Robin Thicke Now Has a Big Headache

Things are getting blurry for the artists of this summer-hit sensation, “Blurred Lines”.  Within the last few weeks, members of Marvin Gaye’s family who have an interest in his estate along with Bridgeport Music, Inc. have allegedly notified Robin Thicke, Pharrell William, and Clifford Harris, Jr. that their hit song infringes upon the songs “Got To Give It Up” by Marvin Gaye and “Sexy Ways” by Funkadelic. Thicke states that he was notified that if he does not provide monetary compensation for copying these two songs, that the Gaye family and Bridgeport Music would initiate a lawsuit for copyright infringement.

In response to this threat of legal action, Thicke’s lawyers at King, Holmes, Paterno & Beruner, LLP—who are the same ones that represented Metallica against Napster—have filed their own preemptive suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California in an effort to acquire declaratory relief. In the lawsuit they claim 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, and Bridgeport is claiming the same work.

…

Plaintiffs did not incorporate or otherwise use the composition "Got To Give It Up" in "Blurred Lines." Plaintiffs did not infringe any copyright in "Got To Give It Up.

Even the former leader of Funkadelic, George Clinton, has come out and tweeted that "No sample of #Funkadelic's 'Sexy Ways' in @robinthicke's 'Blurred Lines' - yet Armen Boladian thinks so? We support @robinthicke @Pharrell!"

If no sample of either song were incorporated into “Blurred Lines,” does the Gaye Family even have a case? Well that is difficult to predict at this moment.  In order for a Court to find a defendant liable for copyright infringement, the plaintiff must prove that (1) the defendant copied the plaintiff’s prior work, and (2) the copying went so far as to constitute improper appropriation. Copying can be proven by circumstantial evidence if the plaintiff proves that (1) defendant had access to the work, and (2) the defendant’s song is substantially similar to the prior work. To determine whether “Blurred Lines” is substantially similar to the prior works, the court will review the works through the eyes of an ordinary observer.

With that said, history has showed us that a case like this will not be resolve quickly and it will take time parse to through the claims and evidence presented by both sides. The only thing that is clear is that even though Robin Thicke has dominated the charts the entire summer, all this copyright talk is certainly giving him a big headache.