Blurred Lines Marvin Gaye Comparison Copyright Lawsuit
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 сен 2024
- Blurred Lines Marvin Gaye Comparison Copyright Lawsuit
FREE iPhone Video Training: www.phonevideoe...
www.mediabright... - www.bensimon.co.uk
In this video I will be discussing the copyright lawsuit that has involved Marvin Gaye's song Got to give it up and Robin Thick & Farrell's Blurred Lines and the similarity that has lead to the $7.4 million pay that they have been ordered pay in damages to the Gaye estate! I cover some of the parts in question and directly compare the baseline and cowbell parts.
I'm then joined by Tim Rushent an music producer, songwriter and the business man behind www.thefunkyjun...
Thanks to Joe Bennett for the sheet music assets and transcription - www.joebennett.net
Check out his great article on this same topic where he goes further into the musicology of the claims:
joebennett.net/...
I hope you found this video interesting. If you have any questions about this video or anything related please leave me a comment below. If you liked the video, please give me a LIKE on the video, SHARE it and remember to SUBSCRIBE for more videos like this. Thanks for watching!
Blurred Lines Marvin Gaye Comparison Copyright Lawsuit
• Blurred Lines Marvin G...
If you want to find out more information on the lawsuit, visit: www.theguardian...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wanna Make Videos on Your iPhone?
Click here to get my FREE iPhone Video Training: www.phonevideoe...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Click Below to SUBSCRIBE for More Videos:
www.youtube.com...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Media Brighton TV - Hosts: Ben Simon & Annelies Simon
Company Site: www.mediabright...
Website:www.bensimon.co.uk
Facebook: / bensimonvideoexpert
Twitter: / bensimonuk
Get the Free Report: www.phonevideoe...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet Marketing Strategies
• Internet Marketing Str...
This is a scary. Recording artists and producers have always said that they tried to evoke the feel of earlier recordings. What comes to mind is the beginning of We Got the Beat by the Go Gos. They even said the intro was inspired by Going to a Go Go by the Miracles. There was also the beginning of Rock n Roll by Led Zeppelin. That’s the one time that they actually freely admitted that they took the intro from an earlier recording, I Here You Knocking by Little Richard. They had no problem admitting that because a beat can’t be copyrighted. At least up till now. Apparently if you make a recording that has the same feel as something created earlier, you have violated the law.
Marvin Gaye family is suing Christopher Walken for using more cowbell
Nobodies safe!
pharrell and marvin gaye would have gotten away with it too if it wasnt for that meddling cowbell. that cowbell has a different rhythm to got to give it up. such a shame!
The Gayes winning the case has set a terrible precedent. You can get sued for also having a piano in a song that had a piano
It was a ridiculous legal decision to have lost because of the "groove" and "vibe" of the song. When it comes down to notes and chords, the songs are completely different. Every blues shuffle song ever written has the same groove. How many blues songs have the same groove, vibe and even identical chord changes but yet are not considered infringement on each other or even on the original blues song ever written (if that can indeed be traced). In Jazz this happens all the time. Take The A Train by Billy Strayhorn has the same chords progression in its A section as The Girl From Ipanema by Antonio Carlos Jobim. There has to be a hard set of principles by which song writers can operate under. Either groove and vibe can be infringed on or there can't. Allowing infringement on one case but not in others is not sustainable.
Good catch and explanation
Beat is the killer... very very close
Our brains are evolutionarily hardwired to seek out patterns. We have to be very careful as our brains pull the similarities to the forefront, and disregard the differences. I don’t think they are similar enough.
they needed YOU on the case.
I find the court document to be laughable when comparing the melodies, essentially making it look like they are copying Gaye's work by using the same "scale degrees", as if Gaye copyrighted the pentatonic scale. By the cases logic itself, Miles Davis (So What) should be able to sue Gaye (Trouble Man) for two notes that ALWAYS makes me think of that iconic Blue Note recording with Davis, Parker, and Coltrane.
Yes good point. The flood gates are open for numerous lawsuits. How do you think it's going to effect things in the future?
MediaBrighton Copyright law will be reformed. There is no way this can be a real case, otherwise every single dance track artist could do every other single dance track artist. Or 12 bar blues. Or some film scores. Zimmer could do a TON of composers if he wanted to. However, I'm hoping they appeal. I don't' want them to settle. I want them continue with this case can get it stomped to the ground. Stevie Wonder said himself that inspiration isn't a reason for a lawsuit.
Nathan Allen Pinard Agreed
Nathan Allen Pinard -they say wooo in the song just like marvin....
+Nathan Allen Pinard. Unfortunately it was appealed, and they lost again. I'm hoping that you're correct in saying that "copyright law will be reformed." There is a darker scenario though. It's possible that big record labels could do some kind of deal among themselves so that they don't sue each other over the songs they own the rights to. But smaller, independent, artists won't be protected by that deal. In other words, big record labels could leverage existing copyright law to exert their control over the entire music industry. For example, they could pressure a talented young artist to sign up (and sign over their copyrights) with one of the big labels...or face substantial legal risk because one of their songs (coincidentally) sounds sort of similar to a song in their vast catalog.
The decision was upheld... absolutely bananas!
Good video btw.
BTW @ 1:48 when you showed the Gaye Sheet music and the BL sheet music... I just gotta say.... I'm not comfortable. (LMAO sorry i had to do it)
😁😁😁😁😅
Would have helped to have actually heard the sounds in question.
Arcachata didn’t want to infringe copyright!
How do you copyright a cowbell
Musical style, groove or harmonic sequence, cannot be considered plagiarism, due to the amount of existing musical notes and possible combinations, only the melody is owned by someone, and in this case, the melody has nothing to do, only the musical style and the groove are the same, which does not make it owned by anyone. One of these days a layman will appear saying that 90% of the music of Blues, R&B, Reagge, Kizomba etc. They are plagiarism of one another, when it is not true!
But unfortunately there will always be someone with a lot of money and thirsty for even more money to complain about plagiarism, something that was even done by a family member, and that was also not the first to do (We can find this groove in many other songs) spoiling the career of others not so powerful.
The American music industry was the first to copy other countries and now due to its power, it makes the rules to its beautiful taste and pleasure, even hiring technicians to give its opinion in court, technicians that unfortunately are often not sincere. Imagine a rhythm of Valza, this does not make all waltzes plagio, just like Tango, or even Fado and other rhythms that I mentioned earlier!
This was yet another shameful injustice in which he gained power, If it weren't for success, none of this would have happened! Want to bet?
Blurred Lines is a better song. I think Pharrell made a mistake talking too much beforehand of how he loved Marvin Gaye and would have been better off saying nothing. But I totally disagree with the ruling and think it is not helpful for the arts.
December 13, 2018 Judge found for the Gaye family, again. I was just trying to hear both tunes and see for myself. I think they're very different. Needs more cowbell.
I agree. The Judge doesn't understand music theory and structure. Except for the cowbell and beat they are not even close. I wish someone could take the cowbell out of both songs so people could hear how different they really are. Bass line, melody, & lyrics... all different.
Future song writers are going to have to do a lot of research before they publish anything, if this is the standard by which copywrite is going to be judged.
Distinction without a difference
I guess, the lesson here! Dont use cowbells!
Thankyou for this!
I played the song for my mom. She has no clue who Thicke and Pharrell are. never heard of them. Her first words were that is Marvin Gaye. And I said no. this is Marvin Gaye, I played Gaye. Then I played both. she said it was too similar, sounds almost the same. It is just about the first 20-30 seconds. After that it is different. He admitted he was inspired by Gaye and wanted to do a song like Gaye. Thicke was just in the room, wasted, but he was there. Just because you change the lyrics, doesn't mean you didn't copy. That is really the only difference I hear, the lyrics. He added a bunch of other sounds, but I think he was just trying to cover up what he used from the Gaye song. but realized without the first 30 seconds, it might not get the attention that the Gaye song has. All he had to do is play it for the family/label, and then ask for the sample rights. But noooooo, everyone thinks they can copy just a little bit of something that is copyrighted, and poof, it is not the same, similar, not the same. Similar is all anyone needs in court for copyright. Simply do your research and make sure.
Tell me you've never studied music without telling me you've never studied music.
This lawsuit is completely stupid and shitty! The only thing that these two songs have in common is that they both have cowbells but the rhythm of the cowbell is different in each song, besides that everything else is different in both songs so therefore id say this is the dumbest and worst lawsuit in music.
The first time I heard blurred lines it sounded like Got to give it up. It was obvious
"sounds like" doesn't really matter here
This is just what we needed to see, cheers
Thanks for watching
Oh well it’s over now . I think pop/rock music is still relatively young and people are finding it hard to be completely original. What’s going to happen in 50 years down the road . Impossible to have standards this strict I think . I think there is a bit of a respectful nod ,but that’s it .
I fully agree with that logic. But a derivative is a derivative, it is not an original. One has elements of the other. (Say it was a painting instead. And the painting looked exactly like a photograph when both were superimposed on each other. And the photo came first. But the painting was with different colors and texture. It would be clear to most that the painter got the idea from that exact photograph.) If I were judge and jury, I would compensate Marvin Gaye estate some money. Maybe 33%. After all, it is a derivative.
To make the stretch that just because they admire a particular artist doesn't have any bearing on what was in their head when they wrote "Blurred Lines". The melody is different, the chord progression is different and the Bassline is different. Plus, the cowbell part is different. It is completely possible to write a new song based on an older feel. Marvin's song was probably the last thing on the minds of the writers at the time. It's not like plagiarism where the very words from another work are cut and pasted in another work. Its a little more abstract and organic than that. Creativity can be influenced by those in a writer's past listening---but Influence is not copying. For the court to say based on how much they loved Marvin's music, they can derive intent is in my opinion legally a stretch.....A stretch that should not have been considered by the court with so much weight. This is one time the court probably needed some counseling.
Kirk Franklin's "September" was greatly influenced by the song "September" by Earth Wind & Fire. He had Maurice White from the band show up in his video as a sign he received their consent to proceed with the song. Kanye West's "Through the wire" was also greatly influenced by Chaka Khan's "Through the fire". He did a really good job of making the song sound completely different but still went ahead to pay homage to Chaka Khan by including her picture at the end of the video. Artists "ripping off" other artists is nothing new. So long as they speak to the creators or their families and come to an agreement everything usually goes smoothly. Robin Thicke and Pharell didn't and even refused to acknowledge Marvin Gaye's influence on the track when it was clearly evident. That was a mistake and it ultimately cost them $5M in settlement to the Gaye family.
I think you are hitting on what people are not willing to see. When the original artists have done the work to create an original sound and hear it copied in a massively popular song, they are not wrong to be peeved about it. Giving credit where it is due, rather than being a greedy pig being heavily pushed by the ruthless music industry and refusing to demonstrate the generosity and grace or give credit where due, is why folks are gatekeeping more.
This is ESPECIALLY the case when we learn how horrible the music industry can be to artists and their legacies.
Even Elvis, the Rolling Stones, the Beatles, etc. had enough sense and respect to be EXTREMELEY VOCAL and dilligent in letting the world know where their musical stylings came from, and respectfully placed themselves in the FAMILY of music. The " me! me! me!" era of rinse-wash-repeat catchy tunes must be challenged.
@@QuatMan Very well said. Imagine if today's artists partnered with creators from the past to revamp their tunes. We would have lots of great hits - just like blurred lines. For all artists out there you can take an old song and rework it but just be sure to speak to the original creator first and come to an agreement. Most people are reasonable and won't exploit you for using their track. Some will even be honored to have their original works influence a new massive hit song. (Just watch the music video "September" by Kirk Franklin and watch how happy an older Maurice White from Earth, Wind & Fire is :)
@@Siacourage Yes I agree. Creating that bridge can introduce folks to music, artists, and entire genres they may never have heard before. Who WOULDN'T take up that opportunity to gain a new audience? It is also gross that so many people really believe that all of the possibilities for music are all used up, and that there are no more possibilities....that is the difference between catchy tunists and real creative musicians who have both mastered their craft and can reach into the ethers for NEW possilities.
When I first heard the song I thought it was a redo of Marvin Gaye's original.
Lol, this is a joke ya?
Excellent coverage ! This whole lawsuit it's ridiculous but I really can hear why the Gaye family is going after them . Structurally is nay be different but it's the same groove if he would've used a woodblock instead we would be here .
Jeremy Vaughn Thanks Jeremy.
Pharell and Thicke I believe admitted in court, that Gaye had no influence on Blurred Lines. LOL
They have sued Thinking out Loud as well.
Probably should have labelled the sheet music.
Would be probably worth redoing this video (as it’s still an interesting case) - playing the rhythm won’t infringe copyright.
The sheet music isn’t even aligned; it would be helpful for the viewer - we sort of zone out concentrate on the sheet music and stop listening to your voice.
Just listened and Madonna’s Give it 2 Me sounds like it too, bass line doing a similar thing, and cowbell. Further away from Gaye, but it’s there.
But they also say woooo just like marvin
so? gonna copyright a YELL?? i mean really. it's just stupid IMO
That's like trying to copyright the sound of a cough or a moan. I just guessing but I doubt Marvin Gaye was the first artist to yell Woooo in a song.
When present day artists/singers/arrangers/composers cannot come up with their own material it
is incredibly stupid for them to put out material as their “own” and think that, our generation , who grew up with the original material, they can fool us all. Come up with your own songs and see if they will be around fir almost 60 years like the songs of the ULTRA talented artists of the past. Will hip hop and rap garbage be around? Foul language doesn’t cut it, copied music doesn’t either. Trying to “dissect” it like I’m hearing it here will not sway anyone. It is so obviously copied. Write your own songs people!!!!!
This is terrible for the future of music production 😕
It was exactly the same, but different.
ymh
I'm eight years too late with this comment, but my immediate reaction every time I think about this case since day-one is that the Marvin Gaye track itself, a mediocre groove from an otherwise talented artist, innovated nothing. He sang falsetto over a bass-line with simple, syncopated organ stabs and simple percussion much like so many earlier other tracks from the 70's. Just listen to the chorus of the Bee-Gees' “You Should Be Dancin’” from the previous year for obvious inspiration for Gaye’s vocals including the same notes/rhythm.
Gaye's track does nothing musically interesting. There are no creative modulations, no real chord changes, and no bass/keyboard inventiveness. It is a very simplistic disco tune from 1977, but without the horns normally found in disco. Remember that disco is just a form of R&B, as countless disco stars have attested.
The entire "vibe" of casual social fun, IMHO, is created by the people talking and clinking glasses, the same elements as a Sinatra or Dean Martin club recording from the 50’s or 60’s.
Pharrell/Thicke copied the general “vibe” of feel-good R&B, and like the tragically simplistic “modern” compositions of 2013 (see Rick Beato’s channel for copious rants on this), Pharrell/Thicke ended up with a very basic and unimaginative tune.
Gaye’s estate clearly didn’t inherit any musical know-how, so they heard simple rubbish and thought it sounded like Marvin’s simple rubbish. Add to this that the court admitted that it had no idea how to try this case, and we now have a legal precedence of copyright infringement not needing to demonstrate any of the same lyrics / notes / chords / keys / changes in order to return a guilty verdict.
End of rant.
I hated both songs, not sound too catchy. But they're totally different, they're in the same music genre. Is the genre copyrighted? So if later the truth is proved how much money the Gaye family will lose...
Dude you can't compare 2 songs by looking at sheet music and not even replaying a single second to give examples... Your analysis may be correct but what a terrible video content-wise!
I like pharrell and this song but I think blurred lines is an interpulation of marvin gaye's song he didn't sample the song but he did borrow the feal so they sound very similar. But since they sound so much alike Pharrell should have asked for permission from the Marvin Gaye estate. We all know that when we heard blurred lines the first thing we thought of was Marvin Gaye.
Thelonius Drunk ....but copyright law says that you can't copyright a feel or vibe. Think about trance music or the blues for example. The vibe and feel is very similar in hundreds of songs but it's not an issue from a copyright stand point unless the melody, lyrics or the entire chord progression is the same as another song. That's what the law states!
You're over analysing with a bias. The two song sound the same, if you're involved in music professionally and "can't" hear that, you're in the wrong profession.
Lots of songs sound the same. Plagiarism is a much higher standard than "sounding the same." "Sounding the same" is not illegal. Plagiarism is where a melody, lyric, or melodic part is the same as another song. Rhythms are not copyrightable. I'm really hoping that you aren't a musician, the fact that he's able to differentiate these ideas is actually the sign of a competent musician who knows what they're talking about.
@@weswill5 There's more than a passing resemblance. It sounds like it's an interpolation, which can be plagiarism and in this case was found to be so. Your music theory adds nothing to the debate.
@@lltallj43 no they literally have the same vibe, of you really think they sound the same, then you need to get your ears checked.
@@Zachzn4lf Ears checked. Yep, Blurred Lines sounds like it's a rip-off of Got to Give It Up. Clearly not a cover but as close as you could get without stealing the melody or lyrics.
Robin Thicke admitted that Gaye is his favorite singer of all time, and Got To Give It Up was his favorite song of all time. Yeah, to me the song sounds like as rip off.
If you're gonna take off ppl and profit you got to give it up. Cow bell?? The song is obviously a rip off we ppl recognize right away where they got the song from. We aren't tone deaf.
+YellowRoseOvTx It sounds similar too it (in a vibe sense) but that isn't enough in copyright law. Copyright law only covers the vocal melody, lyrics and chord progression. So the vibe isn't covered. Do you also think James Cameron should be fined for copying the story from Point Break and making Avatar. It's got the same story but it has been made to be totally different and that's ok. It's called being influenced.
i'm not tone deaf, and do NOT hear similarities other than a damned cow bell BEING IN THE SONG. they are not similar enough to even be played *simultaneously* ... do NOT even get me started on that point, cuz i TRIED to play them simultaneously and it literally gave me a headache, cuz 1 is faster by a smidgen than the other song and the beats are different even *if they are* 4/4 timing. That was the only similarity IMO was being 4/4 timing. LMAO i mean they are SO different, that it isn't even funny
Totally agree
Bring back Does it Offend you Yeah?? !!!
If this lawsuit holds up then Outkast should sue Taylor Swift (“Hey Ya!” and “Shake it Off”) . Utter BS
Exactly!
I been listening to music for years , when I hear blurred line I knew it was, got to give it up. Rhythm .
This decision is a disaster for music and a parody of justice
Always copy the good! there's no crime unless you don't pay copyright
really interesting stuff thanks
haha racist
+200damary Explain how this is racist please?
+MediaBrighton rekt
Time to sue the Beatles for Bridge Over Troubled Waters for ripping off The Sound of Silence.
Bridge over Troubled Waters was Simon & Garfunkel, unless I'm mistaken. and after looking it up, it was *not* written by Lennon/McCartney, so... no.
This is interesting because I'm more than familiar with Marvin Gaye's song being that I was introduced to it in the 90s by my favorite artist at the time Aaliyah. So for this guy to say that he did't think of Marvin's song at all then I would question his musical ear. When I first heard Robin Thicke's song, it was by mistake when my FM station setting turned on in my car. I knew I had it preset to a pop station, but it was playing what I thought was Marvin Gaye's song so I was shocked. About 15 seconds later I realized it was playing a song sampling or strikingly similar to Marvin's song and it's more than the groove. Regardless of what this all looks like in sheet form, Pharrell knew all too well what he was mimicking. The bass patterns are almost identical by sound. The groove is more than similar along with the cow bells. The cadence is also clear as day, not to mention sporadic lyrics in the song stripped from Marvin Gaye as well. I hope lawsuits like this happen more often. Pharrell doesn't have the musical ear to naturally originate a tune such as "Blurred Lines". So it's more than obvious where he was "inspired". Not to mention that he even said in an interview (before the lawsuit) that he intentionally recreated Marvin's song. And naturally he called Robin Thicke for the song who is a known Marvin Gaye impersonator.
+johnathandoe Most rock and roll songs have the same vibe, bass line etc. Same with blues...The song is the vocal melody and in this song is original. Yes the vibe of the music sounds similar but it's not the same. If you can copyright a vibe or groove then most dance music tune that start with a kick drum doing 4 to floor and not much else will be ripping someone else off.
I loved the Aaliyah version. And I don’t think a song with a different melody, chord, and key can be a rip off. There is a reason one is a classic that holds up and the other was a summer hit that has faded and become more irksome over time. Marvin’s melody, baseline, and cowbell all make a sound that is pleasing and gets richer each listen. The other melody is very catchy but grated on you over time, same for the repetitive simplistic base and the excessive cowbell. If they were the same song we would all love and sample that song but I promise in forty years no one will be copying that song.
It's a complicated matter, but in case you were wondering, this video has nothing of any substance to say about it. There's no law or precedent that says you can only copyright lyrics, vocal melody and chord progression, nor should there be. Roughly speaking, copyright law concerns original ideas. The question for the court is not whether "Blurred Lines" copied this aspect or that aspect of an existing song, but whether or not it copied a musical idea. What that means merits much discussion and debate. But if you think musical ideas can only be expressed in vocal melody, chord progression and lyrics, then you really have nothing to contribute to the conversation. (By the way, as far as I can see, this is an open-and-shut case of blatant and egregious copyright violation, and I'm heartened to see that the courts have seen it that way as well. Not a significant ruling, as far as copyright law is concerned, but a sign that the courts are still concerned with judging each case based upon its merits, rather than upon some random rule some dude made up predetermining which musical aspects merit copyright protection.)
What "musical idea" is it that Marvin Gaye should have the rights over from now on? Is it the use of a cow bell? a certain bpm? collection of instruments? I'd like to know, just so I know never to use those in a song from now on. I'd hate to get sued by him myself.
@@MediaBrighton In my view, the protected idea is the rhythmic composition, which Pharrell Williams said himself he took from Gaye. Just because Williams added a few attacks here and there does not mean that the underlying composition was fundamentally altered. If you play "Happy Birthday" in a weird mode or with a clave rhythm, it's still Happy Birthday. And just because Gaye's composition is a rhythmic composition rather than a melodic composition doesn't make it any less a distinctive and original idea.
Steve Reich's Music for 18 Musicians is essentially a rhythmic composition. You could change all the pitches, all the instruments, play it at a drastically different tempo, add some clown banging on a snare drum here and there for no apparent reason, and you'd still have basically the same underlying idea. And if you did so and made millions of dollars off the recording, you'd definitely get sued and you'd definitely lose, especially if you boasted in an interview that you lifted the whole thing from Steve Reich.
Anyway, I expressed my opinion on the case. But you can disagree with that opinion completely and still agree that your video is uninformed and uninformative. You understand neither the musical nor the legal issues.