Pharrell Williams v. Bridgeport Music

Notably, unlike the traditional manner, the litigation started with preemptive filing of declaratory relief. On August 2013, Williams, Thicke and T.I filed a complaint for declaratory relief against Gaye's family and Bridgeport Music. Prior to the complaint, Gaye's family and Bridgeport Music alleged that the plaintiff has "ripped-off" the 1977 Billboard single, " Got to Give it Up". The complaint argued that, "The basis of the Gaye defendants' claims is that "Blurred Lines" and "Got To Give It Up" "feel" or "sound" the same. Being reminiscent of a "sound" is not copyright infringement. The intent in producing "Blurred Lines" was to evoke an era. In reality, the Gaye defendants are claiming ownership of an entire genre, as opposed to a specific work".[4] They argued that they did not copy the expression but only the 'idea' or the 'genre', which is not copyright-able.

Pharrell Williams stated that the two songs were "completely different" adding that "Just simply go to the piano and play the two. One's minor and one's major. And not even in the same key".[5] Robin Thicke stated that at the time of recording he was, "high on Vicodin and alcohol when [he] showed up at the studio", and so "Pharrell had the beat and he wrote almost every single part of the song".[6]

In the counter-claim Gaye's family argue that the songs were not merely stylistically similar; instead, they claim that "Many of the main vocal and instrumental themes of Blurred Lines are rooted in Got to Give it Up; namely, the signature phrase, vocal hook, backup vocal hook, their variations, and the keyboard and bass lines" and "the substantial similarities are the result of many of the same deliberate creative choices made by their respective composers."[7]

In July 2014, the plaintiff's filled for a motion of summary judgement arguing. However, on 30th October 2014, the court denied the motion. Judge John A. Kronstadt after reviewing the reports from competing musicologists, decided that, "[the plaintiffs] have made a sufficient showing that elements of 'Blurred Lines' may be substantially similar to protected, original elements of 'Got to Give It Up'."[8]

The trial started in District Court on 10 February 2015.[9] Plaintiffs filed a successful motion in limine pleading that Gaye's sound recording of "Got to give it up" shall be excluded from being played during the trial.[10] The motion was successful since Marvin Gaye's voice had no relevance in the case. The dispute was limited to the elements from sheet music. Judge Kronstad stated that, "I don't expect Gaye's voice to be a part of the case".[11]

The jury was to decide whether "Blurred Lines" infringed upon the following limited elements: i) Signature Phrase ii) Hooks iii) Bass Lines iv) Harmonic Structures, and v) Keyboard Chords.[12] The Jury was allowed to hear a limited portion of Gaye's sound recording that substantially reflected the disputed subject-matter. The portion was edited to remove unprotected elements.

On 10th March 2015, the jury unanimously found Thicke and Williams liable for copyright infringement. It awarded a sum of $7.4 million as damages for the infringement to Gaye's family. The amount was reduced by the District Court to $5.3 million, along with 50 percent royalty on future songwriter and publishing revenue of Blurred Lines.[13]

On 11 January 2016, Gaye's family moved an application for approximately $3.5 million in attorney fees and costs on the grounds that the jury verdict prevailed on merits, rather than on a technical issue.[13] The Court denied the application and ordered further submissions on the issue of costs.

In August 2016, Thicke, Williams and T.I. appealed against the judgement on the grounds that the Gaye family failed to show substantial similarity between the two songs. Later, a number of amicus curiae briefs were filed in support of the appeal by musicians, musicologists and copyright scholars. Musicians such as John Oates, R. Kelly, et al. filed the brief drafted by attorney Edwin McPherson. They claimed that the judgement would have a deleterious effect on innovation in popular music industry and that the jury's verdict was based on flawed testimony by Gaye's family musical expert. In March 2018, the Court of Appeals upheld the District Court's decision against Williams and Thicke.

Appellate Court Judge Jacqueline Nguyen, in her dissenting opinion, held that "Blurred Lines" and "Got to Give Up" were not subjectively similar. These songs differed in "melody, harmony" and "rhythm" and thus lack extrinsic similarity. She claimed that the judgement allows for protection over musical style and stated that, “ [it] establishes a dangerous precedent that strikes a devastating blow to future musicians and composers everywhere”.[14]