3 ms·

In the case of Blurred Lines, wasn't Pharrell forced to admit that he was listening to the Marvin Gaye song, around the time of the recording of Blurred Lines?

• Lazare 9y ago
  > it does seem to blur the lines of such absolutist statements as those you have made. I could not disagree more. Again, we're talking about copyright, and copyright covers a specific expression of an idea. The fact that Pharrell was listening to an earlier, similar work is irrelevant, because listening to an earlier work around the time you wrote a new work doesn't mean your work is the same as the earlier work, any more than eating pizza around the time you wrote a new work means your work is literally a pizza. > That doesn't prove causation on it's own I think you're using the wrong framework here; this isn't a reverse engineering case. We don't need to prove that the authors of "Blurred Lines" had been exposed to "Got To Give It Up"; it's so popular and influential we can just assume it. What needs to be proven is that "Blurred Lines" contains copywritable elements from "Got To Give It Up". And contrary to the majority opinion of the appeals court, it seems quite clear it doesn't.
  • tmuir 9y ago
    It is ironic that you mention reverse engineering, because all of my arguments here are based in details of the most famous copyright infraction cases. The prevailing logic in this thread, whether correct or not, if that is even a quantifiable measure, is that copyright is exactly, precisely, without exception, "a specific expression of an idea", and by defining copyright so cleanly, they can similarly define what qualifies as infringement of copyright. Where this idea meets stiff resistance is when it is contrasted with all of the precedent set by high profile infraction cases, such as George Harrison/The Chiffons, The Verve/The Rolling Stones, Ray Parker Jr./Huey Lewis. Each of these, in its own way, demonstrates that there is always more context involved than people making simple absolutist statements would have you believe.