Blurred Lines Verdict - Affect on Cinema/Content?

[Nick Morrison]

Has everyone seen the BLURRED LINES VERDICT? Where the Gaye family successfully won $7.3 million from both Pharrell and Robin Thicke?

The Blurred Lines verdict may be good for The Gaye family, but I wonder what affect it will have on music? And content in general? We live in such an "inspired/referenced" age...to monetize a simple "reference" (as opposed to a direct "copy/lift") could turn music, tv and even film on it's head. What happens now when a director "references" another? Which happens all the time, often as a token of affection. George Lucas "referenced" John Ford in "Star Wars A New Hope" (the burning of the aunt and uncle at the beginning is a direct reference to "The Searchers") - should Disney pay the Ford family a percentage of the global franchise's profits?

See this short clip, that shows how Scorsese, Lucas and Spielberg ALL "referenced" the Searchers:

Ed David just referenced Gordon Willis in his wonderful new short film "The Quiet Escape" - does he owe Mr.Willis's estate for admitting his reference?

Quentin Tarantino has been "referencing" movies his whole career - does he have to pay it all back? I'm not sure where this ends exactly, but I'm certainly concerned by this new precedent. At the very least, it could make artists much less forthcoming about their influences, which would make my readings of "American Cinematographer" much more boring...

 

[Bill Anderson]

Not sure about who owes who, but The Quiet Escape is a lovely little piece.
Thanks.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Visual steals and musical steals are completely different. In the case of "Blurred Lines," there are quite a few experts who point out that the melody and lyrics of the song are very different, and only the bass riff and the rhythm section are identical. I think the verdict is misguided, but Thicke should have to pay the Gaye estate something -- just not $7 million.

 

[Ed David]

Thanks for this Nick - I completely agree with you.

Speaking of stealing shots, look what George Lucas did in star wars:

Basically it's shot for shot ripoff from that old film! I think if they only knew!

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I think the Blurred Lines verdict is complete bullshit and could open up the floodgates to much more of the same. The number of musicians who have blatantly stolen, er... excuse me, I mean "borrowed," various riffs and phrases from others over the years is too numerous to count. In the world of Rock, bands have traditionally borrowed/ stole from their contemporaries, almost as a game of sorts. Sometimes in spite of, sometimes as a tribute... Anyway, this one isn't over and it can be appealed, and should be, IMO.

 

[David Battistella]

If this is the case pretty much everyone owes DW Griffiths.

All kidding aside, there will arrive a time where sequences of shots will be patented. Like sheet music or words eventually digital equivalents of creativity like timelines, shot rythmns, sequence structure and visual references will all eventually either be patentable or will simply fall into the ether.

the same way Vimeo can check your video for audio, eventually it will be able to "see" the cuts through metadata tags and possibly even prevent you from uploading a series of shots, just for having the same time structure as another sequence.

As artists we should be referencing everything around us as a way of retelling stories. But in this digital age it will not be long before there will be a timeline registry just as there is a script registry.

battistella

 

[Bob Gundu]

Oh oh. That's going to kill the Bollywood industry! :laugh:

If this is the case pretty much everyone owes DW Griffiths.

All kidding aside, there will arrive a time where sequences of shots will be patented. Like sheet music or words eventually digital equivalents of creativity like timelines, shot rythmns, sequence structure and visual references will all eventually either be patentable or will simply fall into the ether.

the same way Vimeo can check your video for audio, eventually it will be able to "see" the cuts through metadata tags and possibly even prevent you from uploading a series of shots, just for having the same time structure as another sequence.

As artists we should be referencing everything around us as a way of retelling stories. But in this digital age it will not be long before there will be a timeline registry just as there is a script registry.

battistella

 

[David Battistella]

Oh oh. That's going to kill the Bollywood industry! :laugh:

Ha ha.

But seriously, copyright is only as strong as its ability to be policed. Moral arguments don't really work. In other words if someone in Chana wants to print 1 billion Mickey mouse tee shirts and sell them there is not much anyone can do. One mans cultural property is another mans public domain. Depending on where you are in the world and the legal means you have to protect yourself.

 

[Jim Hoffman]

This is terrible. I think an influence and copying are different things. This has the potential to open the floodgates to many many bullshit lawsuits. These are not the same songs and no one owns a feel or groove.

 

[David Battistella]

Well,

just for the record. They do cut together pretty seamlessly.

 

[Robino_J]

there are quite a few experts who point out that the melody and lyrics of the song are very different, and only the bass riff and the rhythm section are identical. I think the verdict is misguided, but Thicke should have to pay the Gaye estate something -- just not $7 million.

The foundation of Disco, jazz-funk, soul music is predominately bass, drums and percussions. The feel, beat construction and instruments are absolutely ripping off Gaye's song. The song made around 16.6million + the live performances etc.. I personally fully agree with the judgement - pay up!

 

[Nick Morrison]

Well,

just for the record. They do cut together pretty seamlessly.

The cowbells and basslines are similar yes...but I'm not sure if that's the same as being a "copy" - especially since the lyrics and melodies diverge....

 

[Marc Wielage]

The foundation of Disco, jazz-funk, soul music is predominately bass, drums and percussions. The feel, beat construction and instruments are absolutely ripping off Gaye's song. The song made around 16.6million + the live performances etc.. I personally fully agree with the judgement - pay up!

These people feel it's a dangerous precedent:

http://www.businessinsider.com/copy...the-robin-thicke-blurred-lines-verdict-2015-3

I echo what Thicke's lawyers said, which is that a beat, a feel, a bass riff, and a rhythm section are not copyrightable. Copyrights are extended for arrangements, melodies, and lyrics, which are totally different ideas. Guaranteed, the dollar figure awarded will come way down in appeal.