Court will consider the ‘Blurred Lines’ between homage and theft

Are there blurred lines between homage and theft? Possibly, and entertainment companies should take notice.

The New York Daily News reports that attorneys for R&B artists Robin Thicke, Pharrell Williams and T.I. have preemptively filed a lawsuit to defend themselves against charges that their song, "Blurred Lines," copies elements of songs by Marvin Gaye and George Clinton.

The suit came in response to warnings from Gaye's family members, who threatened their own lawsuit on the grounds that "Blurred Lines" copied Gaye's 1977 song, "Got to Give It Up." In addition, the publisher of Clinton's music alleged that the song copied Clinton's "Sexy Ways," though Clinton himself recently took to Twitter to deny this charge.

Pharrell and Thicke, for their part, insist that they were simply trying to pay tribute to the artists' legacies.

"Plaintiffs created a hit and did it without copying anyone else's composition," the lawsuit reads. "The basis of the Gaye defendants' claims is that 'Blurred Lines' and 'Got to Give It Up' 'feel' or 'sound' the same. Being reminiscent of a 'sound' is not copyright infringement. The intent in producing 'Blurred Lines' was to invoke an era."

Sometimes, homage is allowed under copyright law. As this blog has discussed previously, courts have typically ruled that parodies of songs are allowed, especially when they are not seeking financial gain. Some examples are the many parodies of Carly Rae Jepsen's hit "Call Me Maybe."

"Blurred Lines" does not appear to be a parody, and in any case was clearly written and produced for financial gain. How it will be treated by the courts remains to be seen, but any media company that is interested in intellectual property law should be following this case.

Categorised in: Entertainment Law

This post was written by