Blurred Lines Copyright Case Study - Pharrell Williams v Bridgeport Music (Includes Rare Footage)

Music Copyright Cases: Blurred Lines Case Study
Pharrell Williams et al. v Bridgeport Music et al., No. 15-56880 9th Circuit
Back in 2015, the copyright case between the family of Marvin Gaye and the writers of Robin Thicke's blurred lines produced a shocking result that alarmed the music industry.
The court had ruled that Pharrell Williams had infringed copyright by using elements from Marvin Gaye's "Got To Give It Up" for the song he wrote and produced for Robin Thicke. What made the verdict a surprise was that the elements cited things like the basslines, chords and the "groove" are not usually protected by copyright.
So why did the court rule that way?
An in-depth look in the case, and the previous cases that set the precedents,
Isley Brothers vs Michael Bolton
[Three Boys Music Corp. v. Michael Bolton,
212 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. 2000)]
and
The Chiffons vs George Harrison
[Bright Tunes Music Corp. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd. -
420 F. Supp. 177 (S.D.N.Y. 1976) & ABKCO Music Inc. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd.]
Includes rare footage of depositions used in the case and actual footage of the appeal hearing

[@andreagyamfi5295]

This is the most comprehensive take on this topic I've seen on KZbin. I really enjoyed it.

[@Traxploitation]

Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment. I'm so glad you enjoyed it, that really means a lot!

[@jonleonguerrero]

I agree. Very strong, and great examples of the precedent cases. Nicely done.

[@sandydegener6436]

"I'm not comfortable..." the artistic way to say "I plead the 5th!"

[@tonyguidry1388]

Pharrell should have been honest about his ability to read music. Bottom line.

[@paulbrown6464]

Just made himself look a complete fool

[@OfflineSetup]

Very odd that his lawyer should have come up with the extremely odd line of "I'm not comfortable " .

[@redlightspellsdanger7177]

Or rather ‘inability’

[@barrybrake7049]

He should have. But I see the reasoning behind his evasiveness. Pharrell was refusing to answer a question that NEVER should have been asked. Most of the giants of American popular song couldn't read a note of music - from Irving Berlin to Dave Brubeck to ... ... Paul McCartney and George Harrison (how is that not mentioned in this video?!?!), Bob Dylan, Stevie Wonder ... ... Goodness. The list of those who can't read notes on a page is longer than the list of ones who can. Again and again, the lawyers play on the ignorance of the decision-makers. Phooey.

[@lylyeoh]

@@barrybrake7049 don't forget Stevie Wonder... 😎

[@davidtassy9901]

It’s actually very possible to read sheet music and not identify each note. It depends -I had lessons and band for years. I forgot what each note looks like separately but if you put sheet music in front of me depends on the instrument i could play along knowing when rests are and when to repeat. If there are chord identifiers at the top like dmajor7 etc it’s very possibly. This was a weird greedy lawyer case. I don’t get how anyone can stand in court when they have nothing to do with any of the music or process. It’s so weird. It’s very possible to forget what a simple A looks like when you don’t need the skill anymore. I think their is some misconception that “a real musician can read sheet music “ Hendrix was self taught and can outplay most players.

[@reggiefields6551]

if he said he could not have read music it would have been less an issue. he claimed he could but then could not identify notes or the duration of notes. this did not help his credibility. he said he even know "every good boy...." & FACE but was unable to identify notes after a long examination period. im guessing they showed him a bass clef??? many who saw that video would doubt his word & integrity on issues surrounding this case.

[@shellyannegoh6054]

It`s sad to see that you can be innocent and still proven guilty.

[@davidaaronartist]

yea because money not justice, thats says alot about USA

[@awesomedallastours]

It happens all the time.

[@gerteach5220]

This is masterplanned verdict of some crrpted especially because nobody of them all has anything to do with the composing of that title...

[@christopherfranklin4760]

I think Thicke's statement of being high and drunk says a lot about his credibility.

[@plutofs]

That's not relevant unless he says it on the stand. Jury doesn't see the depositions.

[@wordhappyHazel]

I think his statement that he just said whatever he thought would sell records said more!

[@brad30three]

Don’t forget “dumb”

[@Traxploitation]

@Pluto FS thats not really true...depositions are an incredibly important and relevant part of litigation. depositions are sworn testimonies. Just like in court evidence. The jury may not SEE the deposition but there's a few clear ways it can become evidence at trial. It can be read into evidence if the witness isn't available. Had neither Pharrel nor Robin Thicke attended the trial their depositions could have been read into evidence in their absence. The deposition can also be used for impeachment purposes, refuting in court statements that contradict statements made in the deposition. These depositions severly harmed their case.

[@Natalie-Smith-1111]

@@plutofs Depositions are usually hearsay and are thus inadmissible at trial. There are, however, three exceptions to the hearsay rule that are particularly relevant to deposition testimony. The first is when a party admits something in a deposition that is against their interest. The second is when a witness's testimony at trial contradicts their deposition. The third is when a witness is unavailable at trial. So, yes the jury can see the deposition

[@everythingbobbywolfe]

Oj simpson should have used the "I'm not comfortable" defense in his civil trial. Traxploitation is an awesome channel, btw! !

[@MrKarmapolice97]

Yeah that was complete bullshit and made me not like Pharrell

[@jasonallen3678]

Facts

[@HulaHula667]

@@MrKarmapolice97 I never really have, there’s just been “something” that’s prevented me from going beyond enjoying a couple of his songs back in the day to being an actual fan. I don’t think the information that has come out about him from and following Kellis’ obvious “done” that was poorly aimed in part towards Beyoncé.

[@brad30three]

There are THOUSANDS of well-known musicians and/or songwriters who cannot read/write sheet music, yet are somehow magically able to hear/feel their way to creating great music… what point are they trying to make? At the same time, Pharell should have just “no” up front. “Are you a mechanic? No? Then how can you possibly be a world-champion race-car driver?”

[@Traxploitation]

If his lawyer had come up with that they probably would have won 🤷‍♂️😆

[@LunaNosille]

After watching Pharrell's ' Im not comfortable' sequence.... Im happy he lost the case agains the Gaye's family....lol ..he was really annoying there. But having said that...it didnt look on the Gaye's family either as they looked greedy.

[@wgormley25]

I enjoyed this disecting of the case because it was interesting to know that 1 or 2 issues went against the copyright infringement including pharrells own over confidence that he could defend the song instead of paying out of court and the fact he couldn't be a good witness for his own case. This was in my opinion what lead to the jury balancing out their doubt. No jury or judge in this case was an expert on music. They had to rely on witnesses. Thank you for breaking down this case in an easily digestible documentary style analysis

[@choboutube]

I dislike Robin Thicke as much as the next guy but the copyright case was a load of b*llocks.

[@yossxxTraore]

This was so well put together I had to subscribe. And I learnt a lot

[@TheFakeyCakeMaker]

Well you've just done what very few channels are able to accomplish...made me like and subscribe. Fantastic channel, keep that content coming, this is RIGHT up my street. Love it. My thoughts on this: Okay so I think that they wanted something catchy, probably intended to take elements of the song and thought they'd get away with it, what isn't mentioned here is the fact that the song was already being pulled because it was said the lyrics were about non consensual sex so even though the Gaye's won they also lost seeing as the song is no longer played by many main stream stations or used in ads so it's hardly played now and they won't get much more in Royalties. Robin Thicke was also accused of sexual impropriety plus the issues with his wife which further compounded the issue and strengthened that argument. That year Pharrell had two other big hits, one with Daft Punk and the other with Happy so he didn't need The Blurred Lines song so he distanced himself from it, apparently he's embarrassed by it. Robin Thicke was basically left holding the bag. So everyone has lost out here and the Gayes haven't come out in a good light IMO, despite it not being the case the whole thing just made them look money hungry and people not respect them.

[@Grithron2]

Key words "it was said..." - the interpretation doesn't stand up to a sensible, literate, mentally-competent reading of the (fetish-roleplay-themed) song

[@tdtrecordsmusic]

Thanks for making this ! It helps reveal who is who / what is what. I can't believe what they said... and what they did... Even though, even IF they were inspired or copied stuff from Marvin's track, what they used in the song is hardly copying/plagiarism. It's like they F'd themselves, lol I certainly don't look down on em' for not knowing how to read music. It's barely relevant today. This is coming from someone(me) who is classically trained and can read/write music well. I used to be able to sight read. Haven't played my horn in a band in quite a while. I currently make loads of songs/trax/beats.

[@Traxploitation]

Can I listen to your music somewhere?

[@christienelson1437]

I think the point is that if they can’t write music how did they compose Blurred Lines? It has happened before that artists accidentally copied other artist’s work. The honest ones give them credit and pay them for their inspiration. Marvin Gaye was a brilliant artist and deserves credit for his work.💕🙏💕🙏

[@graylandlowry8763]

It's not uncommon for musicians to compose or record music without writing it down. Having perfect or near perfect pitch would easily allow musicians to collaborate. Actually most musicians I've played with don't read music, havent studied theory and don't care to learn. That can make working collabratively take more time but not impossible. It's like saying someone cant use a computer without knowing how to read or write code. Unfortunately Pharrell claiming to know how to read music then making an excuse ruined his credibility.

[@Dexx1s]

Do we know what notes were shown to Pharrell? I'm incredibly confused as to how he wouldn't be able to at least name them.

[@Traxploitation]

I thought the same... "Every Good Boy Does Fine" and "FACE" should have enabled him to at least name the notes. I searched the transcripts but it only refers to the example without showing it. It may well have been some really complex score but it feels like it was more basic than that... if they were doing a TV lawyer thing it would be a NERD or Pharrel song...and they go "Aha that is in fact the sheet music from your song Happy that you also say you wrote..." I'm really curious to know too!

[@Dexx1s]

@@Traxploitation No matter how complex it is, you'd be able to spot the notes, even if it's something like a chord or something on ledger lines. To be honest, if I was on the jury, that would have swayed me against him almost 100%.

[@kristiannereindorfosei2164]

It could be a note on a line several lines above or below the main score (eg 3 lines below middle C); also, it wasn’t clear if he knows the differences between the bass and treble clef

[@NuncNuncNuncNunc]

From the deposition, we can't tell what Pharrell knows about music as, for whatever reason, he refused to answer. He may have been unable to read or he may have been unwilling to reveal that he could read for fear it would show him capable of copying specific elements. Imagine he knowingly copied a portion of Gaye's song for a moment and that he was presented with that very portion.

[@princessm6355]

Maybe they gave him a soprano clef 😂

[@SPASPAWIZ]

I was so confused on how it could be ruled copyright because the music is so different. I would listen and worked out the music and it made me think I was an idiot. This is not I want a new drug/ghostbusters! How the hell can you copyright a feeling, a feel, a groove??? People who don’t understand music just have no idea!

[@geraldobrien7323]

If you go by that measure, most every recorded song could be challenged as being a copy of something done earlier.

[@Vanilla_Baker44]

I think the Pharell's side was a bit over confident. But thanks for this video it has made me realise how complicated and tough the law system is and music as well. Yes, someone should create software for checking if 2 tracks are similar. It also explains why so many people may not go to court over copy right infringement. Considering that Pharell took it to court hi self and had used that as a protective measure before I think it's possible that they had infact tried to recreate the song. And I think the songs are similar. The case shouldn't have just been based off of sheet music, I mean the notes could be different but when they still sound similar.

[@SavedByGrace_CitizenEmperorユウ]

I'm not sure but if I had to guess, I would say Pharell Williams is not comfortable with reading music. 😁

[@Traxploitation]

lol. now, whatever gave you that idea? 🙃

[@Bagabonda]

As a songwriter, this verdict grieves me terribly. Every songwriter and musician I know here in Nashville feels the same way. Everyone is terrified of being sued. ALSO: regarding Ferrell not being able to read music: the vast majority of pro musicians in Nashville don't read music; they HEAR music. Any musician can hear that these two songs do not share any melodic phrases, either in the vocal or the accompaniment. They DO share the same instruments, including cowbell. Of course, every string quartet shares the same instruments. NOT infringement!!!

[@TheFakeyCakeMaker]

clap clap clap clap clap clap clap. THANK YOU. Utter clap trap to say that because you can read music you can write it and vice versa, that's clearly the logic of someone who is in no way musical.

[@Aaron_R]

I agree - I heard the two songs and didn't think it was infringement. That being said - Pharell Clearly lied when he said he could read music and then couldn't name the notes or length. That's pretty basic stuff and totally discredits any of his future testimony. You have to be honest under oath or the lawyers will make you pay. He didn't know and lied about knowing.

[@SPASPAWIZ]

I was so confused on how it could be ruled copyright because the music is so different. I would listen and worked out the music and it made me think I was an idiot. This is not I want a new drug/ghostbusters! How the hell can you copyright a feeling, a feel, a groove??? People who don’t understand music just have no idea!

[@Traxploitation]

Not sure I've mentioned this before (as ive replied to some of your other comments already) but I'm a song writer, and producer, with 30 years experience. So its the logic of someone with decades of experience working with musicians of all levels. The idea that somone can be able to write something and then not be able to read it back is ludicrous! Maybe if you take "read music" as being fluent in notation then you're right, but the point i was making was if he knows "Every Good Boy Does Fine" and "FACE" then he should be able to read and recognise those basic notes. I don't have a formal music theory education but I can read music to the extent that I can write it and vice versa, i really cant see why this is so controversial?

[@r.williamcomm7693]

Agree 100%. I believe the jury slammed the Plaintiffs for lying about who really wrote it. The jury ignored the law

[@trowaelric605]

So is "I'm not comfortable" the i dont have to answer for people with money?

[@GeeDeeBird]

Opposing counsel could have ended the deposition and filed a motion to compel testimony. The judge would almost certainly have ordered Pharell to answer the question. They would have then resumed the deposition and Pharell would have either answered or been liable for contempt of court. Opposing counsel didn't do it because he felt - correctly in my opinion - that the answer Pharell gave was more prejudicial than a simple "No, I can't read music" would have been. Its all about strategy, not money.

[@Capuchinho987]

Oh. Now I see why they lost the case. They had no understanding of the court environment and functions. I've seen many people loosing cases because of that.. Also sometimes lawyers accept cases they are not used to do or are not familiar with. Because of movies, people think that court is a theatre. Like the best will happen at the end. They don't understand that in reality the court body does not know who is the hero, and if you don't defend yourself from the accusation, the one the court has in hand, you are guilty. Court is a very intricate environment. One needs to be sure of what one is accused of, what is the understanding of the judge/jury, lawyers that actually have knowledge on the matter...

[@darnellmajor8895]

I dont think it's that deep and disagree with most of what you said........if you know you're guilty of something then you're likely going to lose if you go up against a smart opponent. And Im sure the Court has in mind who it thinks is the guilty party and who isn't but just a personal thing. We all have opinions.

[@princessm6355]

This was a messed up case. The jury needed at least one skilled music theorist to understand what the musicologist was saying. And they should’ve heard the audio of both songs cause even without music theory knowledge you can clearly hear the songs are completely different. SMH.

[@MrlordS487]

Another excellent video mate. You should do Ed Sheeran and his multiple copyright issues with his music.

[@okay5045]

The first time I heard blurred lines I thought of Marvin Gaye's song Got to give it Up. The grove was obvious and unmistakable.

[@MsDezB1]

Same. Got To Give It Up is my jam. My mama played it all the time when I was a kid and I continue to play it as an adult. That flavor was all up in, through and over Blurred Lines.

[@teleguy5699]

The groove should not be subject to copywrite. Hence Ed Sheeran winning a closer sounding Gaye song than Blurred Lines.

[@philliplandshoft2437]

The first time I heard Bkurred Lines I thought of Got to give it up, even to the extent of searching out that great song to listen to it again. How can they argue it's not similar? Anyone with functunal ears could see the similarity. Why not just admit it was sampled like so many songs and save yourself pots of money?

[@Traxploitation]

100% agree. Although not technically a sample he could easily have cleared it as an "interpolation" for a settlement way less than the legal bills for the failed attempt to get the declaratory relief. He also could have just said, "yeah, we were heavily inspired by the Marvin Gaye song but we have not infringed on the copyright, being inspired by old music is what drives creativity in new music" his lawyer could also have citied previous case law for songs that sounded similar but were not deemed to be infringing on copyright such as Stairway to Heaven/Taurus which was being litigated at the same time. This case wasn't really won/lost on its merits, it was a combination of mistakes by the lawyer and Pharrell's ego not allowing him to admit that being inspired by other people's work is a large part of his creative process. This isn't the only song of his that sounds similar to other famous songs. The middle section of "Frontin'" (just prior to Jay Z's rap) sounds almost identical to the intro of "Can't Help It" by Michael Jackson. And his video for "Happy" is quite clearly "inspired" by Girl Walk // All Day.

[@rmv9194]

Yes and if you do with many reagae song you would come with the same conclusion.

[@tguthrie6]

Its not a sample, fool.

[@DodgaOfficial]

There's a difference between something between being similar and being a copy. If everyone could sue for something sounding similar, 90% of music wouldn't exist, that's kind of the whole point of a genre, common tropes that are used over and over again. These kinds of lawsuits are extremely dangerous for the future of music and creativity.

[@austinstyles6393]

Your ignorance is dangerous.

[@andremiller4863]

The most bs miscarriage of Justice in music copyright law ever...they're not even the same structure musically...

[@GeeDeeBird]

Pharell and Robin Thicke lost, not because their song is substantially similar to Marvin Gaye's song, nor because the "sliding scale" tipped toward infringement. They lost because they were arrogant, entitled and stupid. If you are involved in a lawsuit, keep your mouth shut!

[@brookemaxwell2276]

WTF does the ability to read notes have ANYTHING to do with this case?! It's groove. It's ears. It's feel. This is a disgusting example of the ignorance of the legal system. Ugh.

[@Traxploitation]

It has nothing to do with it at all. 🤷‍♂️ But to a jury of people with no musical background it will seem important. Copyright cases shouldn't be heard in regular courts. There should be a panel of experts. Copyright cases being jury trials go back to the 30s when Ira Arnstein sued pretty much every writer...and lost every case...but along the way the cases set some really damaging precedents...one of which was being a trial by jury...not a bench trial...ie just a judge deciding. I'm doing a future episode on Arnstein and his antics...so check back for that...or subscribe if u haven't already... its a fascinating story.

[@HitsTownUSA]

There are only so many rhythms/bass lines that can be created,so eventually little to no new music can be created going into the future. That is not good. I remember as a kid in 1984 hearing the intro of Pointer Sisters “Jump” and it sounded so similar to Elton John “Philadelphia Freedom” that I thought it was that song. I don’t believe the Gaye Estate should have won, it’s far different than many of the sampling lawsuits.

[@flowsingingschool]

What a massive case! Pharrell did himself no favours.

[@BigSmokinJoe]

I’m uncomfortable 😂

[@areasevenpro]

Because he's not comfortable.

[@kioshiro482]

I wanna see pharrel say "I CANT READ SH!T OKAY!!? I just copy paste stuff like most hip hop does"

[@terejosh13]

​@kio shiro your uneducation is showing 😮

[@JustaRandomGirl485]

@@kioshiro482that would be so fucking funny. I’m having a marathon of all the shit he has done to society and to other singers (Kelis, and other girls)

[@macpony2571780]

Blurred lines was so obviously inspired by gotta give it up ;it's too bad they didn't get a lawyer and made a deal before they recorded it; I'm sure they would've saved a lot of money. because it was a great song.

[@Traxploitation]

They did get a lawyer, but rather than negotiate a deal they decided to file for "Declaratory Relief", in other words they wanted a judge to rule there was no infringement to prevent The Gaye family from suing at a later date. The Gaye's counter-sued.

[@trendmassacre8423]

The title "Blurred lines" says it all.

[@smileprettymusic]

It's a terrible song

[@carolinej3661]

Pharrell looks like a liar and a fool in this deposition. Based on this alone, I've lost any respect for him. That said, I don't think that one necessarily has to be able to read and write musical notation in order to create good - or even very good! - music!!

[@Traxploitation]

100% agree. I have no idea why Pharrells lawyer didn't make this point. I have no formal training in music myself and yet have written and produced over 500 songs and won awards. Many people, myself included, program the notes into a computer rather than write them on a stave. Pharrells ability to write music should be evident in his body of work. The questioning in the deposition is pretty predictable, I was shocked he wasn't better prepared for that line of questioning.

[@ENigma-um8zw]

“I’m not comfortable” in that it means ‘I’m highly insecure and cannot even admit personal imperfection’ that dropped Pharrell’s respect to me by like infinity. Damn those dudes That Harrison thing made me crazy, My Sweet Lord. Also I want to hear Jimmy Page’s Happy Birthday in the style of Stairway to Heaven now lol

[@thepagan5432]

Ignoring flat and sharp notes, there are 9 musical notes, from these chords are made and tunes established. Obviously there will similarities between songs and some of these plagiarised songs are really obvious, other incorporate subtle differences which could be down to chance. The awards in music court cases are so high, that is why they are big business. Albert Einstein plagiarised other people's work, but this was ignored as there was not huge amounts of money to be had. There should be a panel of knowledgeable people that understand the vagaries of musical composition who decide if a song is a copy in part or full of someone else's work.

[@Traxploitation]

100% Seems insane that judges, and sometimes juries, who lack knowledge make these decisions that then set precedents. There needs to be a specialist impartial panel..

[@TBROWN1906]

The idea of using the sheet music as a basis for the case is ridiculous. Pharrell, who apparently can't read music, didn't have access to the sheet music. Pharrell didn't get the sheet music when he was a boy and transcribe it to create a new song called blurred lines. NO! He heard the song and liked it, just like everybody else. Playing both songs in court is common sense. They even incorporated the some crowd noises and yells in Blurred Lines, just like in Got to Give it Up

[@jaded5957]

Your content is excellent and is criminally under subscribed and viewed.

[@Traxploitation]

Thanks for your positive words! Makes it worthwhile knowing people are enjoying the videos.

[@kioshiro482]

I have no doubt that pharrel copied marvin gaye. Its what dumb people do all the time, even in school.

[@N17-o2r]

If Pharrel is dumb I’d love you to describe your brain power 😂

[@kioshiro482]

@@N17-o2r if pharrel is dumb, then you must be far below that to ever worship the guy.

[@akmuk7]

Now THIS is interesting. Reading music isn't for everyone. That's ok tho. To say "I can", then "I'm confused", made me feel uncomfortable 🤔

[@TheFakeyCakeMaker]

HA! To be fair you don't even need to watch past 7:40. Robin why did you basically admit to copying the song? Because I'm Thicke. 🤷🏻‍♀️

[@bryede]

It's nice to find so much information presented without bias. Honestly, with there being so much popular music out there, the tests for infringement will have to be relaxed before nothing new can be safely recorded (actually, it's still pretty safe to record as long as you don't have a hit). I don't think you should need musicologists to explain to the jury how things that don't sound like each other are technically similar. The most powerful elements of popular music are that which is apparent to the listener.

[@Traxploitation]

Nicely put!

[@SavedByGrace_CitizenEmperorユウ]

And for the topic of knowing how to write music: In school I'm writing longer texts, essays and grammar in also foreign languages. Most of the time I'm doing very well. But I'm not good at explaining things or naming grammar terms. I am mostly writing the texts after reading the instructions and somehow I'm doing more than fine most of the time. I am not really sure how I am doing it. That can be the case with musicians also. Maybe it's called talent.

[@devontehuntley6274]

I thought Blurred Lines was always meant to be a homage to Got To Give It Up. I mean the song is very similar beat wise and you have Pharrell squealing in the background going Woooah just like that background woman singer in Marvin's song. They could not have made this song without knowing Got To Give It Up or thought they could get away with stealing given how big that song was so this was easily made as a homage. But if they didn't have permission to make a similar sounding song to it then there's where the issue lies.

[@twilfits]

My Sweet Lord was my 1st experience w music copyright infringement. But it shouldn't be restricted to melody as a piece has many components and they all are integral to its DNA. Today so many 3 base notes are used commercially which easily identify as songs w active copyright. This was a great decision and landmark case. Thanks for posting.

[@dominicknoll7398]

It not just melody. The chords, the melody, the tempo, key, lyrics, and rhythms are all different. Only thing that’s the same here is the way the song feels. Can’t copyright a feeling.

[@NuncNuncNuncNunc]

Are you saying the infringement should require more than just melody or that the separate components are individually worthy of copyright?

[@reannabaker4]

Most concise and thorough examination of these cases available!

[@woedybroadie4800]

No one owns a groove, a chord progression, an interval, etc. If that was the case, pop artists would be going to court every day because of their use of the 1 4 5 progression. Also, some of the greatest musicians can't read music. It was a low blow to judge Pharrell for not attending a conservatory for music. He obviously knows what notes are written on the staff paper, but was offended at the fact that they were trying to discredit him for not being classically trained.

[@Traxploitation]

Its a pretty obvious tactic, I'm shocked Pharrell's legal team weren't better prepared to defend that. But i do think he has no idea how to read music and he was caught in a lie when asked to prove this ability. You can't get offended by questioning in a sworn deposition, his ego cost him millions.

[@wit2pz]

@@Traxploitation that's quite a reach to deduce that because Pharrell refused to comply with the lawyer's request, it means that he can't read music. Very much in the same way that my television that got stolen by my drug-addicted neighbors, but I couldn't prove that the television in the picture that was entered as evidence because I didn't memorize the serial number. As you said, it's a pretty obvious tactic.

[@terejosh13]

​@@wit2pz very bad use of a simile 😂

[@ministryofhealingfarm]

Am I the only one who remembers Frank Ocean and TI singing Blurred Lines on Sirius radio? Year Before Rob Thicke?

[@latenightcrazies]

LOOOOOOL that deposition was wild

[@Traxploitation]

Crazy right!? I can't believe they still went to trial after that 🤦‍♂️

[@justinsayin3979]

Note that the "inverse ratio rule" cited by Judge Smith at 17:37 in the video was overturned by the Ninth Circuit shortly after this ruling (in the Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin appeal). Since a big part of this case seemed to rest on "access" to the Gaye song by Williams and Thicke, and since the inverse ratio rule holds that the more access there is to a work, the lower the threshold for establishing substantial similarity, then the case might have come out differently if it had wrapped up two years later.

[@Traxploitation]

They were right to overturn it, it was definitely problematic, George Harrison and Michael Bolton would both have won their landmark cases if it were not for this rule, but they chose the weirdest case to overturn it. IMO Led Zeppelin copied "Taurus". They have a long history of plagiarism, many of "their" best known songs are complete rip offs. So its a fairly safe assumption that this song too was inspired by hearing another song. They really need to completely overhaul how copyright cases are adjudicated, rather than applying nonsensical rules like "inverse ratio" they should have a basic "Mens Rea" element to plagiarism cases. It should definitely not be allowed to intentionally copy a song, but accidental or coincidental similarities should not be litigated in the same way.

[@plutofs]

@@Traxploitation "My Sweet Lord" was substantially similar to "He's So Fine" but they needed to prove access because without access, there is no infringement.

[@Traxploitation]

it was still ruled as "accidental" copying. So the access was of little relevance, as it was found that he didn't knowingly hear and/or copy the song, but that he MAY have heard the song, and therefore the similarities constituted an infringement of the Chiffons song even though Harrison stated in his testimony that he had drawn inspiration from another song "Oh Happy Days" when writing "My Sweet Lord"

[@m.rivers9201]

Maybe but here, I mean my God, the Marvin Gaye tune was all over the radio, claiming no access seems silly. Thicke admitted as much in his early interviews. The two songs are just too alike to boldly claim no access.

[@profmartin1967]

None of The Beatles had any formal music training nor could they read or write music so it seems ridiculous that this argument could be used as a basis for the case against Pharrell Williams.

[@romancastro_]

Pharrell gave an interview and when asked about the case, he used a bunch of music theory terms talking about chord structures and said 'if you look at the sheet music the songs are completely different'. which implies he can read music. That's my guess as to why reading music became such a sticking point.

[@juandef4115]

@@romancastro_ he's also said in the past he "reverse engineers songs".

[@gratao25]

@@juandef4115 everyone in the industry does bro

[@whatweedoo191]

The Beatles produced original music. Not music containing portions of Happy Birthday. Simple.

[@tml184]

@@romancastro_ Exactly. Pharrell is a liar.

[@larseikind666]

So the copyright is based purely on the written sheet music and not the actual recordings of the music in USA? That sounds pretty bogus to me. Did the Beatles write down the iconic drum groove of "Come Together" or is that just up for grabs without fear of copyright infringement? I really hope I have understood this wrong.

[@Traxploitation]

Not anymore, they updated the copyright act but as the Marvin Gaye song predated the modern copyright act it was in this case. In general, US copyright law is pretty bogus anyway. They took over 100 years to sign the Berne Convention of 1886 which grants certain protections for performers. US copyright law favours the labels more than the creators. As for "Come Together" that is one complex tale! Firstly, its heavily based on "You Can't Catch Me" by Chuck Berry and the publishing of that song was owned by Mafia affiliated label boss Morris Levy, who sued John Lennon, they eventually settled with Lennon agreeing to record some other Morris Levy songs for a John Lennon album. So it would be incredibly hypocritical for them to staunchly defend that copyright. All that aside, in most cases drum beats can't be protected by copyright, the sound recording of it can, so if someone samples the recording thats a copyright infringement but if you replay it to sound the same then its not. Strictly speaking "the song" is defined as the words and the dominant melody, sometimes referred to as the "top line". Chord progressions, Rhythm or anything that is deemed to be a "building block" like a scale, cannot be protected. Its pretty confusing and leads to many poor verdicts as the juries dont understand the law, but its not that common for copyright cases to get to court, and most copyright cases in UK are bench trials. no jury.

[@m.rivers9201]

Pharell is one music's greatest rip off artists as most if not all of the songs he is associated with come from 60's and 70's predecessors. He is followed closely by Bruno Mars. At least Bruno was smart enough to give the artists he ripped off a little rub, a la Sting with Locked out of heaven. A night of cocaine, an old radio and a guitar can be a dangerous thing.

[@Traxploitation]

Hard to disagree with that

[@Stray..]

Regardless, I love Blurred Lines. There are so many songs that can be said to sound the same or very similar without lawsuits being filed. I believe Pharrell and Robin should have won. Yes, they made horrible witnesses for themselves, but that doesn’t mean they are guilty.

[@roccoiacovino4078]

Arrogance & failure to acknowledge the true artist as his inspiration is the same modus operandi for most of the millennial generation! The thing is Marvin's greatness & his song will stand of the test of time but these other 2 imitators will quickly fade into obscurity! Lesson for all millenials, acknowledge & respect the past, try to honour the legacy without stealing & learn to be humble human beings, thats how you become great!

[@tay215philly]

So it’s cool just flat out steal. Pharrell knew he was stealing. That’s why he went to the Gaye family first to try to prevent them from filing a lawsuit against him. Did you miss that part? Then for his lawyers to prevent the jury from hearing Got to give it up, proves it even more. If it’s not a copy why not play it in court? You condone stealing.

[@Stray..]

@@tay215philly Me and the hundreds of Artists who also thought he should win. There is a discussion that happens around the topic of music and copyright that is very interesting. After researching that discussion in length, I know exactly where I stand on it and it’s not with stealing. Maybe you should research it as well. If you do so with an open mind, you might discover that you have a little different view on it than you do now.

[@tay215philly]

@@Stray.. I remember when this case was relevant. Based on what read of the trial and what I saw it’s stealing flat out. You cannot say with a clear conscience that blurred lines doesn’t sound exactly like got to give it up. Again. Explain why not having both songs played in court? Don’t give me lip service. Can you hear?

[@Stray..]

@@tay215philly I think you are the one who isn’t hearing. The jury heard the part of the song that was actually copyrighted. The reason they didn’t hear the base line is because that part is NOT copyrighted! And even before one minute in this video he says that base lines aren’t copyrighted. That means no musician has the right to a base line groove. I LOVE Marvin Gaye, but not to the point of clouded thinking. I am hearing the video. The legal parts included, not just the parts that support my own beliefs.

[@ayeitsnouraofficial]

my teacher is a forensic musicologist teaching at UCLA and she won on this case for the blurred lines! Her name is Franzell or something LOL

[@Traxploitation]

Judith Finell?

[@ayeitsnouraofficial]

@@Traxploitation YES omg shes my teacher this quarter at UCLA! Shes working alonside Don Franzell hes an attorney. She even told us that in "blurred lines" they took the "WOO" out of the song when they showed it to the jurors!! She's such a sweet woman I cant wait to learn more from her!

[@aidench3.14]

@@ayeitsnouraofficial Hey good to see other ppl in forensic musicology!

[@aidench3.14]

@@Traxploitation Thank you for making the most in depth and complete explanation I’ve seen so far. There is so much hidden information even beyond what is commonly available.

[@thotosiyabongamashinini973]

I have an exam on this copyright law this was helpful thank you😎

[@Traxploitation]

Oh great! Let me know how you get on in the exam. Good luck!

[@adtvandietv]

Just shows if you put (some) of these artists on the spot you see the facades crack and peel off like old layers of paint.

[@kenoliver8913]

This happens because any recorded music production is an ensemble one - there is NEVER just one person's skill and creativity involved, any more than there is in a stage or film production. Sometimes the smallest part of all is that of the credited songwriter and/or performer. Copyright law simply does not recognise this reality.

[@joeybaseball7352]

This is horrible because you can't copyright a rhythm. Just like you can't copyright a style, or speech pattern.

[@Traxploitation]

Thats the problem with Jury trials when the facts are objective but the jury lack expertise so end up making subjective decisions. The two songs sound "similar" but not even close to the point where it infringed on copyright. In most criminal and civil cases "mens rea" (or a "guilty mind") is enough to convict. IE you can be guilty of armed robbery just by intending to commit the crime, even if you are ultimately unsuccessful. The opposite is true of copyright (especially under US case law), you can be guilty of plagiarism despite having no intention to copy. The jury here were probably confused by Robin Thicke's admission that they "tried to get a groove like that* (*got to give it up) going" and Pharrell's apparent inability to explain the music theory behind the song or even identify some notes. Neither is relevant but I suspect they played a large part in the jury's verdict.

[@annepascoe3029]

Ofcourse they ripped it off .It's so obvious.

[@ThePrinceOfTheTalkbox]

We .. AND they all Know..that was Marvin Gaye's......GOT TO GIVE IT UP

[@john_doe_not_found]

Even if he can't read music, just listening to the two songs they sound different enough that i don't see how this law suite was won. kzbin.info/www/bejne/d6rcqmBmaK6Hesk Got to give it up kzbin.info/www/bejne/r6qnhnZngbqLibc Blurred Lines Blurred Lines sounds fun, Got to give it up sounds depressing. They are different enough that this just seems like an enterprising family out to make a buck off someone else's good fortune.

[@Traxploitation]

...because the Jury were not qualified/experienced enough to determine if two songs are musically the same in a way that infringes copyright. However, a precedent set in the 1940's (Ira Arnstein vs Cole Porter) means copyright infringement cases are heard by juries and not solely judges (bench trials). When it was just judges hearing the cases they nearly always dismissed the cases pre-trial unless someone was actually passing off someone's song as their own, not simply because 2 songs sort of sounded a bit similar in passing. As soon as a jury is involved any outcome is possible. In this case, the wrong verdict.

[@jaywalker4097]

In the courtroom; Can you write music? Yes.....Uh, I'm not comfortable. Congratulations U played urself! Lmao 🤣😆😂😆

[@busardr1452]

I get this. He is not mastering his craft and is only using what he hears pulling inspiration from that media. All great composers throughout time wrote their music not only from what the ear hears but the patters of the notes on the page as well and how different instruments intersect and meld in those patterns. This is why Beethoven was able to continue his works after he went deaf. This does not mean Pharrell is not a good producer, his is. He has an incredible ear and feel for music. I wish he would learn how to read and write music because I believe he would create some truly amazing music, greater than what he has done to this point. He is a great artist and if he mastered his craft he would be one of the greatest. My opinion at least.

[@monilaninetynine3811]

Music is intuitive and spiritual. It doesn't need to be read and spelled, but heard and felt. Why would Pharrell need to learn to read music this late in life and this far in his career? That's like asking somebody who can tie their shoelaces to go and get shoe tying lessons so they can tie their shoes in another way. Pharrell and Robin Thicke should have simply moved in integrity and credited Got To Give It Up with bringing sonic inspiration to Blurred Lines, but things turned out as they should have. Blurred Lines is a perfect title for a song that has blurred the lines of copyright infringement and sexual consent.

[@jemboyterry1893]

Bro you lie you cannot read the musical note what a shame

[@alexjadams1970]

Every single song has inspired other songs so…

[@monilaninetynine3811]

This stuff about reading notes went on and on. Pharrell could have simply said, "I don't read music. I do everything by ear." That likely would have ended the line of questioning.

[@RJWhitmore]

It is actually quite possible, even likely, to be able to read sheet music without knowing the names of notes. The piano, or any other instrument for that matter, does not have the names written on the keys (well, not usually at least). You simply have to know that the note on the third line up corresponds to the key in X position on the piano. The line of questioning is essentially like asking you or I to give the name of the G note but give it in Chinese - and then when I say I can't you say I can't read sheet music. Knowing the name (in any language) isn't the same as being able to read the sheet. Not knowing the name does not mean you can not read the sheet.

[@DarkSideofSynth]

"I don't feel comfortable" is the new "I plead the Fifth" or rather "I don't know jack shit, and I ain't man enough to admit it" ;)

[@MultiSmartass1]

Robin Thickeinterview citing Marvin Gates song reminds me of James Camerons interview with Starlog magazine where he stated he took a couple of Harlan Ellison short stories. as the foundation of his film The Terminator. Considering the lawsuit, this about as clear a link as you can get in this case. Big mistake on Thickes part

[@Traxploitation]

IKR it's crazy, and as this is a jury trial that's definitely going to stick in their minds.

[@MultiSmartass1]

@@Traxploitation Yes I was vaguely aware of this case but your video here did a fine job breaking it down and more importantly citing legal precedent. BTW I'm a writer and I was a guest on several talk shows and podcasts this past spring discussing the Sam Cooke murder case. I found a video of yours where you mention Allen Klein quite interesting during some of my online research. Your videos are very informative and fairly well produced.

[@Traxploitation]

@@MultiSmartass1 lots of people covering this case get bogged down with whether or not the songs sound the same. That wasn't really part of the court case. The 3 boys case along with my sweet lord set the bar very low for defining substantial similarlity. But really it all began with Ira Arnstien in 1946 a moderately successful composer with mental health issues who issued dozens of lawsuits against any and everyone.... he was the butterfly flapping it wings that cause a tsunami... thats a video I'm working on now...

[@megalegbeats9062]

He states that they were going for a certain vibe, which is completely ok. You can absolutely copy the vibe of a song. That’s how musical genre’s work to an extent. He didn’t say anything wrong.

[@MultiSmartass1]

@@megalegbeats9062 He cited a song that has some similarity in base lines and sound to Gayes work. It was a foolish move. Abd if he thought had said nothing wrong why would he state in deposition that he was drunk and stated lies in interviews? I rest my case.

[@colonialstraits1069]

Pharrell’s hubris was the biggest liability to the defendants.

[@Traxploitation]

100%

[@Masterjay1961]

Pharrell and Robin Thicke both knew exactly what they were doing. Plus Robin Thicke blew himself up in that interview by saying what he said, so nxt time someone says, " That record sounds like a Marvin Gaye" best believe them.😂

[@QuatMan]

You can read music without knowing the names of notes. Plenty of people know the sound of a note without knowing the name. They just know how it should sound.

[@Traxploitation]

The point here isn't whether you need to know how to write music to compose a pop song...its that he lied about having that ability. Lying in a deposition is never going to end well. 🤷‍♂️

[@QuatMan]

@@Traxploitation Lots of Black artists have composed music without knowing a single thing about how it should be written. And even more know what written notes are supposed to sound like , or the corresponding fingerings on instruments, without knowing the names of those notes.😆. I suspect Pharrell is this type of artist. I am glad they had to pay up for the original song though.

[@Traxploitation]

@Quat Mann not just black artists, white artists too. 🤷‍♂️ I'm kind of glad they lost too not because I think the case itself had merit...but his smug attitude deserved some comeuppance.

[@QuatMan]

@@Traxploitation That we can agree on 😆

[@dazmindleon]

Think about it why was he so uncomfortable to answer those questions about music theory not just about reading music but music theory if he was confident that he wrote the song, he would’ve been confident, saying which key he was in which kind of chords he was playing the notes of the chords also explaining inversions and the baseline and telling the difference between the bass line in both songs, and the chords in both songs that would have given him a better chance in the case but he knew in his mind that wasn’t the case he knew what he did and that’s constantly why he says I’m not comfortable.

[@ploppill34]

I’ve been playing guitar for 30 years I don’t consider myself a musician. I was surprised to know that I know way more than Pharrell Williams.😮😮😮

[@blitzgreg1]

Blurred lines was a complete rip off musically of Marvin Gaye's song..the first time I heard blurred lines I automatically thought of "Got to give it up"..

[@jasonallen3678]

Blurred Lines is a obvious copy of Got To Give It Up,so I really don't understand how you are anybody would think otherwise,but other than that, this was a very good video

[@danielhubschmitt7897]

If he admits to reading music and writing it he's admitting to knowing he took it. Second just because not are laid out a certain way doesn't. MAke it the same key. And if you listen I dont think they are the same at all. Go and read the musical notation.

[@Old-Skull.]

I think it's not a case of copyright infringement in a way but the dishonesty of Pharrel W. and Robin T. played against them , if they had been honest , I think they would win the case , but more than that, they should be settled out of court , because it's clear that the song uses some aspects they legally could use to make a copy of " Got to give up", I mean it's like If I want to make a song copying The Wall of PF , I can do it without copying the exact chords used on the music sheet , I only have to use things like same instruments, technical equipment, tempo , chorus, voice, tone, guitar tone, etc , etc, all those things even that are part of a recording are not written on a music sheet and of course when you finally hear my song , even that I didn't use the same notes of " The Wall" you instantly will recognize my song, and for me that is copying a previous work and that It's being dishonest if you don't recognise that you are using a succesful song as a sample just to have a certainty of success in your creation, the honest thing is to compensate the original artist. Pharrell looked pathetic in the deposition , come on man , a lot of creative ppl don't have academic training but that doesn't means they are not great, Jimmy Hendrix it's one example among many. But Pharrell doesn't makes himself look really bad if not that he expose the entire music business that we suffer today.

[@Traxploitation]

100% it shouldn't have gotten to court. Could easily have been settled earlier but Pharrell would obviously rather pay lawyers than the Gaye Family. 🤷‍♂️ He didn't need to lie about being able to read music. On the surface there was no copyright infringement. We all know it sounds like Got To Give It Up...but just sounding like a song isn't inherently an infringement...but when u present yourself the way Pharrel did in his depo and make Robin Thickes careless comments about intending to copy Marvin Gaye its hard for a jury not to make the wrong decision. 🤷‍♂️

[@Old-Skull.]

@@Traxploitation agree 💯. Sorry I forget to tell you that you make good content , well done mate 👍

[@walterwhitejr.445]

In Pharell's defense, even Paul McCartney can't read sheet music - he's literally afraid to, thinking learning it would somehow affect his ability to write songs. So, he has others transcribe for him, even working with Carl Davis to produce "The Liverpool Oratorio." That said, if he "knows" 'EGBDF" but can't apply it to a musical staff... no, he doesn't know it, he just heard it somewhere. He's obviously self-conscious about not knowing how to read sheet music - which honestly is lame. It isn't hard, especially if you know how to play an instrument already. So just learn it already. Or don't. Quit hedging and be honest either way. To know EGBDF and not be able to suss out what note is there.... oy. It isn't as if he was being asked to sight-sing.

[@Traxploitation]

That's so true. I think Pharrell thinks not knowing music theory somehow makes him less, but under oath in a deposition isn't the time and place. He could easily have explained that modern music is made in a way that means you don't need to know music theory. Or, that music theory is really just a rigid set of rules based around centuries old European music and much modern music, like jazz for example, rarely follows those rules. Or mention McCartney, Hendrix, Taylor Swift and all the other succesful musicians who can't read music. There's a million ways he could have presented himself as knowledgeable and skilled in producing music without lying about being able to read music instead he got caught in a ridiculous lie and made himself look foolish. But where was his lawyer? As far as i can recall this is the first deposition where I can't hear both lawyers voices.

[@walterwhitejr.445]

@@Traxploitation Wouldn't be surprised, his overconfidence being on display regularly, if he chose to not bring a lawyer to his deposition. To the point of music theory being a rigid set of rules... well, to a point. It isn't, though. That there's a consonance between a middle C, a C an octave above and the C an octave below, for instance... well, that's just physics. The waveforms coincide as frequency multiples. Now, dividing that octave into twelve notes, that's Western music (concertinas used in Zulu music, for instance, weren't made for that scale, so musicians like Johnny Clegg had to modify them to apply the sound to their music.) Most instruments though are based on that division, and how lowering the middle of a triad creates a more sombre feel, for instance - that's just universal. People respond to minor keys pretty much the same wherever you go, they invoke a darker, sadder emotion. Going beyond that, there are alternative keys using different groups of notes which can create different effects (Lydian, mixolydian, etc - Sting uses those to great effect because he's heavily influenced by music from the Renaissance era, old madrigals and such.) Every musician I know who expanded their experience into other ways of looking at music only made their music richer - Sting, for a great example, but even George Harrison - his study of Indian music infused his later work with a lot of unusual creativity, "My Sweet Lord" aside. Johnny Clegg learned from Zulu street musicians in Johannesburg, and made a point of trying to integrate western and Zulu music and lyrics (and his band members) as a reaction to the apartheid regime (which made such musical integration illegal, be it lyrics, band members, or the music itself), and he's considered something of a "statesman" of music to South Africa. Yet it is difficult at best to build on what came before if you refuse to understand it. And a large part of understanding it is to at least have a basic understanding of how those notes work together and why. And it isn't hard. Is it essential? Possibly not. But the growth that comes is invaluable. People wonder how the Beatles could have such growth as they did, releasing so many albums between 1963 and 1969 with such a wide array of styles - yet it was precisely George Martin's influence, teaching them as they went things like counterpoint, giving them a basic appreciation even if they didn't know all the theory. Counterpoint alone is what gave us their evolution from the "She Loves You" era to albums like "Revolver". Next time you listen to "Here, There and Everywhere", try and identify what is chorus, and what is verse - you can't really. In an era of standard three verses and a chorus writing, McCartney managed to write something that sounds so complete most people don't even realize how radical the lyrical structure is. Sorry to be long-winded - just think when people cast it as fashionable to remain in the dark about the theory side so completely, the music suffers. Everything ends up sounding the same. For centuries, every new movement in art was a reaction to the one before - those artists could create works in the older fashion, but chose to do something new. They weren't casting about blindly, though, they had a starting point. Ditto with music, and even in rock and pop music - rock grew out of jazz and blues being infused, 70's rock made the guitar central to the sound, there was an entire movement from the mid-70's to mid-80's integrating reggae influences giving us ska, 80's music brought in more electronic sounds and synths, but they all had their basis on what came before. It's one reason why I've little respect for claiming you can own a collection of notes (I mean, a three note standard? Get real. It's one thing if you rip off a song completely, but something like "Blurred Lines" is more of an homage, although they recanted being honest about it.) But now... too many songs have even given up song structure completely, and it isn't a matter of being innovative, they just don't want to come up with different music to change up the song. I've always looked for the bridge to do something interesting an unexpected, to give the song flavor - too many artists now can't be bothered, and it ends up being five minutes of repetition. Not everyone, of course, but the situation is far too common, aided and abetted by a music industry that wants to churn out music by new artists because, honestly, they don't get paid as much. We even have talent shows now that act as predators for new talent - you win, you get a record contract that locks you into a horrible deal (just ask Phillip Phillips.) And don't get me started on sampling... at least royalties are generally paid, but oy - go do something original instead of borrowing your hook from Nile Rogers. So, long story long (oy!), I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss music theory. When you know what came before, you can see where and how to make it different.

[@Traxploitation]

OK, that was far too long to read it all ( I will come back and read it later at some point, as you went to the effort to write it)! From skim reading it I can see you entirely missed my point LOL. Thats what the lawyers COULD have said. It's the basis of a valid legal argument. Rather than lying about be able to read music, you pivot and make whether or not you can read music irrelevant, that would have been the sound legal strategy to follow especially if you knew your client would not be able to prove any level of music theory knowledge if challenged.

[@sampson3121]

As soon as I heard Blurred Lines I said "That's Marvin Gay" What? lol I don't care what anyone says. That is a rip.

[@jorgezarco9269]

I own a Dutch CD full of science fiction music. It's called "Star Tracks". "Trek" comes from the Dutch word "trekken".

[@zandersmiranda9256]

So why didn't Madonna sue Lady Gaga or Katie Perry on Sarah Barailles the family was running low on money waiting for opportunities

[@samoyed81966]

Pharrell Williams not only that he's not honest about his ability to read music. Pharrell Williams was completely ignorant.

[@lordraiden5398]

Finally the KZbin algorithm gives me something wirth watching. I don't play any instruments and I can't read music but the first time I heard Blurred Lines I immediately thought of Got to Give It Up. I don't have a issue with a artist using anothers music but pay the original artist.

[@Traxploitation]

Praise be to the AlGODrithm! Lol. Seriously I'm glad it brought you here too! Thanks for watching 👀 and taking the time to comment. I hope you can stick around and watch some more...

[@arnthorsnaer]

The defense botched the case

[@TheFakeyCakeMaker]

If you can read something then you can write it. Erm no. Have you seen people's spelling online? Reading music is very different to writing it, firstly some people only read in tab not staff meaning they can write C# but they cannot recognise one on the stave. You go to multiple churches and you will find keyboard players, guitarists and bassist and drummers smashing it every week but they cannot read a note of music and they have no knowledge of theory because they work solely by ear. This is not unusual. This is the same for singers, look how many powerful singers are in the church or come from the church and go on to become big stars having had no formal training. Pretty sure Stevie Wonder can't read music but he is a multiple award winning artist. As much as I've enjoyed the presentation of this video I found those comments completely untrue and unfair. xx

[@nocreativename]

Blurred lines is a terrible song. I say this as a Pharrell fan. Lol I don’t hear the Marvin Gaye song within.

[@clairecordell2461]

Williams and Thick showed themselves to be complete fools in the depositions. These are our idols - hilarious

[@Xtianisms]

Haha... that Pharell.... surely doesnt know the difference between a G note and a G-string

[@girlbrittneygirl]

WTF!! Because they had access to song does not mean they copied the actual the song!! It was a feeling of the song!!! They took some interviews and just took everything out of context. You can’t use sheet music and turn around rule off if they had access to the song!

[@Traxploitation]

Right or wrong that is how American copyright law works. The verdict would have been opposite pretty much anywhere else in the world/ The precedents that determined this outcome were from many years ago. Watch my videos on the Michael Bolton vs Isley Brothers and the George Harrison "My Sweet Lord" cases. Bolton lost because the obscure song he was accused of copying was broadcast on a radio he MAY have listened to. And Harrison was found to have "unintentionally" copied The Chiffons song. Both terrible verdicts, but indicative of how ineffective US copyright is.

[@jennifercoolidgeislife6760]

Haven’t been in choir for YEARS and I can still recall a half, whole, and quarter note plus egbdf and aceg bsffr

[@DeniseVeronica]

I don't care about Thick or T.I., but Pharrell? I'm so disappointed.

[@geraldobrien7323]

Copying a groove is not a smoking gun. A groove (beat) has never been subject to copyright. Neither has chord progression. Or even copying an artist’s singing style. What’s copyrightable is melody and lyrics, and those two elements are not the same when it comes to those two songs. (By the way, even the chord structures are different). A blatant rip-off would be the songs Super Freak and Can’t Touch This. In that case, the latter has the exact same bass melody as the former.

[@Traxploitation]

Thanks for commenting. I think you may have misunderstood the video or commented without watching it all. This was a jury trial. In order to win a jury trial you just need to convince the jury. The jury are not copyright experts or musicologists. So, for them to hear someone say they wanted to make a song that sounds like another song, to them is an admission of intent. A bit like a murder suspect saying they're glad the victim is dead. Doesn't mean they did it but will sway a jury. That's what happened here. There was no infringement of copyright, but they did not convince the jury of that. Pharrells lawyer also failed to file the correct paperwork on appeal meaning the appeal judges couldn't overturn the verdict despite at least one wanting to. All of this is explained in the video. Ps. Superfreak was sampled in u can't touch this. Its not only the same bass melody it's the same sound recording. Sampling is a completely different matter though. It's an infringement of both the composition copyright and the sound recording copyright. This case was only about composition copyright.

[@GSXK4]

I'm not comfortable writing a comment in the comments section.

[@Traxploitation]

Lol 😄😁

[@vidsscreen]

You must be a fool if you believe eigther of these people did not fully intend too copy these song writers.

[@SavedByGrace_CitizenEmperorユウ]

Well done video. If I'm being totally honest, they deserved to lose millions for even recording such a shitty song with a rape message. Why did they come up with this in the first place? Pharell seems to be a nice dude. Thicke on the other hand seems to be a doucebag. Even though the lawsuit was questionable, the Gaye family successfully sued the right musicians. I'm not shedding a single tear.

[@Traxploitation]

Don't forget that the Gayes didn't sue pharrel...he applied for a court ruling that his song was 100% original...and they counter sued. And yeah, I hate what their song is about.

[@teleguy5699]

"Got to give it up" sounds pretty rapey also. So many songs about, "girl, you got to give me what I need" out there.

[@fizzychizzy]

To be frank, I think it is actually SUPER snobby to imply that because Pharrell does not have a formal education in music he can not have had the knowledge to make his song and had to copy it. There are TONS of successful musicians that have made amazing music that do not have a formal education in music. Pharrell didn't go to college. He was TOO BUSY MAKING HITS. A jury that does not understand music AT ALL were asked to determine whether the song was copyright infringement but they don't even understand what things sound a like and what is allowed to sound similar and what isn't. The Gaye family got away with copyrighting a feel or a genre and that is wrong. I don't think we are going to see an avalanche of cases, but we have to recognize that there are tons of songs that throwback to a certain genre or style or feel and those artists are going to have a lot of problems (I am thinking about specifically Bruno Mars).

[@Traxploitation]

You're 100% right. The jury dont have the expertise to make any kind of judgement its crazy that's it decided that way...no other IP is litigated this way. That being said I find it surprising Pharrell and his legal team weren't equipped to defend such an obvious tactic as focusing on traditional music theory skills...which have almost nothing to do with contemporary music. Even those with that kind of knowledge have to put it to one side to make hit records. I agree, it won't set a precedent, in that it won't open the flood gates for more meritless cases... but there will be a few more...no doubt...

[@prod.jakekarno1765]

@@Traxploitation What I cannot understand is why he felt he needed to play their game. He could have just said, "no sir I cannot read music, why should I?" and refused to acknowledge this stupid idea that you need to be able to read music to make hits. Why did he lie about it? Any thoughts?

[@Traxploitation]

@@prod.jakekarno1765 thats what baffles me, I can't read music beyond the basics and I've released tons of music (that people seem to like) I would never dream of lying about my music literacy....id be too worried of being found out...instead I have tons of ways I can explain what my skills are, if not writing/reading notation.... I think perhaps he feels like an imposter and is overcompensating? I saw a video of him and chad in the studio, Chad is a beast, able to jam cool ideas on just about every bit of gear in the studio, he's bouncing around making all kinds of funky sounds then it cuts to Pharrell playing piano, really badly, I was embarrassed for him just watching it maybe he feels inadequate especially considering some of the people he's worked with. Either that or he's just super arrogant and doesn't want to admit any flaws...

[@prod.jakekarno1765]

@@Traxploitation Yeah me too, it was real hard to see him like that - he's a hero of mine as he comes out looking bad. As a producer I agree there is no need to read music, apparently even most of The Beatles couldn't (if we're going to hold them up as some kind of gold standard of old school musicality). It shows a basic lack of understanding on the part of the court that such questions were even asked. Maybe he does feel inadequate, or at least under-educated, so when he's being asked questions like that in a court system in which he probably feels like an outsider (by virtue of being black in America) he defaults to Frontin'. (Yeah I went there.. 😂) I hope one day someone asks him.

[@Traxploitation]

@@prod.jakekarno1765 There's a cool youtube channel about the law, Legal Eagle, he made a good point about depositions, while he was talking about the movie "the social network" that incorporates actual text from Zuckerberg's deposition, (he said some really crazy things that would have made him look bad) he explained that most people forget that a deposition is sworn testimony and you can actually commit purgery in a deposition, added to that, some depositions can go on for hours and hours, maybe even days. Often people will say things and act in a way they wouldn't do in front of a judge and jury in a courtroom.

[@BigSmokinJoe]

Great video 🔥

[@Traxploitation]

Thanks 🔥

[@seanb9821]

Whoa, 4 videos in.....as a part-time music need thank you for making this content bro

[@Traxploitation]

Glad you like them! Thanks for watching 👀

[@Albee213]

Total BS, you can't sue for a style. Creedence Clearwater Revival attempted to sue John Fogerty when he went solo because he sounded too much like CLR. Lost.

[@Traxploitation]

Absolutely right. This case should have been thrown out in summary judgement. I think Pharrells' legal team failed miserably in this case...not sure if you watched to the end but there's footage of the appeal case where one of the appeal judges said she wanted to find in Pharrel et al's favour but couldn't as his lawyer had failed to file the correct paperwork...that's a very basic mistake to make at this level and in a case with such high financial stakes. 🤔🤦‍♂️ Ps Fogerty vs Fogerty is the topic of a future video... 🙃

[@p2400]

Very well constructed video! Good luck to you sir!

[@TheBigGangBang]

Going for a certain “groove” of another song is not plagiarism. Every producer will ask you for reference songs when tasked with making you a beat. It’s literally common practice.

[@Traxploitation]

You're absolutely right. Unfortunately in this case it seems the jury weren't aware of how copyright works. 🤦‍♂️ Copyright cases shouldn't really be decided in this way.

[@austin4x]

How did they find an entire jury of people who never used Fruity Loops or Mario Paint's Music Maker? You don't have to know music theory or be able to read music to produce music. Even if a musician plays an instrument, they still don't have to know how to write or read music to play. If you point to a fret on strong of a guitar, some of the best guitar players in the world couldn't tell you what note it is. Whole cade was BS and the defense lawyers should definitely quit their day jobs.

[@Traxploitation]

There's actually very few people, that would qualify for jury duty, that would have experience of music production software. Also, juries are instructed to make their decision based on the evidence presented, rather than rely on their own knowledge and experience. So really it was down to the defense lawyer to make the case that knowledge of music theory isn't required to make pop music in the 21st century. It's not even a new phenomenon to have successful composers with limited music theory knowledge. Legendary composer Irving Berlin wrote over 1500 songs, many hits, despite only being able to compose in F#...he had a special transposing piano that enabled him to shift the key while playing the same notes. He was also sued for copyright infringement back in 1928. His lack of music theory knowledge didn't stop him from winning the case nearly 100 years ago! It's also worth noting that Pharrells lawyer failed to file the correct paperwork on appeal so even tho the appellate judge wanted to rule in his favour, she simply couldn't.