Pharell's Blurred Lines Deposition [LEAKED]...EDIT: More parts added #ImNotComfortable

[Lord Beasley]

Only musicians would get this joke!

Or ppl who paid attention in music class. Every good boy deserves fudge



(N/h)

 

[nieman]

Y'all delusional. There is no "breaking the rules" or "giving credit." The only rule has always been that there needs to be a clear differential between two songs in order to avoid litigation unless there's a sample involved. If there's a sample involved, then someone needs to get paid regardless. There was no sample involved. There's a clear differential between the two songs. The structure of Blurred Lines is CLEARLY different from the structure of the section that everyone feels Got Ta Give It Up was imitated.

No, this trial was won based entirely on FEEL....it FEELS bitten so you need to pay money.

Here is an article that breaks down the notes and structure of each song: Did Robin Thicke steal 'Blurred Lines' from Marvin Gaye?

Here's a list of popular songs that are more clearly infringement than Blurred Lines: 22 Songs That Sound More Similar Than Blurred Lines and Got To Give It Up - Digital Music News

I think the trial was won because they came out and basically said "we recreated Marvin's song, we made it a hit and didn't have to pay for it."

I can't recall a time where the artist actually named the artist and song they borrowed from. They usually deny, deny, deny.

 

[Turbulent]

OK, legally we can't technically prove it, except for the fact that you've repeatedly said you stole it, without giving proper credit. They spit on the works of Marvin, then danced all over it.

this is all that should matter in a court of law (in theory). They'll probably be successful in their appeal.

also, he technically never said he stole it. he said he was inspired by. even if he said he was trying to be marvin when he created it, unless he said he took the melody, or unless they could show which part of the melody was taken, my understanding of the law (and i could be wrong since i'm not a lawyer) is that you don't have to pay royalties for inspiration no matter how the groove feels like another song (unless it's the same melody).

Personally, i think the song was a rip off of the groove/vibe. i'm with you guys on that. it would have been less tacky to at least get their blessing before doing it. we all know what it was inspired by, there is no denying that. once it goes to court though, the question becomes "is it legal or not" based on the laws that exists and the wording of the law. because as much as i didn't like the fact they blatantly jacked the groove, made a hit and then sheepishly gave inspiration credit to Marvin to avoid backlash from critiques, the most important thing is to get the judgement right because it will create a precedent. right now the judge decided it a certain way. let's wait for the appeal.

imagine if an artist or corporation owned the rights to playing certain instruments in a particular rhythm because it's reminiscent of a certain hit song regardless of if it's the same melody or not. imagine a world where corporations can own types of grooves and you have to pay them dues to play certain styles of music because it makes you think of a hit song. this is a slippery slope.

 

[Turbulent]

I agree with you, but the smoking gun was that they came out and said it. That's why they took that L. No one even asked them.

MS creates a watch and comes out and says that they used the blueprint and specs from the Apple watch for that same feel.

vs

MS creates a watch and are asked about the similarites. "They are both watches that have an OS, but ours is works like this and does this."

even your example, i'm not sure that would be a case unless they used patents owned by apple. you can't own specs. they wouldn't have used the same blueprint.

it's like if when Playstation came out with Crash Team Racing they say "we were inspired by Mario Kart from Nintendo and we were trying to recreate that feel." if nintendo sues, i don't think they have a case no matter how clear it is that the game is HEAVILY inspired by mario kart.

 

[R-Typ3]

Got To Give It Up is so bare bones (just a snare, kick, bass and percussion) that u know it anywhere u hear it even as a sample/loop it screams M-A-R-V-I-N..You'd think Pharrel would know/respect this by now after Teddy Riley schooled him back when, but I guess money talks..btw Fantasia had to pay up for borrowing the guitar from "Your Precious Love" the same way
so what makes Skateboard P any different??

 

[nieman]

even your example, i'm not sure that would be a case unless they used patents owned by apple. you can't own specs. they wouldn't have used the same blueprint.

it's like if when Playstation came out with Crash Team Racing they say "we were inspired by Mario Kart from Nintendo and we were trying to recreate that feel." if nintendo sues, i don't think they have a case no matter how clear it is that the game is HEAVILY inspired by mario kart.

My point is that no one comes out and says exactly where they got the inspiration from, even it it is true. They never name drop. It creates situations like these that no one wants to deal with. People just do what they do and let the public speculate, and there are no reprecussions - at least not many successful. You have to be disrepectfully blatant to lose a copyright infrigement case if you let things take it's natural course. Deny, deny, deny. "I don't see the resemblance."

 

[Turbulent]

My point is that no one comes out and says exactly where they got the inspiration from, even it it is true. They never name drop. It creates situations like these that no one wants to deal with. People just do what they do and let the public speculate, and there are no reprecussions - at least not many successful. You have to be disrepectfully blatant to lose a copyright infrigement case if you let things take it's natural course. Deny, deny, deny. "I don't see the resemblance."

i agree with you. on this. this is how most people in business conduct themselves to avoid trouble.

my point is that eventhough he didn't do the wisest thing to avoid trouble, I (along with other posters who broke it down better than me) don't understand the legal argument of why the loss the case. morally i think most people agree he ripped off the song. and we also agree business wise they weren't wise as far as using the word "recreate" if they did use it. We're just trying to understand how the judge was able to give that decision. What rights did they infringe on exactly, which specific laws/rules were broken, etc. very interesting case either way.

 

[nieman]

i agree with you. on this. this is how most people in business conduct themselves to avoid trouble.

my point is that eventhough he didn't do the wisest thing to avoid trouble, I (along with other posters who broke it down better than me) don't understand the legal argument of why the loss the case. morally i think most people agree he ripped off the song. and we also agree business wise they weren't wise as far as using the word "recreate" if they did use it. We're just trying to understand how the judge was able to give that decision. What rights did they infringe on exactly, which specific laws/rules were broken, etc. very interesting case either way.

I think it's because admission supercedes evidence in the court of law. Without pointing to a particular thing on record, it's an open and shut case - they win, family loses. But them admitting on record where the inspiration came from, what song they tried to recreate (on record), the person that they had in mind (on record), how can a judge rule in favor of them? It doesn't matter what the evidence says, they are already using recordings, documents of them saying so. Without the specifics, it's a different case and ruling.

Like others have said, with the evidence, there is no case - they are too different on the technical level to not be copyright infringement. The looming cloud is the name drop. Well, if you were so inspired by "MARVIN GAYE GOT TO GIVE IT UP" that you recreated something along the lines for that same feel, pay up.

 

[CodeBlaMeVi]

I think it's because admission supercedes evidence in the court of law. Without pointing to a particular thing on record, it's an open and shut case - they win, family loses. But them admitting on record where the inspiration came from, what song they tried to recreate (on record), the person that they had in mind (on record), how can a judge rule in favor of them? It doesn't matter what the evidence says, they are already using recordings, documents of them saying so. Without the specifics, it's a different case and ruling.

Like others have said, with the evidence, there is no case - they are too different on the technical level to not be copyright infringement. The looming cloud is the name drop. Well, if you were so inspired by "MARVIN GAYE GOT TO GIVE IT UP" that you recreated something along the lines for that same feel, pay up.

There's no crime in what they did or said. What's the name of the law they broke?

 

[Biblical Goon]

just fukking admit you don't know music theory...any musician can see that from a mile away. Doesn't make him any less of a genius.

 

[Turbulent]

I think it's because admission supercedes evidence in the court of law. Without pointing to a particular thing on record, it's an open and shut case - they win, family loses. But them admitting on record where the inspiration came from, what song they tried to recreate (on record), the person that they had in mind (on record), how can a judge rule in favor of them? It doesn't matter what the evidence says, they are already using recordings, documents of them saying so. Without the specifics, it's a different case and ruling.

Like others have said, with the evidence, there is no case - they are too different on the technical level to not be copyright infringement. The looming cloud is the name drop. Well, if you were so inspired by "MARVIN GAYE GOT TO GIVE IT UP" that you recreated something along the lines for that same feel, pay up.

this still doesn't add up though. did they "admit" on record they were trying to recreate a song or that they were trying to recreate a vibe or feel? assuming it's the latter, that would mean he didn't really admit to any legal infringement (or whatever the legal word is). If that's solely what the judge based it on, he really opened himself up to be embarrassed...

would this then mean that if i made a movie and said in a magazine that i wanted to recreate the feel of Sin City and made a movie with a different script but with a similar cinematography (black and white, same type of setting, same type of narration, etc) but again, completely different script, the judge could say i copied without specific references to both movies? just based on my quotes? As lame as it would be copying the style of another movie so blatantly, i don't think the judge would just decide strictly off my quotes especially since i didn't admit to actually copying the story of the movie, and you can't own a vibe or a feel (at least everyone thought so until this judge made people doubt).

seems like we could go for a while about this though and i don't think either of us will end up convincing the other. again, very interesting case and i guess we'll just have to wait for the legal process to take its course (i always wanted to say that )

 

[YourMumsRoom]

Or ppl who paid attention in music class. Every good boy deserves fudge



(N/h)

Tbh I read the post before I watched the video, was less funny when he ACTUALLY said it , but its been a long time since I heard that.

 

[satam55]

Pharrell Williams gives zero f*cks and a lot of attitude towards a lawyer during his deposition over the copyright infringement trial for "Blurred Lines."

Robin Thicke's deposition.

 

[Kings County]

wheres the video ?

 

[Anti-Anime]