Ableton Forum

Thicke and Pharell have lost a copyright case for a song with no appreciable musical similarity to the Marvin Gaye track they are accused of ripping off. What the fuck?

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/ ... t-20150310

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

What are you talking about? I knew the backing track was Marvin Gaye 10 seconds into hearing it for the first time. You seriously can’t hear it? It’s not like some rare b-side either. It’s been part of my wedding reception staples since I started DJing.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fp7Q1OAzITM

Seriously can't hear it?

I hear that both songs have basslines. But I don't think Marvin Gaye invented those.

It's my understanding that the case was about ripping off Gaye's works, including 'grapevine.' Have a listen to 'got to give it up.'

re:dream wrote:I hear that both songs have basslines. But I don't think Marvin Gaye invented those.

I find this hard to believe coming from a music producer. You only hear “a bassline”? Wow.

Sure, they sound very similar. But they're not actually the same.

I can't see how you can make a copyright case stick if the actual basslines + percussion have different notes

I'm more shocked at the amount. 7.5 million?! Can you still make that much dough with one track?!

Marvin Gaye totally ripped off blurred lines.

re:dream wrote:Sure, they sound very similar. But they're not actually the same.

I can't see how you can make a copyright case stick if the actual basslines + percussion have different notes

Maybe Robin is a moron but Pharell knew exactly what the fuck he was doing. At some point there should be a line where an artist can’t use the “I’m waving my hands in your face but I’m not touching you” defense. They well crossed that line with this track and honestly I find Pharell inexcusable in this. It’s not like he’s some kid who doesn’t know any better, thought he could get away with it with some little tweaks, or thinks Marvin Gaye doesn’t deserve the credit.

Pah, have you heard the knack's 'my sharona' and then tubeway army's 'my shadow in vain'? Gary Numan should have raised a stink about that

I don't care to listen to either song, but didn't the Gaye family already cash out once for these few notes and chords 40 years ago?!

I mean it's a freaking pop song, not the invention of penicillin or the first splitting of the atom. (Neither of the people who did that btw, got much money for it, if any!)

Dang moochers, get over yourselves...
I just don't get why some people just don't ever seem to get enough

"Nona Gaye, Marvin Gaye’s daughter, reportedly wept in court as the verdict was read and later told the Associated Press, "Right now, I feel free. Free from... Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke's chains and what they tried to keep on us and the lies that were told.”

You coudn't make this shit up...

I don’t have a problem with the sampling even when it’s probably 80% of the reason a song becomes a hit. I have a problem when artists at this level can’t even be bothered to try to get permission to either use the original or to find out if their (very) little tweaks makes it exempt from permission. Let’s also consider how many songs get rejected by soundcloud for a lot less.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziz9HW2ZmmY

The similarities are mostly in texture. Drums, percussion, synth bass. Sparse arrangement with lots of space in the bass line; four on the floor kick pattern.

To my knowledge you can't copyright instrumentation, orchestration, or texture and the notes and rhythms in the bass are not similar enough to warrant a ruling of copyright infringement.

Similar overall feel, yes, but nothing in there is identical. I don't know if those are the original keys in that youtube comparison I posted above, but you can't copyright a key either.