, social and intellectual property rights. However, when comes the time to defend those rights, we withdraw because getting involved in a lawsuit would mean psychological, physical and financial exhaustion. 

It's actually quite ironic how, Americans especially (just generalizing), speak of capitalism as the most free form of economic governance but at the same time, by-products of capitalism have created a reality where people have to let go of their rights. :roll:


----------



## Kejero (Mar 12, 2015)

Ha http://www.showbiz411.com/2015/03/11/another-lawsuit-robin-thicke-stole-this-marvin-gaye-song-too-listen


----------



## JohnG (Mar 12, 2015)

Guy Rowland @ 12th March 2015 said:


> The other curious thing about it all is that Marvin Gaye's original was never even played to the court, rather a strict (and apparently awful) copy rendered purely from the "sheet music". Ironic then that much of the ruling seems to be about the production and arrangement, rather than the song itself.



The reason they didn't play the full song is that the plaintiffs don't own the recording, just the sheet music (according to one article I scanned through) which I would speculate means the copyright to the music.

So if the plaintiffs don't own the actual recording but just the music, this courtroom approach with a keyboard becomes a bit more understandable, whether or not one agrees with the verdict.


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 12, 2015)

Kejero @ Thu Mar 12 said:


> Ha http://www.showbiz411.com/2015/03/11/another-lawsuit-robin-thicke-stole-this-marvin-gaye-song-too-listen



Ouch. :shock:


----------



## KEnK (Mar 12, 2015)

NYC Composer @ Thu Mar 12 said:


> Dude- this is a question I rarely ask here- but do you make your living composing music, and have you been doing it for a good while? Your stance on this is interesting and disturbing to me.


NYC-
Been a professional musician for over 40 years now.
As most musicians/composers, I do various things.
Teach, gig, sessions, mixing other people's stuff, occasional touring-
and composing-
I don't bother trying to make a living mainly w/ film though-
As stated earlier, I am sickened by it- and do it only when when someone wants
what it is that I do rather than what I can imitate.

But I've been expecting your exact question, 
considering the orientation of most of my fellow composers here.

Let me ask one-
Why should my financial situation, whatever it is,
either validate or invalidate my opinion on this matter?

It's quite obvious that most people here are feeling very threatened by this
verdict. I continue to be amazed that so few see this as the blatant theft of someone
else's work that it is. Pretty much only 2 of us here see it that way.

I do hope that the Producer's, Director's and Bean Counters are as 
alarmed by this verdict as my fellow composers.
Maybe we can start writing more as opposed to only copying.

k


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 12, 2015)

Hannes_F @ Thu Mar 12 said:


> Kejero @ Thu Mar 12 said:
> 
> 
> > Ha http://www.showbiz411.com/2015/03/11/another-lawsuit-robin-thicke-stole-this-marvin-gaye-song-too-listen
> ...



Yes - that IS a lift.

I guess they gambled on a song that is only stylistically similar because it earned a boatload more dough.


----------



## bbunker (Mar 12, 2015)

I think one big problem with this decision is that it ignores the 'theft' that happened all the time, and really continues to happen all the time. The Gaye estate sued over similarities of composition, but don't own the rights to the sound recording.

Except that it's unlikely that Gaye 'composed' either the bass line or the specific percussion parts, isn't it? And as if things weren't bad enough already in terms of getting zero compositional respect for what people like James Jamerson add to these songs, a decision like this seems to almost 'make it official.' Not only do people not have to credit the studio musicians who came up with this material, but the composer then sues someone else over that part? Not cool.

It's a good thing Holland-Dozier-Holland wrote all three of their names on everything they did, or they'd have an orgy of suing each other over the bass lines that they didn't write.


----------



## JohnG (Mar 12, 2015)

I think k's position is perfectly valid about the theft issue (although I'm still pretty surprised). But I don't think it's quite accurate to conclude that trepidation on the part of composers arises from a fear of being unoriginal.

I would guess that this ruling will generate -- zero -- change in behaviour by producers and directors. They will still want people they hire to more or less follow their temp scores, which which they've fallen in love. The result will be ever more pressure on the composers, not on their masters. 

Moreover, since we, the composers-for-hire, always must sign an indemnification and warranty that the work is our own and original, the first stop for any lawsuit will be our home equity. Something like the story about "leslie" in Christian's sad tale.

So I don't think it's fair to conclude that people expressing consternation do so solely because they know in their secret hearts that they are only able to copy others' work. Ironically, it's the filmmaker's lack of musical imagination that is difficult at times to combat. They want a movie / trailer / TV commercial / episode to be as good as their heroes' work so they temp it with that music and sometimes insist on aping it.

Maybe the ruling will provide composers with more latitude to push back so we can do something more original?

Your other excellent points,


KEnK @ 12th March 2015 said:


> "For the record, I don't seek out work in film -- it sickens me for the very reasons stated by others. But I have done them and will do more-
> but only when people seek me out for what it is that I do. Not for how well I can copy someone else's work. (or the generic flavor of the month) It's a rat race that doesn't interest me at all."



...are worthy of a separate discussion / thread, in my view. Very good advice for anyone considering a career in film / TV / commercial music.


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 12, 2015)

adriancook @ Thu Mar 12 said:


> SimonCharlesHanna @ Thu Mar 12 said:
> 
> 
> > Wow. According to half of you, John Williams should be in prison.
> ...




I don't think JW should be in prison. Composers have long borrowed from each other. 

I thought everyone had seen this by now. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AokqzpdA3M


----------



## JohnG (Mar 12, 2015)

bbunker @ 12th March 2015 said:


> Except that it's unlikely that Gaye 'composed' either the bass line or the specific percussion parts, isn't it? And as if things weren't bad enough already in terms of getting zero compositional respect for what people like James Jamerson add to these songs, a decision like this seems to almost 'make it official.' Not only do people not have to credit the studio musicians who came up with this material, but the composer then sues someone else over that part? Not cool.



This also is a good idea for a thread. Happens every day.


----------



## KEnK (Mar 12, 2015)

Guy Rowland @ Thu Mar 12 said:


> Hannes_F @ Thu Mar 12 said:
> 
> 
> > Kejero @ Thu Mar 12 said:
> ...


Didn't bother listening to Trouble Man/Million Dollar Baby til just now-
The Guy Is a Shameless Thief!
He deserves to lose many more millions for this one too.

@bbunker _"...problem with this decision is that it ignores the 'theft' that happened all the time, and really continues to happen all the time..."_

If this case is as precedent setting as many here think-
then maybe that will change. And it's about time imo.

k


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 12, 2015)

KEnK @ Thu Mar 12 said:


> NYC Composer @ Thu Mar 12 said:
> 
> 
> > Dude- this is a question I rarely ask here- but do you make your living composing music, and have you been doing it for a good while? Your stance on this is interesting and disturbing to me.
> ...





I love it when someone walks into another person's yard and complains because they don't like the owner's choice of flowers in his garden. 

Isn't there an "art" forum somewhere for people who hate the film business, music business, business business? I'd like to go there and complain about how most of what they produce has no audience because people can't relate to it.


----------



## KEnK (Mar 12, 2015)

MichaelL @ Thu Mar 12 said:


> I love it when someone walks into another person's yard and complains because they don't like the owner's choice of flowers in his garden.
> 
> Isn't there an "art" forum somewhere for people who hate the film business, music business, business business? I'd like to go there and complain about how most of what they produce has no audience because people can't relate to it.


Excuse me Pal-

This is not your yard.
Nor is it the "Official Wanna Be Film Composer Site" that most people 
seem to think it is.
It is called Virtual Instrument Control Forum-
That and production technique is what I come here to discuss and share.

When Frederick makes a banner on page one saying-
Film Score Discussions Only- Not Opinions of Art Allowed,
I'll go elsewhere

Until then take your crappy attitude and shove it where the sun don't shine

I answered a direct question from someone I respect-
What exactly is it that your comment has contributed to the discussion?

k


----------



## Mike Connelly (Mar 12, 2015)

Wow, that trouble man one is ridiculous, way more blatant than Blurred Lines.



KEnK @ Wed Mar 11 said:


> Stop using loops.



That seems to have absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand.



Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Mar 11 said:


> 53 billion copies of Ennio Morricone



I've heard that his estate is very litigious, be very cautious about doing anything similar to his famous whistling motif.



gsilbers @ Wed Mar 11 said:


> looks like they replicated the background track and added their own melody.



"Replicated" is really a stretch when you compare the two. Different bass line, different cowbell part. No question the overall vibe is very similar (as well as instrumentation, which isn't covered by copyright) but when you compare specific parts they aren't the same.


Maybe this sets a precedent, maybe not. I think this outcome is more of a stretch than ones in the past. But I also think a major part of it is their public admission that they intentionally wrote a song similar to an existing one. Without those sorts of admissions, I don't see a lot of cases won using this as a precedent.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 12, 2015)

Guy Rowland @ Thu Mar 12 said:


> Hannes_F @ Thu Mar 12 said:
> 
> 
> > Kejero @ Thu Mar 12 said:
> ...



Actually just read this song is already credited to Marvin Gaye - can anyone confirm?


----------



## Stephen Rees (Mar 12, 2015)

Mike Connelly @ Thu Mar 12 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Mar 11 said:
> 
> 
> > 53 billion copies of Ennio Morricone
> ...



Mr. Morricone was still very much alive last time I looked.


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 12, 2015)

KEnK @ Thu Mar 12 said:


> MichaelL @ Thu Mar 12 said:
> 
> 
> > I love it when someone walks into another person's yard and complains because they don't like the owner's choice of flowers in his garden.
> ...





You're correct this is not the "Official Wanna Be Film Composer Forum" But, you are among a lot of people who are film /TV composers, or library composers, or work in the industry in some capacity.

AND...you never miss an opportunity to tell them how much their industry "sickens you."

I'm a lawyer, everyone hates us, so it doesn't matter to me. I'm sure that lawyers sicken you too. But, I'm always taken aback when someone places themselves on a pedestal denigrates another's livelihood.


----------



## KEnK (Mar 12, 2015)

@ MichaelL

I am not denigrating anything-
Just stating my opinions on the topic at hand and the implications thereof.
What's being discussed here is intellectual property- and theft
Perhaps a precedent setting case- (thought probably not)

I embrace this verdict and see it positively-
That's all I've been expressing.
Most people are alarmed that they'll be held accountable for the amount and level
of "copying" that they do willingly or by coercion.
I simply offer a different perspective, and one on the positive side, re: creativity.

You however seem to have a problem w/ my apparently dissenting opinion-
Not unusual in my experience.

Best to keep personal attacks or needless disparaging comments 
out of what has been thus far a stimulating discussion


----------



## KEnK (Mar 12, 2015)

Thomas_J @ Thu Mar 12 said:


> Look at the basic transcription of the two bass lines, as well as the cowbell (the two key elements that make up the foundation on which the copyright infringement case is built). If those look identical to you you either have some sort of musical dyslexia, or you're covering your eyes. I would wager it's the former, as obviously you're already covering your ears.
> 
> http://joebennett.net/2014/02/01/did-ro ... rvin-gaye/



And I suggest you listen again-
and tell me it's not the obvious rip that it is.
Legal arguments aside, it's incredible to me that that is even a question-
Blurred Lines is cleary lifted and rebuilt from Got To Give It Up-
Thicke even admitted it!
Why is that a question?


----------



## JohnG (Mar 12, 2015)

Guys, please ease up on each other.


----------



## passenger57 (Mar 12, 2015)

> This is not your yard.
> Nor is it the "Official Wanna Be Film Composer Site" that most people
> seem to think it is.
> It is called Virtual Instrument Control Forum-
> That and production technique is what I come here to discuss and share.



The forum in which this topic is posted is called 'Sanctus Cafe', Working in the Industry'

'Working in the Industry' - get it???

Also I really want to hear your 'original' music. Please post something so I can tear it apart and tell you how it sounds like 10 other things I've heard before.


----------



## KEnK (Mar 12, 2015)

Thomas_J @ Thu Mar 12 said:


> Sad to see an enemy of creative arts among our peers. No amount of listening will rearrange the notes. If we can't have a discussion based on simple facts then I wish you all the best and call it a lost cause.


That is completely bizarre and 100% false!
You're just frightened because your livelihood apparently made by 
copying the work of others right up to what might be illegal is threatened.

-comment removed - sorry, FR-


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna (Mar 12, 2015)

You guys should stop before someone gets banned again

Kenk - the issue with your statement is that it is extremely difficult to discern between copying and "being influenced by". 

As humans, we learn and grow by imitation


----------



## Frederick Russ (Mar 12, 2015)

Hi, just popping in here to say it is possible to make your points without attacking someone's character or resort to name calling. Otherwise the thread gets derailed and devolves into an argument - not a healthy debate.

Take a breath please. Then lets get back on topic.


----------



## AlexandreSafi (Mar 12, 2015)

I know I'm always the looking-up-at-the-clouds-thinking kind of guy on this beautiful forum, but all this keep bringing me back to the same point... 

Never underestimate "money" to inform behavioral changes in all of us:

-The need to sue 
-to care for those things, 
-to take sides, 
-to seek truth & status in adversarial relationships
*-justice over compassion*
-fear of lack, 
-greed, 
-"to earn" a living, 
-human stress, 
-the musician's stress, 
-musicians not respected --> desire for respect
-musicians competing
-"war" between musicians (saddest thing...) 

amongst loads of other things, as copyright, would probably be all gone if...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_VSIdAx4PQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PuyYVVVkIM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w

Is it possible? Can we? Will we ever?


----------



## JohnG (Mar 12, 2015)

Guys, please remain a respectful tone toward each other. K is entitled to express his views and there is no reason his position should be taken so personally.

Equally, calling names is not welcome, no matter what the provocation. [edited]

There are multiple violations of this forum rule here and I would vastly prefer for everyone to please relax -- nobody has to "win."

Rule:

4. Personal attacks. When a member attacks another member - be it a composer or a developer - as a forum owner I am entitled to respond. In our ten year history, we’ve seen plenty of disagreements escalate between members themselves and/or between members and developers. Example: calling someone a fraud or a liar publicly - regardless of whether the recipient is a member or a developer - constitutes a personal attack. The problem is that subsequent rants against another left unchecked can easily escalate. Those kinds of issues are generally outside the scope of the forum when they reach critical mass where either the legal card is raised or suggested. When I move these threads I do so as a way to protect our forum and members who angrily participated in those threads from doing harm to themselves and to those being attacked. *When posting, please maintain a respectful tone towards all members of this forum. If you cannot agree to disagree respectfully on a subject, please refrain from posting. *


----------



## Stephen Rees (Mar 12, 2015)

I've never heard Blurred Lines myself (and judging from what I know about it, I never want to) so have no comment on how much the track sounds like another track, but I think KEnK is arguing from a place that has the creative arts very much in his/her heart, and I do not believe that K deserves such scorn for holding this view.

EDIT: And my understanding is that 'Working in the Industry' refers to the WHOLE of the music industry - not just the media music part of it.


----------



## KEnK (Mar 12, 2015)

Thanks for the support-

and I apologize for temporarily losing my cool.
gonna step out of this thread now

I do appreciate those of you who can welcome a differing opinion.

I don't think I crossed any lines until a couple of people made personally disparaging comments.

No need for that at all.

k


----------



## Frederick Russ (Mar 12, 2015)

Heck man, we all get to be human. Even you, Ken.

Thanks for this though. If the topic is important enough, it alone deserves the respect of a healthy debate. We can make our points without attacking members of the "debate team".

Besides

My own take:

The only time really I step in actively as a moderator really is to keep a sad situation from getting worse - the irony is it is in a thread about this debacle between Marvin Gaye's family and Pharrell. It gets ugly in court and so depersonalizing. And not always fair.

Let's keep it clean and honor the debate as well as everyone who participates - please.


----------



## guitarman1960 (Mar 12, 2015)

I think it's clear that people on here who feel they may get negative financial implications from the fallout of this verdict are not capable of making an objective judgement on the Pharell track being a blatant copy, which anyone who listens to them can hear if they don't have an agenda to say otherwise. And by the way, people who make soundalikes are the enemy of the creative arts, not those who don't like to see rip off artists.


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 12, 2015)

My last 10 "hot" years in writing music for advertising, i was told I would have to sign indemnification clauses that held the agencies harmless, putting any copyright issues on me. That would have been okay had they not constantly been pushing me and everyone else in the industry to write something "like (fill in the blank)." So, everyone tried to write something "similar" to whatever example given without crossing the line.

Now that the line is further blurred (ahem), all songwriters, composers, writers of all ilk have to give up major gigs or live in even more fear of litigation than before. I hope this verdict is appealed and that as a result, new standards are written.

That's why the question I asked you about making a living writing is relevant, k. Not from some sort of superior stance, but because the threat here is both to one's ability to make a living and to one's mental health. Losing your house in the effort to feed your family and play fairly yet failing to skirt the line- that's not an abstract concept.

I don't think the decision will lead to more creative approaches from employers- I think it will just lead to more litigation, the burden of which will fall onto the shoulders of little guys who don't have legal staffs on retainers.


----------



## VDX (Mar 12, 2015)

ok. I listened to both (quite carefully).
To my ears they are very different. I'd say completely different.
I may agree that they would be in the same 'genre' but technically they are not the same. 
The baseline is different, and the drum track is different.

I'm quite surprised about court's decision.


----------



## passenger57 (Mar 12, 2015)

> I don't think the decision will lead to more creative approaches from employers- I think it will just lead to more litigation, the burden of which will fall onto the shoulders of little guys who don't have legal staffs on retainers.



+1

We are all creative people and have a tremendous desire to express ourselves and bring something beautiful to the world. But when have to face the pressures of lower budgets, immense competition, directors wanting us to 'sound like' the latest trend, coupled with the threat of legal action if you do it too closely or starving if you don't, it starts to eat away at your soul and question why you wanted to do it in the first place.

Music should always come from a pure and magical place. But it sure is a challenge to keep that feeling while working in the real world as a professional composer/songwriter these days. It's always a balance.

I'm trying to get more out of the business and have fun just writing for myself, playing music with friends and seeking projects where I'm free to express myself without limitations.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 12, 2015)

Yeah, I was going to link that transcription TJ linked. 

It's a different bass line and a different groove, to say nothing of a different melody (and key and tempo and and and).

Again: how can you make a soundalike illegal?


----------



## vasio (Mar 12, 2015)

i don't know
it seems that one part has been left out of this debate:
the huge push back from pharrell's song from women's groups who felt that the message was an encouragement to rape, saying 'you know you want it" even when they say no.
personally
i think this is more about THAT. and the similarity between pharrell's and marvin gaye's track is close but no cigar. 
my opinion?
the copyright card was used instead to object to how grossed out they were that the music ..
cited by hundreds of women's groups and opinion as against women ..
sounded similar to their dad's music.
so if they can't get him on vulgarity etc
make him pay by flailing the copyright card.
edit; and get a payday to boot.
..... not realizing
that by doing so
they are going against their own dad's wishes
of creative expression in music.
just my own take
agree, disagree, doesn't matter.


----------



## vasio (Mar 12, 2015)

hmmm
i hear the passion bro
btw fan of your music
and no
i dont agree with the ruling
just bringing up another point that hadn't been discussed imo
i think they made a point to punish him
as well as the rest of the industry
to make a point about women's rights
and get a pay day.
about being spineless
you and my girlfriend must be reading from the same play book


----------



## Daryl (Mar 12, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Mar 12 said:


> Again: how can you make a soundalike illegal?


It's illegal if there is intent to copy, and there are various situations where this could happen.

For example, an ad agency might approach the Bernstein estate and say they want to use some music from West Side Story. The Publishers quote a fee, the ad agency say it's too expensive. Now they approach a composer and ask for a sound-alike. In this circumstance the Publishers of the original would be entitled to sue, should the sound-alike get close, because there would be clear intent to copy.

BTW it is normally called style-alike these days, specifically to avoid saying that it is a rip-off trying to avoid litigation.

D


----------



## cc64 (Mar 12, 2015)

To add to Larry's post:

I've never had much of a career in Jingles but a few years ago i did all the adverts for a major food chain here in Canada. For every single spot i wrote there was one person(never was 2) who wrote to the Food Chain to complain that spot X was plagiarizing Artist Y. Eventually that e-mail inevitably ended up on the Food chain's CEO's desk. He/She made sure that the ad agency was called upon to reassure. 

The Ad-Agency always called me in a state of panic and with a tone full of reproach asked me to transcribe my jingle and the supposed plagiarized song to prove the differences. Obviously on paper, they where quite different, but much like the Blurred Lines case, it sounded a lot like the temp aesthetically...After all, the agency,on every single spot, would have me redo my tracks as many times as it would take for me to get dangerously close to THEIR beloved temp...

Last time they called with a case of e-mail complaint i asked them to stop playing the offended virgins(vierges offensées) and reminded them of the incessant rewrites that they had asked and before hanging up i asked them to please not call me again for ad work.

Honestly i don't regret doing the latter, the demands of pleasing everyone and their dog in the ad industry plus the eventual possibility of being sued by anybody is definitely not worth the money they are offering these days for Jingles( they don't even pay for pitches nor re-uses anymore, AFM etc..)

Regarding the case i think Thicke/Williams lost because of mentioning candidly in the media their influence for that song, i mean how can a jury condemn them on the basis of scoresheet comparisons when nothing on the paper is similar in any way? And the first time i heard the 2 songs next to each other i could hear the influence but in no way thought it was a bank robbery.

Kenk, i respect your view, in an ideal world producers would back-off and encourage more search for originality but i think Larry is right regarding what will happen.


----------



## KEnK (Mar 12, 2015)

Thomas_J @ Thu Mar 12 said:


> I made my point, and gave hard facts to support it. Since it is now clear by the response that I'm talking to someone who completely disregards facts I see no reason to further engage in this debate. It also shows that wisdom does not always come with age, sadly.
> 
> By the way, spineless neutrality and diplomatic maneuvers hold absolutely no value in a discussion of this nature either.
> 
> If we can't stand together and support our fellow industry peers in a ridiculous ruling such as this one, then there is no community at all and I'm out.


 :roll:


----------



## JohnG (Mar 12, 2015)

@Daryl -- from what MichaelL wrote earlier in the thread, the determination of copyright violations varies considerably from country to country. Thus, I assume, making this situation all the more knotty to parse for those not in the USA.


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 12, 2015)

FWIW....my opinion, as an attorney, is that there's more going on under the hood of this case than we are aware of. 

The matter should have been settled out of court. Perhaps Williams & Thicke thought they would win. Perhaps offers were made and the Gaye family held out for more.

We can speculate as to whether Marvin himself would have sued, or made a cameo appearance on the recording and in the video. 

Perhaps Williams & Thicke took a calculated risk when they wrote the song, and bet that they would come out financially ahead, even in the event of failed litigation...and they will. They're still entitled to compensation for their "original" contribution to the work.

I was sent this provision of current recommendations to revise the copyright law. I've not been able to pinpoint the report, or page number. Under this law, the outcome may have been very different.

So, as Rod Serling might have said, "I offer this for your consideration." 

"The exclusive rights of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clauses (1) and (2) of section 106 do not extend to the making or duplication of another sound recording that consists entirely of an independent fixation of other sounds, even though such sounds imitate or simulate those in the copyrighted sound recording."

When I can confirm that the source, I'll let you know.

Also note, this clause deals with "sound-recordings" which in this instance the plaintiffs do not own. Has the owner of the sound recordings filed a similar suit against W&T. If not, why not?


----------



## Daryl (Mar 12, 2015)

JohnG @ Thu Mar 12 said:


> @Daryl -- from what MichaelL wrote earlier in the thread, the determination of copyright violations varies considerably from country to country. Thus, I assume, making this situation all the more knotty to parse for those not in the USA.


That's true.

To me that's not the biggest issue in this case though. What is more sinister is that they didn't even hear the track, so how could they hear similarities of something they didn't hear?

Also, does this ruling mean that the people who actually own the Gaye recording can now go after them as well? I do know that in the UK there have been cases where someone was sued for sounding like Frank Sinatra and basically copying his performance. I don't know the result of the case though. Maybe Michael will have some examples from the US on this issue.

Edit: I see Michael got there first. :wink: 

D


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 12, 2015)

JohnG @ Thu Mar 12 said:


> @Daryl -- from what MichaelL wrote earlier in the thread, the determination of copyright violations varies considerably from country to country. Thus, I assume, making this situation all the more knotty to parse for those not in the USA.



Hi John, without reading back I'm not sure that I meant country to country. Even in the US, a court in NYC could have had a completely different outcome than the one in LA. 

Further, the verdict in LA, is not binding on any other US court. It can be cited as precedent, but it is not the law of the land unless it is appealed to the US Supreme Court and they affirm it.


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 12, 2015)

Daryl @ Thu Mar 12 said:


> JohnG @ Thu Mar 12 said:
> 
> 
> > @Daryl -- from what MichaelL wrote earlier in the thread, the determination of copyright violations varies considerably from country to country. Thus, I assume, making this situation all the more knotty to parse for those not in the USA.
> ...




From what I gather the verdict wasn't based on the sound of the recording, which I admit is somewhat absurd. It's almost as if they claimed the two songs looked the same in some abstract manner. (That'll teach 'em to use sequencers! If they'd written it on paper they would have immediately seen the similarities and stopped, I'm sure)

With respect to sounding like someone, e.g. Frank Sinatra, the most notable cases in the US have involved instances where an ad agency approached a singer for a commercial and the performer turned them down. After which, the agency went out and hired a sound-alike for the performance. One such case involved Bette Midler, who was asked to perform "Do You Wanna Dance" for a Ford commercial. IMO the request that Ms. Middler turned down was a smoking gun. Ford and its agency should have rethought their campaign.

Here's a simple explanation. http://www.4lawschool.com/property/midler.shtml Other's, including Tom Waits, have sued in similar matters. (Which makes me nervous. I have a gravely voice)


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 12, 2015)

I was at a very interesting BASCA event last month (British Songwriters). There were 4 very good composers who between them must be reposnsible for half the UK's TV Entertainment show output. Paul Farrer (he of the essential Sound On Sound Notes From The Deadline column) mentioned something in passing that was very telling - he said that in the previous two weeks a dozen different producers had asked for "something like Uptown Funk". The entire brilliance of the UK TV creative industry all wanting to emulate the same thing at the same time.

That's the everyday reality of media composers. IMO those who take the high road and always insist on originality are better off out of the media business altogether. We work with references routinely. That's why many of us are worried by this verdict. If you are lucky enough to work exclusively with clients who are happy for you to provide only truly original work then count your lucky stars morning, noon and night. For the rest of us, the notion that successfully emulating a feel for something without remotely copying the tune could put your house at risk is deeply troubling.


----------



## RiffWraith (Mar 12, 2015)

MichaelL @ Fri Mar 13 said:


> With respect to sounding like someone, e.g. Frank Sinatra, the most notable cases in the US have involved instances where an ad agency approached a singer for a commercial and the performer turned them down. After which, the agency went out and hired a sound-alike for the performance. One such case involved Bette Midler, who was asked to perform "Do You Wanna Dance" for a Ford commercial. IMO the request that Ms. Middler turned down was a smoking gun. Ford and its agency should have rethought their campaign.
> 
> Here's a simple explanation. http://www.4lawschool.com/property/midler.shtml Other's, including Tom Waits, have sued in similar matters. (Which makes me nervous. I have a gravely voice)



I heard about the Tom Waits thing. Some major corp (was it Coke?) asked Waits to perform in an ad; he said no, and they went out and hired a guy who looks like him, sounds like him, and who wrote a song that wasn't a Waits song - but could have been. He then sued for "character copyright infringement" - or something similar.

Michael - in a case like "Blurred Lines", does professional liability insurance coverage, intellectual property insurance, or errors & omissions insurance help in some way to protect the person whom litigation is opened against?


----------



## Daryl (Mar 12, 2015)

Guy Rowland @ Thu Mar 12 said:


> That's the everyday reality of media composers. IMO those who take the high road and always insist on originality are better off out of the media business altogether. We work with references routinely. That's why many of us are worried by this verdict. If you are lucky enough to work exclusively with clients who are happy for you to provide only truly original work then count your lucky stars morning, noon and night. For the rest of us, the notion that successfully emulating a feel for something without remotely copying the tune could put your house at risk is deeply troubling.


The best thing to do is not to agree the bit of the contract that stipulates that your work is original. Also make sure that the Publisher is equally liable for damages, in the case of action. The worst that can happen to you is that you lose your company. I bet their company is worth more than yours.

BTW another reason to have a LTD company, rather than being a sole trader. Your house would not be at risk if your music is owned by your company.

D


----------



## passenger57 (Mar 12, 2015)

> BTW another reason to have a LTD company, rather than being a sole trader. Your house would not be at risk if your music is owned by your company.
> 
> D


This is getting on a different subject, but since you mentioned it.. I never understood how an LTD can protect your home. Couldn't they just come after you as a separate individual?


----------



## RiffWraith (Mar 12, 2015)

passenger57 @ Fri Mar 13 said:


> > BTW another reason to have a LTD company, rather than being a sole trader. Your house would not be at risk if your music is owned by your company.
> >
> > D
> 
> ...



I assume LTD is in G.B.? The way Daryl makes it sound, is as tho it's the equivalent of an LLC here in the USA. With an LLC, you, the person, are protected against any litigation. So, if your company gets sued, the company has to pay damages (assuming the case is lost). The entity suing the company can NOT come after you, your bank acct, your home, any holdings, etc.

Cheers.


----------



## passenger57 (Mar 12, 2015)

> The entity suing the company can NOT come after you, your bank acct, your home, any holdings, etc.
> 
> Cheers.



Thanks for the info


----------



## RiffWraith (Mar 12, 2015)

passenger57 @ Fri Mar 13 said:


> > The entity suing the company can NOT come after you, your bank acct, your home, any holdings, etc.
> >
> > Cheers.
> 
> ...



Welcome.

BUT - you as an owner of the LLC can in fact be held responsible for things like a bank loan that you personally took part in guaranteeing, payroll taxes, etc.


----------



## Mike Greene (Mar 12, 2015)

I get the impression that part of the reason Thicke lost was that he might have been somewhat unlikable to the jury. Certainly his throwing Williams under the bus and his celebrity-style backpedaling with his _”The Vicodin made me lie”_ defense must have turned off a lot of jurors.

Apparently there were only eight jurors, and they were on the older side. Given that they didn’t have the benefit of getting to hear the two songs side by side like we do, things like likability probably were probably a bigger factor than they should have been. Many people of a certain generation still hate rap, so even though this wasn’t sampling per se, I’ll bet the Gayes’ lawyers drew as many parallels as they could, what with Thicke’s (Vicodin induced) admission that they were trying to knock off Gaye’s song.

As has been said already, those smoking guns are what cook a lot of defendants. I personally didn’t think Huey Lewis should have won his case against Ray Parker Jr. in the Ghostbusters case. That is until I found out that the Ghostbusters producers had actually approached Huey Lewis ahead of time about licensing “I Want a New Drug.” That was the smoking gun of intent.

I don’t see how the record company would have any stake in this, by the way, since there wasn’t any sampling involved. Unless I’m missing something, it seems to me this was involving the song, not the recording.

In fact, even if it is indeed a copyright violation, I don’t see why the judgment was so high. Worst case scenario, Gaye’s family is entitled to the songwriter/publisher royalties, not the record (mechanicals) royalties.


----------



## JohnG (Mar 12, 2015)

RiffWraith @ 12th March 2015 said:


> With an LLC, you, the person, are protected against any litigation. So, if your company gets sued, the company has to pay damages (assuming the case is lost). The entity suing the company can NOT come after you, your bank acct, your home, any holdings, etc.
> 
> Cheers.



I don't want to derail this thread, but that is not at all what lawyers are telling me, or indeed any composers I've talked to about this (US law).


----------



## Astronaut FX (Mar 12, 2015)

Thomas_J @ Thu Mar 12 said:


> Sad to see an enemy of creative arts among our peers. No amount of listening will rearrange the notes. If we can't have a discussion based on simple facts then I wish you all the best and call it a lost cause.



This is completely unfair. If you're going to make such an attack on someone simply because their view differs from yours, and you're accuse them of being an enemy of creative arts, let's take a moment to ponder the meaning of the word creative.


cre-a-tive 



adjective 

1. having the quality or power of creating. 

2. *resulting from originality of thought*, expression, etc.; *imaginative:* 
"creative writing."

3. *originative*; productive (usually followed by of). 

4. Facetious. using or creating exaggerated or skewed data, information, etc.: 

Notice the "originality of thought" and "originative" in the definition? To be fair to the individual you attacked, there is a segment of the composing business that involves a great deal of copying, sound-alikes, style-alikes, "write me something as close to this as possible without getting us sued" that has no connection whatsoever with "originality of thought" or "origninative" or "imaginative."

So maybe let's look closely at who is and who isn't the antithesis of creativity.

Also, without providing any further opinion on this particular piece of litigation, I'd like to ponder this thought. I'm always amazed to see working musicians scream from the rooftops about the unjustness of consumers illegally copying/downloading music, and the unjustness of consumers illegally acquiring the tools of the trade...yet out of the other side of their mouths, they scream from the same rooftops that we need to preserve their rights to rip off one another. 

"Consumers better not steal from us, but damn it, we gotta eat, so let us cannibalize one another all we want without repercussion!"

Am I the only one that sees hypocrisy in that?

I'm not personally judging what anyone chooses to do for a living. But once someone decides to hitch their wagon to the music business, and chooses to take on those gigs that require them to intentionally rip off other pieces as their source of income, then I can't be made to feel sympathy when litigation like this starts to hit too close to home and threaten livelihoods. Those choices are made with eyes wide open, and with free will. The risks were well understood.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again...there are just too damned many musicians competing for too few paychecks. And instead of recognizing that, too many fingers get pointed in too many other directions as to why musicians can't make a living.


----------



## JohnG (Mar 12, 2015)

I split the thread so the LLC discussion could have its own spot. It can be found here:

http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtop ... =1#3858506

guitarman1960 -- I was splitting the thread while you were posting, apparently. Sorry. I PM'd you your post so you could copy and paste it back in this thread if you like.

Apologies.


----------



## Valérie_D (Mar 12, 2015)

VDX @ Thu Mar 12 said:


> ok. I listened to both (quite carefully).
> To my ears they are very different. I'd say completely different.
> I may agree that they would be in the same 'genre' but technically they are not the same.
> The baseline is different, and the drum track is different.
> ...



I tried to find litigations in the similarities of the 2 songs but could not, even after listening to both songs 10 times. 

The only thing that comes to mind is ''Yes, both songs have cow bells, a bass lines and some drums''. 

Honestly, the more I listen to it, the more I find their differencies rather than their similarities, maybe that's why many composers are concerned here, it's not about not being able to do rip off of temp tracks, it's about fearing that any creative ideas will ressemble somebody else's...and it probably will.


----------



## passenger57 (Mar 12, 2015)

> I tried to find litigations in the similarities of the 2 songs but could not, even after listening to both songs 10 times.
> 
> The only thing that comes to mind is ''Yes, both songs have cow bells, a bass lines and some drums''.
> 
> ...



Spot on exactly what I was thinking. People are getting their feathers ruffled thinking we are defending plagiarism which is not the case at all. The point being is that this BL verdict opens up the possibility you can get sued for being derivative, which seems to be the case with 90% of modern film music these days. I know big time A list composers that are asked to 'sound like' so and so. Happens to everyone, that doesn't mean that this profession is not honorable. I even remember Thomas Newman talking at a masterclass about how he was irritated he had to write a score that was temped with his OWN score for American Beauty! LOL


----------



## David Story (Mar 12, 2015)

For those who care (yes! you two):

At trial the best trial lawyer usually wins.
Howard King and Seth Miller did a great job for Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke.
Richard Busch was even better in the end.

It's not about the facts, it's about how you argue them.

In case this hasn't been mentioned recently, Pharrell sued the Gaye family. Sony/ATV and Marvin Gaye's estate reached a settlement.


----------



## skitzmurd (Mar 13, 2015)

thought i'd just drop this here...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I


----------



## guitarman1960 (Mar 13, 2015)

skitzmurd @ Fri Mar 13 said:


> thought i'd just drop this here...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I



:D That is brilliant, I have to say!

Based on the Blurred Lines court verdict, I think Prince should deffo sue Phil Collins for that (I'm gonna party like it's) Sussudio blatant rip off!

Prince even sues his own fans, so that one would be interesting!!


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 13, 2015)

skitzmurd @ Fri Mar 13 said:


> thought i'd just drop this here...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I



This is a song about plagarism.... it wasn't our idea...."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nW0ACEOEq6w


----------



## Markus S (Mar 13, 2015)

[/youtube]


----------



## woodsdenis (Mar 13, 2015)

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/m ... ?CMP=fb_gu

And it gets even dafter.


----------



## Astronaut FX (Mar 13, 2015)

passenger57 @ Fri Mar 13 said:


> Spot on exactly what I was thinking. People are getting their feathers ruffled thinking we are defending plagiarism which is not the case at all. The point being is that this BL verdict opens up the possibility you can get sued for being derivative, which seems to be the case with 90% of modern film music these days. I know big time A list composers that are asked to 'sound like' so and so. Happens to everyone, that doesn't mean that this profession is not honorable. I even remember Thomas Newman talking at a masterclass about how he was irritated he had to write a score that was temped with his OWN score for American Beauty! LOL



So can you *clearly* point to the exact line between derivative and plagiarism? Because I certainly can't. But with effort, you can certainly steer clear of it.

The thing is, you might be able to convince me that the Thicke tune, or the recent Tom Petty lift, or even the Coldplay/Joe Satriani similarity from a few years ago were all "happy accidents" that occur every day in the world of pop music.

But a fair amount of the composing for hire doesn't even pretend to be a happy accident. It's readily discussed that the process involves copying, or sound-alikes, or style-alikes, or whatever description makes it feels less like a rip off.

Maybe instead of wringing hands over this, maybe it's time composers start having dialogues with their clients and help them see that the current model is broken. And rather than to continue to be exposed to litigation for plagiarism, you get back to the model that says "you tell me what mood you need me to set, and let me do it." Wouldn't that model be more fulfilling for a musician/composer anyway? Or is it really preferable and easier to continue to churn out intentionally derivative works?

Take this as an opportunity to fix a broken model! It's either that, or stick with the old one and live with the risk of litigation.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Mar 13, 2015)

Stephen Rees @ Thu Mar 12 said:


> Mr. Morricone was still very much alive last time I looked.



Sorry, my bad. Thanks for the correction.


----------



## Stephen Rees (Mar 13, 2015)

It is very difficult to describe music in words, so when a client is trying to describe what they want, actually playing examples of the kind of thing they have in mind is tremendously helpful to all parties, so everyone knows we are discussing the same thing.

The problem comes when it gets to the 'I want to use this track but can't afford to / don't want the hassle of licensing it' stage.

I had a situation where a client had already shot footage and edited it exactly to a pop song (which was supposed to be played by a band at a dance in the film).

They didn't want to license that particular song and wanted me to do a soundalike. Since the footage was cut and the actors performing in the band had already been filmed, I was to use exactly the same tempo, exactly the same instruments, exactly the same vibe of song, and also lyrics that expressed exactly the same sentiment - matching to picture whichever band member might be in shot at the time and what they were playing.

I declined of course.

One of my colleagues used to say to me 'say yes to everything'. I think this is crappy advice.

EDIT: PS: I never get asked to write to picture these days. I wonder why


----------



## RiffWraith (Mar 13, 2015)

Found this article, maybe worth a read.

http://www.artbusiness.com/reprosuit.html

It deals with art, but you can easily see how the same would apply to music.

Cheers.


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 13, 2015)

Mike Connelly @ Fri Mar 13 said:


> Stephen Rees @ Thu Mar 12 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Morricone was still very much alive last time I looked.
> ...




No worries Mike. I'm quite sure that they WILL be very litigious...when the time comes. :lol:


----------



## passenger57 (Mar 13, 2015)

> So can you clearly point to the exact line between derivative and plagiarism? Because I certainly can't. But with effort, you can certainly steer clear of it.



I suppose we might have differing views on what the word 'derivative' means... Like the old Clinton 'Is' is. 
For me it can be a genre - I want this to sound like the 'old west' or like the '50s', 'rap' or like an old swashbuckler movie. 

Ok now on to more clear examples of 'derivative'

Lets take Star Wars. John Williams clearly rewrote the temp track. Lucas originally wanted the movie to have classical music like 2001 but Williams talked him out of it giving him an original timeless score that still captured the 'feel' of the classical music Lucas originally had temped in. The intro is clearly modeled from Korngold then the last part when the big ship comes in is modelled after Holst's Mars. The music on Tatooine is clearly taken from Rite of Spring, etc.. etc..

So

Based on your perception of what 'derivative' means, Williams should clearly be sued and all that wonderful classic music we loved and inspired us should be removed from the film? Of course not. 

Let me bring up another point. It was precisely that Williams was inspired by those pieces that I went on to explore the classical repertoire which changed my life and inspired me to go study composition. 

My response is getting a bit off point because I think we all agree in spirit. I am not trying to justify plagiarism or theft, I am just trying to make the point that this case is 'burring' the line between the definitions of what is theft, and what is inspired by, etc. Some of the greatest musical masterpieces out there were inspired by what has come before and in some cases clearly obvious (as in Star Wars).


----------



## passenger57 (Mar 13, 2015)

> Take this as an opportunity to fix a broken model! It's either that, or stick with the old one and live with the risk of litigation.


That's a good point.


----------



## guitarman1960 (Mar 13, 2015)

It's certainly extremely ironic that the track is called Blurred Lines!!!


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Mar 13, 2015)

I have a few hundred chord progressions and grooves I'd like to trademark. Where should I start?


----------



## passenger57 (Mar 13, 2015)

Now it looks like they are going to try and sue him for Happy

http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/ ... ht-lawsuit

Flood gates are open now. This is getting ridiculous.

I hear songs that 'sound like' others all the time. As an example - Kurt Cobain was nervous about releasing 'Come as you are' because it had the same riff as the Killing Joke song 'Eighties'. Then later it was found that another band used the same riff before those two songs were written.. it just goes on and on...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighties_%28song%29


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Mar 13, 2015)

The Happy one HAS to be a joke.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 13, 2015)

passenger57 @ Fri Mar 13 said:


> As an example - Kurt Cobain was nervous about releasing 'Come as you are' because it had the same riff as the Killing Joke song 'Eighties'. Then later it was found that another band used the same riff before those two songs were written.. it just goes on and on...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighties_%28song%29



I know both well and never even made the connection. But yeah - near identical riffs / chords, yet the songs feel very different. Glad no-one ever got it together enough to sue and make the lawyers of the world even richer than they already are.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 13, 2015)

> I get the impression that part of the reason Thicke lost was that he might have been somewhat unlikable to the jury



Exhibit A:

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=rob ... tedIndex=0

Yes, the guy is totally gross! And I said so at the time. I didn't even notice Miley Cyrus' "sexual" antics (quotes because that's about what I would think of if I wanted to control myself during sex!).


----------



## KEnK (Mar 13, 2015)

Tone Deaf @ Fri Mar 13 said:


> ...a fair amount of the composing for hire doesn't even pretend to be a happy accident. It's readily discussed that the process involves copying, or sound-alikes, or style-alikes, or whatever description makes it feels less like a rip off.
> 
> Maybe instead of wringing hands over this, maybe it's time composers start having dialogues with their clients and help them see that the current model is broken. And rather than to continue to be exposed to litigation for plagiarism, you get back to the model that says "you tell me what mood you need me to set, and let me do it." Wouldn't that model be more fulfilling for a musician/composer anyway? Or is it really preferable and easier to continue to churn out intentionally derivative works?
> 
> Take this as an opportunity to fix a broken model! It's either that, or stick with the old one and live with the risk of litigation.


Love what you said here!
:mrgreen:


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 13, 2015)

KEnK @ Fri Mar 13 said:


> Tone Deaf @ Fri Mar 13 said:
> 
> 
> > ...a fair amount of the composing for hire doesn't even pretend to be a happy accident. It's readily discussed that the process involves copying, or sound-alikes, or style-alikes, or whatever description makes it feels less like a rip off.
> ...




Perhaps the model is broken from a creative / aesthetic perspective, in some people's view. But it is not the job of the courts to address those issues. It is not the job of the courts to be an arbiter of taste or "quality." If the object is to make money, that is to succeed from a business, but not necessarily artistic, perspective the model works.

The court's job is to apply the law, and in this instance it did a spectacularly poor job.
Lawyers for Wiliams & Thicke have stated that the fight is long way from being over. The law was misapplied. The matter should not have gone to the jury. I'm sure they will appeal, and quite possibly achieve a different outcome.

There are three things US courts strongly favor: 1) freedom of expression, 2) business and 3) preserving 'judicial resources."

The "Blurred Lines" verdict has a potential negative impact on all three. 

1) As is obvious from this thread composers are already living in fear that if they so much as think about writing a trumpet part using a Harmon mute, Miles Davis's estate will be lawyering up. 

2) The business model is based upon giving audiences, i.e., customers what they like, want and prefer. If fixing the model means limiting audiences to only what a few "elite" artists think is worthy you are limiting freedom of expression and most likely harming business. 

3) The judicial system strongly disfavors anything that will open floodgates of litigation and bog it down. That is precisely what will happen if everyone gets to sue on "feel."

Finally, as I mentioned earlier, the copyright office is already considering vast changes that recognize all of the above, and will render the argument moot.

So, if I had a crystal ball, Tone Deaf and KenK, and this is not by way of argument, just a legal opinion, I would wager that things will go the other way and that the model you dislike will be recognized as a modern reality.


----------



## Ed (Mar 13, 2015)

KEnK @ Wed Mar 11 said:


> Stop using loops.



Well technically you'd be ok if it was a loop.


----------



## Ed (Mar 13, 2015)

guitarman1960 @ Wed Mar 11 said:


> Maybe Zack Hemsey should sue Steve Jablonsky now!, :D



Meta.


----------



## Ed (Mar 13, 2015)

gsilbers @ Wed Mar 11 said:


> so in this vein, I think hans zimmers lawyers will now go nuts and be like "you know how many people we can sue now?!!" :lol:



Ah but by the same token, how many people can they sue?


----------



## Mike Greene (Mar 14, 2015)

MichaelL @ Fri Mar 13 said:


> Perhaps the model is broken from a creative / aesthetic perspective, in some people's view. But it is not the job of the courts to address those issues. It is not the job of the courts to be an arbiter of taste or "quality." If the object is to make money, that is to succeed from a business, but not necessarily artistic, perspective the model works.
> 
> The court's job is to apply the law, and in this instance it did a spectacularly poor job.
> Lawyers for Wiliams & Thicke have stated that the fight is long way from being over. The law was misapplied. The matter should not have gone to the jury. I'm sure they will appeal, and quite possibly achieve a different outcome.
> ...


Great post.


----------



## JohnG (Mar 14, 2015)

Yes, very thoughtful and interesting.


----------



## Astronaut FX (Mar 14, 2015)

MichaelL @ Fri Mar 13 said:


> KEnK @ Fri Mar 13 said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps the model is broken from a creative / aesthetic perspective, in some people's view. But it is not the job of the courts to address those issues. It is not the job of the courts to be an arbiter of taste or "quality." If the object is to make money, that is to succeed from a business, but not necessarily artistic, perspective the model works.
> ...




Addressing point number 2 specifically. 

It's not about quality or what anyone else thinks of as worthy. It's about identifying that line between derivative and plagiarism. Maybe they did get it wrong with this particular verdict. I might well agree that they did. But that doesn't change the fact that a good deal of the composing for hire business lives very, very close to that line. And this verdict opens up discussions about that business. 

You continue to justify this in terms of "if the client wants it, then it's ok." Or giving the audience/client what they want and making money justifies all else. If what the client wants pushes the envelope too close to plagiarism, then that doesn't make it right for a composer to give it to them. And if a composer chooses to give it to them, then that composer should live with the risk.

To use an extreme analogy...if a person (let's call them a "client") wants to buy some heroin, and someone sells it to them, just how far do you think that person's defense of "but it's what the client wanted" or "I have to make a living, and if I didn't sell it to them, someone else would have" would get them?

And your comment about limiting freedom of expression. Wow, I don't even know how to address this one. It takes some real twisted self-justification to categorize the process of ripping off someone else's original work as expression.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 14, 2015)

(Another fan of MichaelL's post)

Tone - I don't think the primary justification here is "it's what the clients want". That's the backdrop to much of the discussion and fear for sure, but it's not the root issue. The serious point behind those mashup medley videos is pretty clear - borrowing musical styles, whether consciously or otherwise, has always been with us, and in its strictest sense is impossible to eradicate. I doubt that there's been a piece of music written in the past millennia that you couldn't point to an influence somewhere, regardless of intent.

For me, one of the great miracles of music is how those 12 notes (I know, I'm so Western) can provide such apparently endless variety. There's probably another three dozen I-V-VI-IV classics waiting to be written this century. If they're allowed to sell them without being sued, that is.

I'm in favour of the copyright laws being tightened up and clarified. Theft of a melody should never be accepted. But this crazy notion of a style being copyrighted can't go unchallenged, regardless of how terrible the defendant was in court.


----------



## RiffWraith (Mar 14, 2015)

_Maybe instead of wringing hands over this, maybe it's time composers start having dialogues with their clients and help them see that the current model is broken. And rather than to continue to be exposed to litigation for plagiarism, you get back to the model that says "you tell me what mood you need me to set, and let me do it." _

Unfortunately, you are painting a picture of exactly how the business of composing does not work. I wish it did work that way, but it doesn't. Sure, some composers get to say, "hey - why don't we try it THIS way?" If JW tells SS, "I'd like to try something different here" - is SS going to listen? Of course. If I tell the suit at ad agency X who just hired me for a TV spot, "your business model is broken. Let me do what I think is right here" - how well do you think that's going to go over? 

_You continue to justify this in terms of "if the client wants it, then it's ok." _

Can you justify "if the client doesn't get what they want they fire you and hire someone else"? Because that's what happens. 

_I'm in favour of the copyright laws being tightened up and clarified._

So am I. Laws always seem to lag behind the real world of society.


----------



## passenger57 (Mar 14, 2015)

> And your comment about limiting freedom of expression. Wow, I don't even know how to address this one. It takes some real twisted self-justification to categorize the process of ripping off someone else's original work as expression.



A good friend of mine had a gig arranging 'sound alikes' for a big talk show back in the day. You know, the music that plays when the guests walk up.

He's a great guy and his original music is outstanding and original. I'm pretty sure he is neither 'twisted' or lacking in any morals. That gig just paid the bills for a few years.

I think thats the issue on this thread that has been upsetting to me. This moral high ground, holier than thou attitude some people have making it sound like my friends working in the industry are somehow corrupted or evil. 

As far as the world of film scores go...I hate it when a client wants a 'sound alike' cue in a score, but I usually just ignore them and do my own thing. I make it a challenge for myself to come up with something that is cooler than what they thought they wanted and most of the time it works.


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 14, 2015)

Dear Tone Deaf, let's be clear one one thing, I'm not "justifying" anything because it doesn't matter to me, in the broad sense. By that I mean, the purpose of my post is not, and was not, to discuss whatever aesthetic or moral ills that you believe plague the industry. The purpose was, and is, to clarify the role of the judicial system, which is not to fix a system, which you consider broken. It is simply the court's role to apply the law and settle a dispute between the parties. In this instance, that couldn't be done without reaching into areas previously beyond the purview of copyright protection, which is the core issue.

But to cast aside your assumptions, I'm not a wanna be film composer. I started turning down jobs in which I was asked to do sound-alikes 25 years ago. The last time was 20 years ago, when I was a "staff" writer for a library, and I told them "take the copyrights, writers share and all. Don't put my name on it." Eventually, I just got bored with what I was being asked to do and went to law school.

I'm not saying "if a client wants it its OK." That is a vast over simplification. I am saying that this is what the business has become (for better or worse). The law is very likely to catch up with and ratify that fact rather than "fix" it. 
As a result, yes, we will continue to have what is to some mediocre media, including formulaic movies and pop songs that do not have the creative spark or impact of the songs that influenced them. But that doesn't really matter to me either, because I am well beyond the demographic of the audience at which most popular media is aimed. Moreover, I believe it is the current generation who thinks it all should be "free" that perhaps stifles creativity even more. 

If you're in the business perhaps you've simply outgrown it. I once complained to a friend in advertising that so many commercials were flat out stupid. He said that's because "those commercials weren't made for you." I was not in the "target" audience. So, maybe the business just doesn't create media for you and others like you, anymore. Whatever the reason, it is quixotic to think that the courts should step in and "fix" the business or our culture. As I said that is not what courts do. They apply the law, as it is. 

With respect to "ripping off someone's original work as expression," I could provide you with with a number of legal treatises that discuss that concept. Moreover, there is a whole school of thought that others' ideas should be freely built upon. This has been discussed in many cases involving samples, etc. Here's one scholar's point of view https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MF72LiMQ3AE

All of that said, I would love to know how you define "original." Any musicologist can easily trace the history of western composition connecting the dots from composer to composer and point out the influences that they had on each other, including similar passages in their various works. I'm sure that same would apply to you and KenK. No one creates in a vacuum. 

With respect to originality, the last time I heard what one academic thought of as "original" it was dreadful, unlistenable, even laughable...AND it wasn't original! It was really bad Philip Glass. That was, of course, his freedom of expression. But, he was clearly taking to himself.
So, what do you think is "original" but will at the same time be accepted by a mass audience? If you're not concerned with the audience, then you're not concerned with the business. You can compose all the concerti you want, or go out onto a bridge and blow a saxophone into the night. But, if you want to connect with an audience you have to care about what matters to them, and at this time in our culture familiarity is what audiences seem to prefer.

In sum, I'm not talking about the creative process, because for this argument, it's not relevant. I am talking about application of the law, and the basic premise that the judicial system's purpose is to apply the law, not to fix what may, or may not, be broken with a business model that no one, including you, is forced to be a part of. You can walk away and you will have all of the creative freedom that you desire. You just might not get anyone to pay for it.


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 14, 2015)

passenger57 @ Sat Mar 14 said:


> > And your comment about limiting freedom of expression. Wow, I don't even know how to address this one. It takes some real twisted self-justification to categorize the process of ripping off someone else's original work as expression.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yes...it is looking down from a pedestal that is most troublesome.


----------



## givemenoughrope (Mar 14, 2015)

If the top dogs aren't above doing a 'sound alike' or even a 'style alike' then why should I be? The only time i've regretted it is when it was the only cue I had in the project and/or it's just too close. if it's just bc they couldn't afford (insert rock star's song) and I do it to get it out of the way so i can get on with the rest of the project then fine i guess. I've had to replace expensive and unattainable tracks by The Cars, Gary Glitter, Glenn Miller, Preservation Hall, Graham Central Station, John Carpenter, Fabio Frizzi, soon Harry Nilsson (no idea how to do that one yet), Cliff martinez and Hans Zimmer. 

but never Led Zeppelin:

https://youtu.be/ki9tfdO6jHQ?list=PLO2UXb7xuD762DICkOoPUkpp53EBZ6m4F (https://youtu.be/ki9tfdO6jHQ?list=PLO2U ... p53EBZ6m4F)

Somehow escaped Arvo Part:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3807jTvZhc


----------



## Astronaut FX (Mar 14, 2015)

RiffWraith @ Sat Mar 14 said:


> Can you justify "if the client doesn't get what they want they fire you and hire someone else"? Because that's what happens.
> .



I feel like June Cleaver saying this, but if all your friends jump off a bridge, are you going to follow?



To MichaelL -- 

No, I'm not a working musician/composer. And I choose to use the term "working" rather than "professional" because many of the elitist on this forum (not necessarily you) tend to associate the difference between a "professional" and a non-"professional" as a distinction of skill, and I believe that is not always the case.

I made a personal decision many years ago not to earn my living as a musician, because it was crystal clear to me, that with the exception of a very small percentage, many gigs involve doing things that I knew I would be unwilling to do. So that was my personal choice. Doesn't make me any better or any worse than anyone else...that was just my choice.

But that doesn't mean my head is in the clouds. Quite the reverse actually. As a non-working musician, I can look at the current model quite objectively, and see that clients have dragged many composers down a very bad path. Many composers have avoided that path and found other ways to leverage their musical abilities to earn a paycheck. Others have gone down that path and found myriad ways to justify it.

With regard to originality, you are very correct. This is difficult to define. Perhaps I could not personally define it any better than Justice Potter Stewart could describe pornography.

But I would suggest that intent has a great deal to do with it. Being influenced by another artist is quite common. If not, few would be motivated to become musicians in the first place. And again, I'll state that I think the BL/Gaye similarity may be a stretch to have been awarded damages. And I'm not suggesting that borrowing elements of a style should be considered plagiarism. If that were the case then Coldplay would owe U2 a hell of a lot more than they may have owed Satriani.


But there is a tremendous gulf between incorporating the styles of one or more other musicians in your original pieces, and sitting down to _intentionally_ tweak an existing piece to just left of an exact copy, which is exactly what a good portion of composing for hire has sadly become. 

I'd like to see it move from that model if for no other reason than the simple fact that I would have to believe that it would be more fulfilling for composers, and would pose less risk to composers, not because I'm speaking from some high horse.


----------



## RiffWraith (Mar 14, 2015)

Tone Deaf @ Sun Mar 15 said:


> RiffWraith @ Sat Mar 14 said:
> 
> 
> > Can you justify "if the client doesn't get what they want they fire you and hire someone else"? Because that's what happens.
> ...



Not sure how you equate getting fired form a gig to jumping off a bridge... :?


----------



## Astronaut FX (Mar 14, 2015)

RiffWraith @ Sat Mar 14 said:


> Tone Deaf @ Sun Mar 15 said:
> 
> 
> > RiffWraith @ Sat Mar 14 said:
> ...



The justification that if composer "A" doesn't do it, someone else will...essentially equates to a justification that "everyone else is doing it"...the June Cleaver-esque response about the bridge generally follows that kind of justification. 


Borrowed from and credited to Uncyclopedia (I do not claim this as my own, and was in no way compensated for its usage here....)  

If All Your Friends Jumped Off A Bridge

BridgeJump

All your friends jumping off a bridge.

"If all your friends jumped off a bridge then would you too?" is a Zen koan posed by parents to children whenever a child cites popular opinion as the reason for their disapproved-of actions. So far no one has ever given a response to this philosophical quandary that has been deemed correct by their parent/Zen Master, but many have tried.


----------



## JohnG (Mar 14, 2015)

not to butt in -- so ignore if you like of course!

I think Michael is trying to describe how things are, not how they ought to be. There is no normative content in his post, as far as I can tell.


----------



## passenger57 (Mar 14, 2015)

> Yes...it is looking down from a pedestal that is most troublesome.



I'm going to be out of this discussion after this post. I just get too worked up, upset and it's not worth it for me health wise. 

A bit off topic, but I'd like to express some of my personal philosophy when working in this industry to show we are not all greedy, evil people. And I have nothing to gain from this personally so take it for what its worth or not at all.

When I hire a composer for additional music he or she gets 100% of the writer and 100% of the publisher (if the studio gives me the same deal) on the cuesheet. Even if they use my own themes or are rearranging my music. 

When I hire a musician to play on a non union score I give them a percentage cuesheet credit for the cue they play on so they will make backend.

I give the composer exactly the same up front $ that I get per min of music. 

Everyone working for me gets credit in the movie. 

All my working friends out here are exceptionally talented musicians, composers living our life and doing the best we can. Most of them have families and I do whatever I can to help them out. With all avenues of income greatly shrinking in the music industry, we really have to stick together and help each other out. If we don't no one else will.

I believe we should all treat each other with integrity and respect. Seeing fellow musicians turn on each other makes me feel sick and uninspired. I think forums are sometimes similar to road rage in that they give people leverage to attack others in the comfort of their own environment free from any repercussions.

Anyway... just some final thoughts. 

Thanks


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 14, 2015)

JohnG @ Sat Mar 14 said:


> not to butt in -- so ignore if you like of course!
> 
> I think Michael is trying to describe how things are, not how they ought to be. There is no normative content in his post, as far as I can tell.




Exactly, John. Things are the way they are for a lot of reasons, some societal, which are beyond everyone's control.

The point is that the judicial system is not the way to go about changing the industry. It's especially not relevant there, because the creative choices that Mr Williams and Mr. Thicke made had nothing to do with a film score, a temp track or any work for hire situation in which they were asked to sound like someone else.

They made choices, like almost every other musician, based upon what has inspired them in the past. To turn that into a condemnation of an entire industry is to run far afield of the case itself. 

As the LA Times points out, this really is a spat about money, not artistic integrity. It should have been settled out of court.


----------



## Astronaut FX (Mar 14, 2015)

JohnG @ Sat Mar 14 said:


> not to butt in -- so ignore if you like of course!
> 
> I think Michael is trying to describe how things are, not how they ought to be. There is no normative content in his post, as far as I can tell.



I do understand that. I think if we could make it happen, we'd probably both like to see the same thing. A model that gives the composer back some level of creativity and originality.


Let me be very. very clear. I don't believe those in the industry to be bad, evil, greedy people. Not at all. I don't know any of you personally, nor do I know who does and who does not with regularity flirt with the line beyond plagiarism. I don't care. 

But I hear enough music in movies, TV, commercials, etc to know that it happens with regularity.

The music for media business has, over time, morphed into something that has left little room for creativity, imagination, originality, or individuality. The blame for this lies squarely with those cutting the paychecks.

But make no mistake, a continuance to accept those paychecks perpetuates that model, and is in and of itself, a personal choice. There are other choices, including, God forbid, taking a job outside of the music industry. That's the only part of this that bothers me. The insistence that there are no other choices. There _are _choices. 


To take another perspective, I heard somewhere recently that roughly only 18,000 men have played professional baseball in Major League Baseball since its inception. That's 18,000 men in nearly 150 years. Yet I'll suspect that there have been a hell of a lot more who dreamed of doing so, and maybe even had the skills to do so. That means that there have been some mighty fine ball players/athletes who have had to become accountants, mechanics, lawyers, cooks, doctors, underwriters, etc. because there weren't enough MLB paychecks to go around.

The music business doesn't self-regulate like that. Which means there are too many in the business competing for too few paychecks.


----------



## pixel (Mar 16, 2015)

As Blurred Lines doesn't sound 100% like a clone to me, then Happy is. It's not one case, it's two so I'm start thinking that Pharrell is going easy way copying other songs. I'll not surprised if all his work is just a copy. Shame.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 16, 2015)

pixel @ Mon Mar 16 said:


> As Blurred Lines doesn't sound 100% like a clone to me, then Happy is. It's not one case, it's two so I'm start thinking that Pharrell is going easy way copying other songs. I'll not surprised if all his work is just a copy. Shame.



Strongly disagree. Happy is even more of a spurious case. Don't be fooled by internet mashups that deliberately try to make them sound the same. Here's Gaye's original:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaPl_mmmHnY

No case to answer imo.


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Mar 16, 2015)

There are two things that worry about this whole thing:

1. There are music outlets that use "sound alike" tags where they list what artists they sound like.

2. Reviews of work in media (such as video games) often refer to composers as sounding like someone.

Where exactly does this get us? This is more of a trademark, as if you were able to trademark styles, and not so much copyright.

That's what bothers me.


Also I tend to go back to the Zimmer case again. 4 note similarity really. But there was an extra nail in the coffin, temp tracks.

I personally don't feel they used a temp track. It's not hard to replicate that feel when you have two defining instruments in the mix (rhodes and cowbell). I don't see how that would require the original track.

Seriously, how many of you thought of an idea in your head that you know may have come from someone else in film?

Also, "Trouble Man" always reminded me of Miles Davis' "So What?" even though it wasn't remotely the same song.

That's legal evidence?


----------



## JFB (Mar 17, 2015)

Hey folks. Long-time lurker, infrequent poster here, but thought I'd throw this out.

For the past 14 years I've been composing "sound-alikes" (or as we call them, "vibe-alikes", or "in-the-genre-of" cues) for shows that air up to twice a day on a major network all over the world. I don't pretend to speak for anyone other than myself, but FWIW, the outcome of this trial (or its appeal) will have no effect on what I do everyday. I think it's because we've always had this sort-of implicit boundary, which is get as close as you can, but not in a way that will cause other people to explicitly think about the "Famous Artist/Composer" being referenced. Not out of an integrity concern, but legal exposure. This process is also half-jokingly phrased "make it exactly the same, but totally different". But every September when the new seasons start we go through this ritual that lasts around 3-4 weeks where the producers get all tweaky about production values, cues sounding "fresh, new, different sounds, etc." It seems to be a necessary pretense so I go along to get along. Meanwhile, I just follow what I consider to be nearly a law of physics: "People don't know what they want, they want what they know." So I pretend to the ritual and act on the physics. So far, everyone's happy.

Remember this thread? http://vi-control.net/xenforotest/index.php?threads/those-zimmer-spicc-patterns.19280/page-11 (http://vi-control.net/xenforotest/index ... 80/page-11) 

Entirely different context, of course, but quite a bit of overlap on the principle of the thing. Fun starts on page 11.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 17, 2015)

JFB @ Tue Mar 17 said:


> Hey folks. Long-time lurker, infrequent poster here, but thought I'd throw this out.
> 
> For the past 14 years I've been composing "sound-alikes" (or as we call them, "vibe-alikes", or "in-the-genre-of" cues) for shows that air up to twice a day on a major network all over the world. I don't pretend to speak for anyone other than myself, but FWIW, the outcome of this trial (or its appeal) will have no effect on what I do everyday. I think it's because we've always had this sort-of implicit boundary, which is get as close as you can, but not in a way that will cause other people to explicitly think about the "Famous Artist/Composer" being referenced. Not out of an integrity concern, but legal exposure. This process is also half-jokingly phrased "make it exactly the same, but totally different". But every September when the new seasons start we go through this ritual that lasts around 3-4 weeks where the producers get all tweaky about production values, cues sounding "fresh, new, different sounds, etc." It seems to be a necessary pretense so I go along to get along. Meanwhile, I just follow what I consider to be nearly a law of physics: "People don't know what they want, they want what they know." So I pretend to the ritual and act on the physics. So far, everyone's happy.
> 
> ...



Blimey! As it look at it right now, that link is VI Control 2.0! Looks very sexy.

Anyway, interesting post, I'd like to hear more of it. Specifically - my feeling is that although everyone says "this case is not a precedent and cannot be used as one", we'll see a lot more legal challenges simply because someone got away with it. I think those challenges will really only come when there is significant money involved - its hardly worth suing for a few hundred bucks of royalties, unless the case it absolutely cast iron.

So let's say one of your exactly-the-same-but-totally-different (I really get this, btw) themes has made it to a hit series which is syndicated round the world and goes on for years. I'm intrigued to know why you are so confident that the lawyers will stay away - the point of the Blurred Lines case is that every musical element can be different and yet if there was arguable intent and if all the elements when taken together meant it was stylistically similar, then the courts may rule against you.


----------



## pixel (Mar 17, 2015)

Guy Rowland @ Mon Mar 16 said:


> pixel @ Mon Mar 16 said:
> 
> 
> > As Blurred Lines doesn't sound 100% like a clone to me, then Happy is. It's not one case, it's two so I'm start thinking that Pharrell is going easy way copying other songs. I'll not surprised if all his work is just a copy. Shame.
> ...



Haha that's funny. We studied this case in my Music Business class yesterday and everybody get fooled


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 17, 2015)

pixel @ Tue Mar 17 said:


> Haha that's funny. We studied this case in my Music Business class yesterday and everybody get fooled



That IS interesting! You mean you folks heard this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFER9-JvKdg - and figured it was the original Gaye vocal at the start? The power of the mashup...


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Mar 17, 2015)

Well...damn.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/17/looking-for-other-similarities-robin-thickes-million-dolla-baby-sounds-exactly-like-marvin-gayes-trouble-man/?wprss=rss_entertainment (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn ... ertainment)

There is a tidbit in there about Usher wanting to sue someone for sounding like one of his songs.

The similarities involve a guitar and a TR808.

Also something about After the Dance and Love after War, which is also BS (chords really..that's it)

I hope the courts see what is about the happen.


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 17, 2015)

This is the musicologist's analysis for 'Blurred Lines' and 'Give It Up' that the Gaye family used in court. It might be interesting for some here to read the details:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/custom/Documents/ESQ/musicologyblurred.pdf (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/ ... lurred.pdf)


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 17, 2015)

Nathan Allen Pinard @ Tue Mar 17 said:


> Well...damn.
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/17/looking-for-other-similarities-robin-thickes-million-dolla-baby-sounds-exactly-like-marvin-gayes-trouble-man/?wprss=rss_entertainment (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn ... ertainment)
> 
> ...



I'm not even sure Usher's is a TR808.

Depressingly predictable.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 17, 2015)

Hannes_F @ Tue Mar 17 said:


> This is the musicologist's analysis for 'Blurred Lines' and 'Give It Up' that the Gaye family used in court. It might be interesting for some here to read the details:
> 
> http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/custom/Documents/ESQ/musicologyblurred.pdf (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/ ... lurred.pdf)



I made it as far as example 2, which seemed ludicrous.


----------



## JFB (Mar 17, 2015)

> Anyway, interesting post, I'd like to hear more of it. Specifically - my feeling is that although everyone says "this case is not a precedent and cannot be used as one", we'll see a lot more legal challenges simply because someone got away with it. I think those challenges will really only come when there is significant money involved - its hardly worth suing for a few hundred bucks of royalties, unless the case it absolutely cast iron.
> 
> So let's say one of your exactly-the-same-but-totally-different (I really get this, btw) themes has made it to a hit series which is syndicated round the world and goes on for years. I'm intrigued to know why you are so confident that the lawyers will stay away - the point of the Blurred Lines case is that every musical element can be different and yet if there was arguable intent and if all the elements when taken together meant it was stylistically similar, then the courts may rule against you.



I don't think we're quite at precedent setting, but we're very much in the "sturm und drang" phase that accompanies any event that creates massive uncertainty. It's going to be some time before the dust settles and we learn what the new boundaries will be, even if they prove all-but-impossible to explicitly draw and put into law. I'm sure we'll see more cases like this and people will see how far it can be pushed, but any litigant/lawyer who thinks "whoo-hoo, cha-ching easy payday" whether by a nuisance settlement or court trial is deluding themselves. And I agree, I doubt legal action will happen unless there's enough to collect that far exceeds the cost of going after it.

The reason I'm confident is firstly, only 15-20 seconds of a cue is played at any given time and under narration which means it's mixed way freaking low. And most of the time the editors use the cut-down mixes for the underscore. (Doesn't matter to me - I get paid the same air-time money either way). I think your assessment of the point of the Blurred lines case is correct - which is why I've always been careful about whether my knock-off creates an implicit association with the original work. There's a huge difference between writing a comedy cue with musical devices ala Pee Wee's Big Adventure and a cue that makes the wrong person say "When did Danny Elfman start writing for this show?" I just intuitively know where that line is so I'm not worried about getting sued. It hasn't happened yet, but if the client were to try to nudge me across that line I would say something like "Hmm, yeah. This is a hard one...I just can't seem to get it. As much as I hate to say this, I think you might have to get somebody else." 

The fact that we're in the age of Youtube where anyone can put up comparisons of tracks and within days have the attention of thousands or millions upon which this comparison _becomes a Thing_ - that could have more influence than we realize. We're also in the age of the "social media star". My house is across the street from a park by Universal Studios. Every couple of months there's a mob of girls getting autographs from an event featuring a "social media star". I recently got an email from Skyhigh Sports (a trampoline place my kid loves) and it says come meet Social Media Star "whateverhisnamewas". This guy was on the freakin' road - _on tour._ Really? A Social Media Star? Sounds like I digress, but I think it's all interconnected.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 17, 2015)

Thanks JFB, great post - lurk less!


----------



## JFB (Mar 17, 2015)

Guy Rowland @ Tue Mar 17 said:


> Thanks JFB, great post - lurk less!



Thanks, Guy. I'll try!


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 18, 2015)

A good read.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/20 ... type=blogs


----------



## Mike Connelly (Mar 18, 2015)

Guy Rowland @ Tue Mar 17 said:


> if there was arguable intent



In this case they admitted in public to intent, and I think that was probably a bigger factor in this case than the music itself.



Nathan Allen Pinard @ Mon Mar 16 said:


> 1. There are music outlets that use "sound alike" tags where they list what artists they sound like.
> 
> 2. Reviews of work in media (such as video games) often refer to composers as sounding like someone.



If an artist or someone representing them promotes similarities to other artists, that seems risky since it could imply intent. Not to mention that it seems like kind of a cheap thing to do. If an artist found out that music libraries were claiming that things sounded like their material, I can see them being upset about it. And even if there was no real copyright violation, I could see legal action to stop using their name in the selling of someone else's product.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 18, 2015)

Mike Connelly @ Wed Mar 18 said:


> If an artist or someone representing them promotes similarities to other artists, that seems risky since it could imply intent. Not to mention that it seems like kind of a cheap thing to do. If an artist found out that music libraries were claiming that things sounded like their material, I can see them being upset about it. And even if there was no real copyright violation, I could see legal action to stop using their name in the selling of someone else's product.


The reputable (arguably) library companies are trying to avoid this by calling them style-alikes and by not mentioning any names. Of course the risk there is that someone looking for a sound-alike won't find it, but I would imagine that the meta tagging that is invisible to the user would probably take care of that.

D


----------



## pixel (Mar 18, 2015)

Guy Rowland @ Tue Mar 17 said:


> pixel @ Tue Mar 17 said:
> 
> 
> > Haha that's funny. We studied this case in my Music Business class yesterday and everybody get fooled
> ...



Yeah but it wasnt main topic, just quick shot. If we back to this case then I'll show em your link


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Mar 18, 2015)

Page 4 and 5 of that court document makes me cringe in a hardcore way.


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Mar 18, 2015)

Look at page 8 of this document that was linked before: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/custom/Documents/ESQ/musicologyblurred.pdf (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/ ... lurred.pdf)

They literally say the BGVs are similar, because they say the same scale degrees. Are you serious?

SO basically screw you for doing voicing properly.

EDIT: So later on in that document, they start analyzing that both songs use half steps up.



I don't want to live on this planet anymore.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 18, 2015)

I thought the off-beat notes with other notes stacked on top was the clincher. :roll: 

D


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 18, 2015)

Nathan Allen Pinard @ Wed Mar 18 said:


> Page 4 and 5 of that court document makes me cringe in a hardcore way.



Well done for making it that far.

Who are these "musicologists"? Is it going to be a more lucrative career than being a lawyer to just produce 15 pages of totally unconvincing nonsense that will bamboozle a jury of norms? I'm about a thousand miles from being an expert in deconstructing sheet music, but it was clear as day to me that his examples made no sense whatsoever (comparing two sets of four notes where there is a semitone rise involved and saying they're similar. Good grief.)


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 18, 2015)

I've hired experts and read many expert reports during my practice.

Experts get paid (a lot) to sound convincing. I've read the report and I'm unconvinced.

When you reach for abstract terms, like a "constellation" of similarities, it's a red flag, at least to me. What you are saying is "we don't have a smoking gun, nothing here on its own is substantially similar, but if you add them all together it is the same....really, really."

The subject matter is so subjective that reasonable arguments can likely be made for either side at any time. Clearly the Gaye family got what it paid for.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 18, 2015)

Guy Rowland @ Wed Mar 18 said:


> Nathan Allen Pinard @ Wed Mar 18 said:
> 
> 
> > Page 4 and 5 of that court document makes me cringe in a hardcore way.
> ...


The problem is that some of the melodic similarities seem to be there, at first glance, but to agree with them one would have to agree that Gaye invented the pentatonic scale. Once you realise that this can't be copyrighted, pretty much all of the arguments about melody go out of the window.

D


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 18, 2015)

MichaelL @ Wed Mar 18 said:


> I've hired experts and read many expert reports during my practice.
> 
> Experts get paid (a lot) to sound convincing. I've read the report and I'm unconvinced.
> 
> ...



Yeah... see, it invites the ridiculous notion of the defence calling their own musicologist to counter the prosecution. Like a sketch show of a courtroom drama. Sheesh.

Aren't these experts supposed to be impartial? This has all the hallmarks of being written to a brief.


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 18, 2015)

Guy Rowland @ Wed Mar 18 said:


> MichaelL @ Wed Mar 18 said:
> 
> 
> > I've hired experts and read many expert reports during my practice.
> ...




Yes, Guy, experts are supposed to be impartial. But, in my experience they are very much aware of who is paying the bill. 

Moreover, it is common practice to seek the opinion of several experts. You ask for a verbal opinion from each, but nothing on paper. Then you pay for a written report from the one whose opinion supports your case the most. 

You don't get written reports from those who disagree, because that would be discoverable by the opposing party.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 18, 2015)

This is my version of the report:


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 18, 2015)

Daryl @ Wed Mar 18 said:


> This is my version of the report:




Daryl...when do you find time to write? :D


----------



## Daryl (Mar 18, 2015)

MichaelL @ Wed Mar 18 said:


> Daryl @ Wed Mar 18 said:
> 
> 
> > This is my version of the report:
> ...


This morning, for 45 minuted whilst I was waiting for a session to begin. :wink: 

To be fair, I have written 142 tracks within the last 12 months, so I'm due for a little down time.

D


----------



## MikeH (Mar 18, 2015)

Oh good lord. 

http://time.com/3748912/blurred-lines-case-injunction/

_The family is also seeking an injunction to halt sales of the song “Blurred Lines,” arguing that its continued sales (and Thicke’s and Williams’ profits) cause the family irreparable damage. That would just be temporary, however, until the parties involved could negotiate an agreement that would credit Marvin Gaye as a songwriter and give his family a share of the proceeds._


And now they want to get the verdict 'corrected'

http://m.hollywoodreporter.com/entry/view/id/930870

I can't wait to see this thing appealed or thrown out or whatever. o[])


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Mar 18, 2015)

MikeH @ Wed Mar 18 said:


> _The family is also seeking an injunction to halt sales of the song “Blurred Lines,” arguing that its continued sales (and Thicke’s and Williams’ profits) *cause the family irreparable damage.* _



Pretty sure it's Marvin that did that.


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 18, 2015)

Universal owns Motown.

Motown owns the Marvin Gaye recordings. 

Universal distributes "Blurred Lines.'

What are they going to do sue themselves?


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Mar 18, 2015)

MichaelL @ Wed Mar 18 said:


> Universal owns Motown.
> 
> Motown owns the Marvin Gaye recordings.
> 
> ...



The court case was over the sheet music, not the recording. Which baffles me even more. Usually in a lead sheet...there isn't the entire rhythm section notated.


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Mar 18, 2015)

From that article:

"Meanwhile, the Gaye family attorneys have asked the court to make the rapper T.I. and the record label liable in the case, after the original verdict concluded that only Thicke, Williams and Williams’ publishing company violated copyright."

I don't get how T.I. is remotely responsible unless he actually had songwriter credits.


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 18, 2015)

Nathan Allen Pinard @ Wed Mar 18 said:


> MichaelL @ Wed Mar 18 said:
> 
> 
> > Universal owns Motown.
> ...




Read the second link. But I think you answered your own question. The Gaye family wants to stop sales of the recording (which the trial wasn't about). The article also suggests the Williams and Thicke's distributor (Universal) would be infringing. 

The whole situation is bizarre and should not be upheld on appeal.


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 18, 2015)

I guess the jury was convinced by the musicologist's report ... which is nicely worked out to impress laymen. If Thicke tried to counter that by playing some examples on the keyboard then he was badly advised imo because he assumed musical expertise where probably was none.

I particularly love these:
_a. Both repeat their starting tone several times _
*(but you forgot to mention that on Give It Up there are four repetitions while Blurred Lines has two and then comes a change note)*
_b. Both contain the identical scale degree sequence of 5-6-1 followed by 1-5_
*(but you forgot to mention that there are different parts between them, the rhythm is different and there are millions of songs that have those sequences because they are a natural choice)*

Analyzed in that way almost anything could be constructed from almost anything.

Another gem:
_a. Cowbell part: both songs contain syncopated rhythms played by cowbell. Although their cowbell parts are not identical, this feature performs the same function in both songs. adding a very specific color and identity to the rhythm section.
b. Open hi-hat playing on the second half of beat 4 occurs in both songs._

Priceless ...

Somebody should compose a song that sounds totally different but matches all the criteria of this report.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 18, 2015)

Hannes_F @ Wed Mar 18 said:


> I guess the jury was convinced by the musicologist's report ... which is nicely worked out to impress laymen.


I think my example proved how stupid that is.



Hannes_F @ Wed Mar 18 said:


> If Thicke tried to counter that by playing some examples on the keyboard then he was badly advised imo because he assumed musical expertise where probably was none.



As far as playing examples, I managed to avoid going to court over an arrangement I did, simply by telling the other side that I was going to turn up with a keyboard and show the court exactly how I did the arrangement. The other side couldn't play a note between them, or read music, so it would have been amusing. Unfortunately they caved, and slunk off into the night without a whimper. :lol: 

D


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 18, 2015)

@ Daryl yes your example was to the point. However in your court case you were probably lucky that your opponent did not think of hiring a musicologist of the calibre above (who did a good job for what she was hired for).


----------



## Daryl (Mar 18, 2015)

Hannes_F @ Wed Mar 18 said:


> @ Daryl yes your example was to the point. However in your court case you were probably lucky that your opponent did not think of hiring a musicologist of the calibre above (who did a good job for what she was hired for).


Nah, there was nothing they could have done. I had all the materials proving that I did the arrangement, and the opposition had nothing, other than their claim.

D


----------



## germancomponist (Mar 18, 2015)

Daryl @ Wed Mar 18 said:


> I think my example proved how stupid that is.
> D


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 18, 2015)

I just found this article of the Gaye lawyer: How I Won the Blurred Lines Trial:

http://www2.jfmusicservices.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Marvin-Gaye-Family-Lawyer_-How-I-Won-the-Blurred-Lines-Trial-Guest-Column.pdf (http://www2.jfmusicservices.com/wp-cont ... Column.pdf)

"... the judge's ruling to not allow the full Gaye recording to be played to the jury.... But we were able to overcome the disadvantage by preparing excerpts from the recording of what the court found to be arguably protected and have it compared to excerpts from 'Blurred Lines'"

"... the other side's biggest mistake ... They focused heavily on allegedly specifid note-for-note differences between the lead sheets and the recording, arguing that because there supposedly wasn't identicality, there wasn't protection ... Plus, I don't think it's a good idea to tell the jury, "Yes, we may have copied, but don't find us liable because there's not a perfect match."

"The key to victory for us was the music. We had two great musicologists ... who broke down the songs and showed that there was copying, not just of feeling ..."


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 19, 2015)

Hannes_F @ Wed Mar 18 said:


> Somebody should compose a song that sounds totally different but matches all the criteria of this report.



Ya know I was thinking the same thing - or do a fake report on two totally different songs chosen at random. Daryl?  

So what is the deal here with an appeal? What are the defence waiting for?


----------



## Mike Connelly (Mar 19, 2015)

The craziest thing in that musicologist's report is comparing where the bass lines have not just notes but rests in the same place. Rests. So by that logic, two examples of music that are sparse and completely different are still going to have lots in common because they have rests in the same place. Insane.


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Mar 20, 2015)

http://news.yahoo.com/robin-thicke-atto ... 36511.html


----------



## lee (Mar 21, 2015)

Nathan Allen Pinard @ Sat Mar 21 said:


> http://news.yahoo.com/robin-thicke-attorneys-slam-gaye-family-unfair-tactics-014036511.html



Can't seem to find that article?


----------



## DMarr82 (Mar 21, 2015)

Article works here.

I wonder if this will be won on appeal. :?:


----------



## kenneth.smith (Mar 21, 2015)

AC986 @ Thu Mar 12 said:


> SimonCharlesHanna @ Thu Mar 12 said:
> 
> 
> > Wow. According to half of you, John Williams should be in prison.
> ...



I would say John Williams does copy notes.

Compare the Jaws theme to the opening of the 4th movement of Dvorak's New World Symphony:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9OBf8f55tU


----------



## MikeH (Mar 21, 2015)

Ah, the dreaded minor second.


----------



## pkm (Mar 21, 2015)

Hannes_F @ Wed Mar 18 said:


> I guess the jury was convinced by the musicologist's report ... which is nicely worked out to impress laymen. If Thicke tried to counter that by playing some examples on the keyboard then he was badly advised imo because he assumed musical expertise where probably was none.
> 
> I particularly love these:
> _a. Both repeat their starting tone several times _
> ...



My favorite:

_c. Both contain identical rhythms for the first six tones_

...straight eighth notes.


----------



## bwmusic (Mar 23, 2015)

Unless I'm mistaken, does this mean that if you make a song and then you say it was "inspired" by Hans Zimmer or whoever, you could potentially be sued incase the song ever becomes popular?


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Mar 23, 2015)

Yes it does, because a few composers (including zimmer) were sued in that light. It's worse for composers if directors give temp tracks. Keep that secret.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 23, 2015)

I have to ask:

Is there composer here who's been around a while who has never been hired to do a soundalike?

Because I've done several....in fact I just ran across an old sequence I thought was really good, worth developing into a piece...only to figure out what it was. And no way will I post who wrote the original, although I will say it was for an awards show a few years ago.

(Never mind that I like mine better than the original.  )


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Mar 24, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Mar 23 said:


> I have to ask:
> 
> Is there composer here who's been around a while who has never been hired to do a soundalike?
> 
> ...



Whenever I try to sound like something else I completely do something different. I don't have that gift...if you want to call it that.

I'm ok with temp tracks, for the feeling needed, the time, the spotting, the instruments they might want. But it never sounds close. And they've never really been irritated by me not matching (but I'm not in LA)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 24, 2015)

If you're hired to do a soundalike and it sounds completely different, well, you're not doing your job. I wouldn't call it a gift, I'd call it a skill.

And there's still room for creativity. As I said, I like my soundalike better than the original in this case. But usually it's easier to paraphrase than to wait for the clouds to part so you get inspiration. 

(Other times it's going to be a miserable experience, because you'll never get close to the original and whatever you do is going to be watered down.)

Anyway, of course I'd rather get hired to be myself, but work is always a privilege even if it's not perfect. And I'm not saying I'm a soundalike *nnghuy*, just that it's all in a lifetime.


----------



## pkm (Mar 24, 2015)

I once did a movie where the entire temp track was Beatles songs. I had about 6 weeks to score the film and I couldn't have beaten a single one of those songs in a lifetime.

Luckily they were receptive to going in a slightly different direction with the score and were able to license four of the Beatles songs for the film, which was remarkable!


----------



## cc64 (Mar 25, 2015)

Hey Paul,

that must have been a really tough one! Now that we know that some jury can blame you for sounding like the Beatles...So i guess an E major chord on the Mellotron Flute sample is illegal now ; )

BTW i remember seeing the trailer for Good ol' Freda and looking forward to watching the movie but i'm not sure it played here in Canada.

Let us know if you hear about an airing on PBS or The Movie Network etc...

Best,

Claude


----------



## pkm (Mar 25, 2015)

cc64 @ Wed Mar 25 said:


> Hey Paul,
> 
> that must have been a really tough one! Now that we know that some jury can blame you for sounding like the Beatles...So i guess an E major chord on the Mellotron Flute sample is illegal now ; )
> 
> ...



Thanks Claude! I know it's on Netflix in the US, but I don't know about Canada. I'll let you know if I hear something.


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Mar 25, 2015)

> If you're hired to do a soundalike and it sounds completely different, well, you're not doing your job.



I'm never hired based on that term though. Nobody has even used it with me. A temp track is something I suggest, and I tell them it's just to show what kind of feel they want, not exact. But these are indie film makers and game designers.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 25, 2015)

Lucky you. I've done everything from cutting temp tracks on a flatbed Moviola to industrial films (in the '80s) to TV promos to things like this. Whatever comes along.

This had nothing to do with a temp track or a film. A composer I've worked for a few times called up and said he needed a soundalike of whatever, 16 bars of the piece of music he sent me, and he needed it fast because...it's always like that.

I've also done other cues for the same guy, for example early '60s-style TV act-outs. That's not a soundalike, it's source music - which as I'm sure you know is the first thing that gets farmed out.

This stuff:

https://soundcloud.com/nickbatz/sets/1960-tv-act-outs


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 25, 2015)

Anyway, the point is that soundalikes are totally normal in every area of music except...whatever you call pop songs.

And I don't remember whether I posted this here or during another discussion, but in jazz it's always been normal to use tried-and-true material. How many tunes use rhythm changes + ding dinga ding dinga + walking bass.


----------



## Ah_dziz (Mar 25, 2015)

I've declined to do the work on numerous occasions when the producers I've been working with have tried to push me into dangerous areas. Only one time did they try to pressure me and I simply asked them for an amended contract as it pertained to that one song placing all liability for infringement on the production company. Right about then the EP stepped in and put a stop to it. There is nothing wrong with refusing to infringe copyright when you are the one liable if infringement is found. No employer is going to even attempt to fire you for refusing to break copyright. Regarding this case, I believe that Pharrell and Thicke having openly admitted intent and having brought legal action first is what lost this case for them.


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Mar 26, 2015)

Not to mention in jazz many solos contain riffs lifted by jazz greats.


----------



## Alatar (Apr 11, 2015)

Nathan Allen Pinard @ Fri Mar 27 said:


> Not to mention in jazz many solos contain riffs lifted by jazz greats.



Totally agree. 

Or take Blues for example.
Blues songs very often use a 12-bar structure with exactly the same chord progression.
On top of that, the base rhythm is very similar in many of them.

Does that mean, I can get sued for making a Blues song?


----------

