Robin Thicke & Pharrell ordered to pay $7.3 million to Marvin Gaye’s family

A jury verdict was announced yesterday in a lawsuit claiming that Robin Thicke and Pharrell’s 2013 hit, “Blurred Lines”, infringed on the copyright of Marvin Gaye’s #1 1977 song, “Got to Give It Up.” (Comparison video below.) The jury ruled that “Blurred Lines” did violate Gaye’s copyright and awarded the late musician’s family $7.3 million. There was a second song at issue, Thicke’s 2011’s “Love After War.” The jury found that “Love After War” was not an infringement of Gaye’s 1976 ballad, “After The Dance.” (Update: this is incorrect. The jury did find that Love After War infringed on After the Dance. The Gaye family was awarded $9,375 for that violation. Note that the suit originally claimed that “Blurred Lines” also infringed on Funckadelic’s “Sexy Ways”, however the defendant for that song, Bridgeport music, dropped out. Funkadelic frontman George Clinton has defended Pharrell and Thicke.)

It’s worth mentioning that Thicke, Pharrell and T.I. sued the Gayes first, seeking a declaration that “Blurred Lines” did not infringe on Gaye’s copyright. The Gayes’ lawyer claims this successful countersuit was a reaction to the original lawsuit. Here’s more:

A Los Angeles jury found Tuesday that Pharrell Williams’ and Robin Thicke’s 2013 hit “Blurred Lines” infringed upon the copyright for Marvin Gaye’s 1977 “Got to Give It Up” and awarded $7.3 million to Gaye’s family.

The Gayes’ attorney, Richard Busch, told reporters that he had immediately filed for an injunction to stop the sale of “Blurred Lines.”

“They started this fight, and we ended it,” Busch said. “The jury saw through everything, and we’re very pleased…”

Howard King, the attorney for Williams and Thicke, said, “Of course, we’re disappointed.” He said he had “no idea” whether his clients wanted to appeal, but he said the case “is only in the seventh inning.”

“Nothing detracts from the fact as we know it that the track ‘Blurred Lines’ came from the heart and soul of Pharrell Williams,” King said.

Williams, T.I. (real name Clifford Harris Jr.) and Thicke — who performed “Blurred Lines” — took credit in multiple interviews for co-writing the song. They preemptively sued the Gaye family in August after members complained about similarities between “Blurred Lines” and “Got to Give It Up.”

The family countersued, claiming not only that Thicke ripped off “Got to Give It Up” but also that he infringed on the copyright to “After the Dance” for the title track of his 2011 album “Love After War.”

The jury found that T.I. wasn’t responsible for any infringement.

Williams testified last week that he grew up listening to Gaye’s music and was familiar with “Got to Give It Up” but didn’t use it as a basis for “Blurred Lines.” He said he was only trying to evoke the feel of Gaye’s music.

Gaye was “one of the ones we look up to,” Williams said. “This is the last place I want to be.”

[From NBC]

When you hear the two songs in comparison, video below, the similarities are hard to deny. What’s more is that Thicke told GQ that when he wrote “Blurred Lines” with Pharrell, he told Pharrell that “Got To Give It Up” was ‘one of my favorite songs of all time,’ and said that ‘we should make something like that, something with that groove.’ Thicke later claimed in a deposition for this lawsuit that he didn’t actually co-write the song because he was high on alcohol and Vicodin. So it sounds like the original Marvin Gaye song was either a direct inspiration or deliberately ripped off, which of course Thicke and Pharrell denied. Thicke also told Oprah that “half of his music was inspired by Marvin Gaye.

Many musicians worry that this lawsuit will have a chilling effect on the music industry. They cite the different melody and chord changes in the two songs, along with the fact that the jury wasn’t even allowed to hear a full version of “Got To Give It Up.” (This was due to the fact that in 1977 only sheet music was allowed to be copywritten, not songs.) The LA Times has an editorial which questions whether Gaye’s estate would have sued if Thicke hadn’t directly acknowledged Gaye as an influence. Whatever the case, this lawsuit seems far from over. Pharrell and Thicke are likely to file an appeal. Meanwhile a lawyer for the Gayes has stated that they will petition the court to cease sales of “Blurred Lines” until they can reach an agreement on profit sharing.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

79 Responses to “Robin Thicke & Pharrell ordered to pay $7.3 million to Marvin Gaye’s family”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. doofus says:

    *pointing and laughing, like Nelson from the Simpsons*

    Ha-ha!

  2. msw says:

    I think it’s the wrong decision, but I’m not sorry to see this song go down. If only the Weird Al version was the primary and not the secondary.

  3. PunkyMomma says:

    Good.

  4. Sofia says:

    Haha!

  5. aemish says:

    HuffPost says the Gayes can expect years of appeals. smh…

    But the only way for Pharrell to spare his reputation is to make things right ASAP with this respected family and put this situation behind him as fast as possible. Maybe even collaborate with them on future works as like a cherry on top for the public.

    Thicke will remain a d-bag either way. ╮ (. ❛ ❛ _.) ╭

    • Cecada says:

      Agreed about Pharrell; he’s got talent and a career worth saving. Didn’t Thicke try to blame him, saying he was too drunk and it was all Pharrell who wrote the song?? He needs to cut his losses and toss Thicke under the wheels and save himself. Thicke is such a creep

      • Lucy2 says:

        He did, so I’m glad they hit him with a big amount too. Bad enough to rip off someone else, but him throwing Pharrell under the bus was really gross, and speaks to his lack of character.

      • JenniferJustice says:

        I read a while back that Thicke admitted they took a riff from Gaye’s song, but he didn’t care to contact the family for approval. I can see that from him. I just assumed they went with it and figured it would be worth it in the long run to make millions off a song and have to give a portion of it to the Gaye family. Don’t know about Thicke – but Pharrell can definitely afford it.

    • Brin says:

      Totally agree. Pharell has talent and a good reputation. Douche Thicke is a waste.

    • adrien says:

      It was arrogant of them to sue the estate preemptively. They should have settled this the way Sam Smith did with Tom Petty. It’s difficult to defend this rapey song but the court’s rule sets dangerous precedent, at least for songwriters.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        Not to nitpick, but Sam Smith didn’t really settle with Tom Petty. It was with the publishing companies for both that settled (Warner/Chappell Music, Sony/ATV, Universal Music Group), but Tom will benefit from their action. Publishing companies typically get 50% of publishing revenue, with the remaining 50% to be split between the artists/producers, etc.

        The distinction is that one version makes Tom Petty sound litigious. In reality, it was the publishing company that battled over their shared asset.

    • denisemich says:

      I don’t think this will hurt Pharrell’s career but it will hurt Robin Thicke. Success in life is about knowing when to shut up and knowing when you are out of control. This all started because Robin was out of control with his success drinking and druggin.

      Pharrell should never work with him again.

      But the music studio is to blame. There is always someone in charge of making sure there is no infringement. You mean to tell me 20 music executives paid over a million a year and no one thought the beat was to similar to MG.

    • Judyk says:

      LOVE Pharrell and am sure he will do the right thing. What was he thinking to ever pair up with the creepiest jerk in the music industry.

      • MP says:

        Didn’t the court case just make it clear that Pharrell wrote this song alone? So this great talented guy is the one responsible of the creepy, rapey lyrics.
        Why does everybody love him and hate Thicke?

  6. ToodySezHey says:

    Karma has made Robin Thicke her permanent biyatch.

    I wonder sometimes if Robin ever regrets record that song. I mean, black radio was down with Robin back in 2005/06. But he didn’t get crossover shine til Blurred Lines…and then he lost his damn mind. The rapey song lyrics. The Miley fiasco. Stepping out on Paula. The Begging album and tour. And now the final FU from the song that singlehandedly ruined his life.

    Seriously, this will be a Lifetime movie one day.

  7. paola says:

    Thicke stole a writing credit and when things started to look bad he tried to push it off on Pharrell? What a nice nice nice man.
    Now he’is going to really need those sunglasses. To hide his face.

  8. ToodySezHey says:

    Also..anyone who has bought a Robin Thicke album, especially Evolution, knows that Marvin is a huge influence. Listen to the duet he has with Faith Evans.

  9. Jess says:

    I think it’s funny and they got what they deserved for suing first, the family may have just let it go otherwise, you never know. I hate Robin Thicke and hopefully this is the end of his career, his ego totally ruined him, but I like Pharell and think he has enough talent to keep going.

    • ToodySezHey says:

      @Jess:

      You’re right about Robin ‘ s ego. He got a taste of that mainstream success and just went set tripping!. I’ve never seen someone destroyed by their own hubris so quickly.

      • Jess says:

        He just went crazy, from cheating on his wife to throwing Pharrell under the bus, such a douche.

    • doofus says:

      the fact that pharrell and thicke et al filed a PRE-EMPTIVE lawsuit said it all to me.

      they clearly recognized the “similarities”, knew that the Gaye family/estate would come after them, and it backfired on them.

    • Bridget says:

      The Gaye family definitely wasn’t going to let it go – Williams/Thicke filed pre-emptively because at the time it was very clear that the Gaye family was going to sue. But the optics on the whole thing look bad.

      And I actually agree that this sets a bad precedent and think that if we weren’t talking about Robin Thicke people would react to the lawsuit differently.

      • Bridget says:

        And by that I mean the lawsuit in general, not the choice to sue pre-emptive. Which was a weird choice.

  10. Toti says:

    I just can’t see Marvin and these two mentioned in the same sentence.

    • PunkyMomma says:

      Yes! Marvin Gaye was a genius. Pharrell is talented, but no where near Marvin. And Robin, well I have Evolution and it’s apparent that Gaye was a huge influence in his music, but there’s a difference between being inspired by an artist and then ripping off his music.

    • BangersandMash says:

      Ouch!!

      I actually feel for him. He clearly views Marvin as his idol/musical mentor. And to take his song, and then turn it into a ‘rapey tune’ and subsequently turn it into the world’s most hated song…And THEN throw a lawsuit to try and pro-actively cover up straight up the fact that he was straight-up snatching chunks out of his mentor’s music….

      Ouch!!

    • Merritt says:

      Exactly. The main difference between the song’s is that Marvin Gaye’s song is good and Thicke’s is just gross. Marvin’s lyrics, while suggestive, use terms that show consent. Thicke’s lyrics are just rapey and gross.

      I know that Gaye’s family will deal with appeals on this. Thicee and Pharrell should have done the right thing and settled with Gaye’s family.

  11. amanda says:

    wow, so much money and drama for a song that people loved, then hated, then hated, then forgot…

  12. Mia4S says:

    GOOD! Look I’ve heard many songs that sound similar but the first time I head Blurred Lines I was convinced I had heard it before. I had, kind of, thanks to my father’s fondness for Marvin Gaye records. I don’t even think it was malicious, melody is tough unless you’re Paul McCartney (who dreamed the music for Yesterday!) or a handful of others. Pay up, move on.

    • doofus says:

      funny you say that…the first time I heard the song, I was in some store and I had the same reaction…first I thought it WAS Gaye, then I was confused because the lyrics were different and it didn’t QUITE sound the same…

  13. Kiddo says:

    Lawyers will get rich. Poor Marvin will never know, since he was killed by his father. Pharrell is talented and will go on to make good music.

    • littlestar says:

      That’s exactly what I thought when I read that appeals could go on for years. There are lawyers out there who are going to make a lot of $$$$$.

      Making music these days seems to be a very fine line between inspiration and originality. I completely understand being influenced by your favourite artists and musicians, and then trying to make your own music that is completely your own. I think rock music is a good example of that, bands like Nirvana came out, then Sound Garden etc, then to more recently Creed and Nickelback and their “copy” bands like Theory of a Deadman, Puddle of Mud etc. And when music is at an over saturation point (for lack of a better word), it seems like there are less and less “original” sounding artists out there. Everyone is a copy of someone else.

      However, to my musically trained ear, Blurred Lines sounds INCREDIBLY similar to the Gaye song. I wonder if Pharrel is kicking himself now for suing the Gaye family in the first place?

  14. Veritas says:

    The songs do sound the same. I’m not surprised by the verdict. Maybe they should write their own songs and not rip off other people’s. I guess it’s hard for some people to create original material when they can just steal it.

  15. paola says:

    That pic of Thicke with someone’s feet on his face is on another level of gross and disgusting. Plus those feet are not nice at all.

  16. kri says:

    Ugh, Robinn Thicke is such a scourge. I wish Pharell would spray him with RAID so we can all find some peace. And Pharell, come on…maybe just don’t appeal, and then go on to make some more of your own stuff. Robin Thicke is done, but PW has lots of music to make.

  17. Miss M says:

    Congrats to Marvin Gayes family!
    I know it is difficult to draw the line of plagiarism in music, but I wonder if it is possible to find a way to avoid it. As Michael K pointed out, I wonder if Sarah Bareilles can sue Katy Perry for her “ROAR” song. The lyrics maybe different, but the if you listen to “Brave” you will notice the similarity.

    • rosie says:

      After reading your comment, I checked out brave by Sarah bareilles. I cannot believe how similar roar is, it almost offensive

    • lucy2 says:

      Yeah, I wish Sara would have taken some action against Katy for that one, it is such a rip off of her song. I wonder if she worried about going up against the legal team Katy’s wallet could afford.
      I’m hoping this lawsuit verdict might scare some people off from stealing other’s work. It’s fine to be influenced, but copying is not cool.

    • someone says:

      I think the world is a better place with both “Brave” and “Roar” in it so I’m glad no one made an issue of it. They both have their own unique merits. I was hooked on Brave when it first came out but still loved Roar.

      There was the same issue with Kelly Clarkson’s “Already Gone” and Beyoncé’s “Halo”, both cowritten by Ryan Tedder. In that case it was the same guy producing both songs so the similarities were even more obvious. But again, the world is better off for having both songs. And personally I think Kelly’s song was better, and it came second. Sometimes suing isn’t necessary.

      • Miss M says:

        @someone: Ryan Tedder wrote two similar songs and one can argue it is his song writing style like many writers can be recognized by their style. Roar, apparently, was written by 5 people and Brave was written by 2 people. How can 7 people think and write something so similar? Brave has a phrase talking about leaving your cage… It is very clear it was a case of plagiarism and, in my opinion, the writing for brave is far superior in quality. One thing is to mention something from a song or a beat here and then, but the whole freaking melody?

    • Diana B says:

      Roar was written before Brave was ever made public so that was just a freaky coincidence.

      • Bridget says:

        Katy (or the songwriting team) could have easily heard the song before it was made public. It’s not like she has to wait until it hits iTunes, especially if the cut was available for other artists to pick up and record.

      • Miss M says:

        According to wikipedia of both artists, Brave was released in August 2013 (but it was recorded in 2011) and roar was “recorded” in March 2013 and released in August 2013 (and the album was released in Oct/13). Coincidence? I think not!!!

      • someone says:

        Miss M, I’ve copied this from Wikipedia (hope that is OK with this website’s rules). IF anything, it looks like the talk of copying HELPED Brave get promoted, which I’m glad about because I love Sara Bareilles :
        ————————
        On August 10, 2013, Katy Perry released her single “Roar”. Shortly after the release, many accused Perry of copying “Brave.”[16][17][18][19] When Bareilles was asked about the controversy between the two songs, she responded: “Katy’s a friend of mine and we’ve known each other a really long time,” and was upset that there was a “negative spin on two artists that are choosing to share positive messages.” She also mentioned she had known about “Roar” before its release and stated “If I’m not mad I don’t know why anybody else is upset.”[20]

        In response to the accusations, “Roar” co-producer/co-writer Dr. Luke tweeted on August 14, 2013: “Roar was written and recorded before Brave came out.”[21] In direct response to the attention “Brave” received as a result of the plagiarism accusations, Epic Records decided to promote “Brave” to the mainstream pop radio format.[22] Perry and Bareilles performed “Roar” along with Bonnie McKee, Ellie Goulding, Kacey Musgraves, and duo Tegan and Sara at the We Can Survive: Music for Life on October 23, 2013.
        ————————–

      • Miss M says:

        @someone: if you Google “when the song brave was released”? you go to the page and see the info as well… you won’t find it unless someone already edited. Brave was already a hit among critics who also pointed out the “similarities”. You have your opinion on the matter and I have mine. I am very aware of plagiarism as I work in academia. It doesn’t matter if Sara denied or not, the evidence is there.

  18. Dani says:

    Everything these days is a copy or a rip off of another song that influence the artist. That’s what music is about. BUT, they deserve the fine because they sued the Estate first out of sheer arrogance.

  19. JosieJ says:

    The fact is these two particular songs sound way too much the same. I can’t believe they filed against Marvin Gaye’s family first. Marvin Gaye deserves the credit. I am very glad the family sued and the verdict was in their favor. They should have settled quietly like Sam Smith did. I lost respect for Pharell. They should have done the right thing and settled then moved on.

  20. lw says:

    Robin made a career of his love of Marvin’s music. The first time I heard “Blurred Lines” I knew that 1) it would be a massive hit, and 2) it was a blatant rip off of “Got TO Give It Up”. Frankly, Thicke is lucky that no one has called him on this before. And yes, “Love After War” clearly rips off “After the Dance”….Of course, I don’t think Robin has to worry about any of this in the future. His career is over.
    I’m more interested in this from Pharrell’s standpoint. Why didn’t they just buy the licensing deal to sample the song legally? And failing that, why not settle it quietly and cough up the money like Sam Smith did Tom Petty? I’ve always liked Pharrell, but he needs to humble himself a bit. He’s not overwhelmingly original as his current pop stuff borrows heavily from the legendary Curtis Mayfield.

  21. FingerBinger says:

    Preemptively suing the Gaye family was just dumb and then not settling the case was even dumber.

  22. Dr.Funkenstein says:

    Serves them right, ripping off Marvin. Nice try, losers.

  23. Q says:

    They shouldn’t have sued. Ed Sheeran ripped off Let’s Get It On with that Thinking Out Loud song but the Gaye family isn’t coming for him. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

  24. Feebee says:

    If Sam Smith came to an agreement with Tom Petty over their songs which sounds much less alike than Thicke/Pharell’s and Gaye’s then this finding is pretty fair. It shouldn’t hurt the music industry too much, just force them to either be more creative or to acknowledge/pay for “inspiration”. There’s always been songs that you hear start and you’re convinced it’s ‘a’ but then it goes to ‘b’. That won’t change.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      Tom Petty wasn’t really involved in that. He benefited, but it was his publishers (that own 50% of the song) that went to Sam’s publishers.

  25. someone says:

    Ok, what am I missing? I’ve listened to both versions and other than the drum beat/ cowbell sound and singing in falsetto I don’t think they are that identical. Heck, if they hadn’t used the cowbell sounding thing there would have been nothing in common.

    Now if someone like Fall Out Boy hadn’t paid royalties to Suzanne Vega for sampling her “Toms Diner” in their Centuries song or to the Munsters for using their theme in Uma Thurman I could see a legitimate lawsuit. This “copying” accusation stuff I think has gone too far.

  26. TessD says:

    I don’t agree with the decision – those songs sound as similar as thousands of others on the market, people feed off of each other creativity and not necessarily plagiarizing.
    But if the judge decided – then so be it.

  27. Heather says:

    Disagree with this verdict. You never know what a jury will do. As the saying goes, there is nothing new under the sun. Virtually every piece of art or music has been done before, in some fashion. This could open up floodgates of needless litigation. Most songs have an inspiration behind it – so what now, no one can record songs with the 70’s vibe?

  28. Mispronounced Name Dropper says:

    Talent imitates, genius steals.

  29. Tammy says:

    Disagree with verdict…

  30. anne_000 says:

    The background sounds similar, only similar but not the same. The foreground is completely different though.

    Like the commenter said upthread, it’s going to open up more litigation because a lot of ‘new’ music is based on ‘old’ music.

    That said, these guys shouldn’t have sued first. That was a gamble for which they’ve lost big time.

    Thicke is a douche. He ‘stole’ writing credit for the money and glory and then threw Pharrell under the bus. 🙁

    • Bridget says:

      It opens up litigation because the standard for copyright infringement is melody and lyrics, and this case was decided because of the beat/cowbell combo, which is unusual. The actual melody that Pharrel wrote was pretty different from Marvin Gaye’s.

  31. Fancyamazon says:

    I think it’s weird that Pharrel gets a pass on the very wrong stance of the song. And I think YAY for the Gaye estate. I know that art is always going to be influenced by what came before, but maybe some of the challenge is in paying homage while keeping it your own. Or asking for proper permission. Didn’t they know about Vanilla Ice and Queen?

  32. jane16 says:

    My friends in the music industry, who are all baby boomers (or older), the rock, singer-songwriter generation are all thrilled with the decision, because it shows they can protect their own songs from being ripped off by the younger gens in the future. Also, they think Thicke is a total no-talent douchebag, and were truly appalled at how Thicke & Pharrell’s people sued the family first. Everyone I know thought that was seriously fucked up. Their record company should have known better, and should have made them make the necessary changes to the song, or gotten permission from Marvin’s family first. I cheered when I saw the decision yesterday.

  33. jane16 says:

    I don’t think you can sue for chord progressions, just melody and lyrics. I’ll have to look it up, but that’s how I always understood it.

  34. jane16 says:

    Another interesting case is the one between Led Zeppelin and the old sixties group Spirit, over the beginning of the song Stairway To Heaven:
    http://ultimateclassicrock.com/led-zeppelin-stairway-to-heaven-lawsuit/
    One of our closest friends used to play opening for Spirit, so we have been hearing a lot about it.

  35. Alexa says:

    I’m sad about this. I didn’t know that Pharell & Thicke (was it actually THEM – I can’t read well today) started the suit. Why would they do that in the first place? Seems SO DUMB! And – aside from the questionable lyrics – I LOVE THIS SONG! I mean – I don’t know about the rest of you, but I HEAR songs on the radio and decide if I like them WAY BEFORE I know what the lyrics are. Am I alone in that? And many of my favorite songs that I’ve listened to over & over – tens upon tens of times (even hundreds and hundreds of times) – I find myself even NOW, after listening to say a Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young song . . . after it says, “I have my ship . . . AND ALL HER FLAGS ARE FLYING —- OH??? That’s what they’re saying.”
    And so many songs can be considered EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE – why decide as a population that “Blurred Lines” is the song that turns us all into Tipper Gore?

  36. Miss Wilson says:

    I can hear similarities, but it’s never something I would have picked up not knowing it was the “same”. I feel sorry for them, mostly because I preferr Blurred Lines and I’m glad it was made. Lol

  37. tarheel says:

    A fitting coda to this disgusting date rape song.