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

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

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

Just made himself look a complete fool

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

Or rather ‘inability’

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.

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

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.

Yeah that was complete bullshit and made me not like Pharrell

Facts

@@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.

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

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

Don’t forget “dumb”

@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.

@@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

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

yea because money not justice, thats says alot about USA

It happens all the time.

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

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

Can I listen to your music somewhere?

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.💕🙏💕🙏

lol. now, whatever gave you that idea? 🙃

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

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!

@@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%.

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

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.

Maybe they gave him a soprano clef 😂

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

The title "Blurred lines" says it all.

It's a terrible song

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..

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.

I’m uncomfortable 😂

Because he's not comfortable.

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

​@kio shiro your uneducation is showing 😮

@@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)

Hard to disagree with that

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

Nicely put!

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.

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.

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!

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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

Its not a sample, fool.

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.

Your ignorance is dangerous.

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.

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

Judith Finell?

@@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!

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

@@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.

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... 🙃

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.

@@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.

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.

Lol 😄😁

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

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.

@@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.

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"

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.

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.

...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.

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.

100%

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.

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!

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.

@@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.

@@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?

@@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.

Turned out to be an expensive lie 🤦‍♂️

Ive been a studio engineer since the early 90s and I've worked sessions with classically trained musicians who can read and write music to a very very high level yet it just doesn't come up in modern music production 🤷‍♂️ they still use a DAW and essentially program the music in rather than write it in. I know very few people that use the score editor in their DAW. So it's actually insane he, or rather his attorney, allowed him to sucked into this line of questioning. The weird thing I noticed about these depositions is u don't hear pharrells attorney say anything 🤔 Usually they make comments and objections for the record to kind of coach their client through the deposition, they're not supposed to but in High stakes cases they usually find away to skirt the rules. Even then if I was Pharrell I would know to not get drawn into that. Even if I could read music I'd still essentially say no...so as not to get trapped into being tested and failing. Who knows how complex the piece of music they showed him was. I would make sure what u said was stated, for the record, inability to read/write notation does not equal inability to produce hit songs in this day and age, therefore it should not play a part in determining if a copyright infringement took place. Its irrelevant. They could even have called their own music historians to recount the amount of legendary composers over the years that have lacked that same ability. It was a truly terrible job by his lawyers.

Thanks so much Jan. 🙏

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.

Only if it was alleged that Happy Birthday sounded like Smoke on the Water and that Happy Birthday was protected by copyright. I don't believe either are true. 🤷‍♂️ I think that's a bad example, if you watch the George Harrison My Sweet Lord case...that's a practical example of what you're saying. He wrote a song that sort of sounds like another song, that he probably could have heard therefore its an infringement! Utterly bonkers decision.

It was in court around the same time too. I think the verdicts were the wrong way round. Led Zep has a long history of appropriating other peoples songs. Most of their hits are based on previous songs, often with the same or very similar titles IE "Whole Lotta Love" is based on Willie Nixon's "You Need Love" it took the writers 16 years to get credited...BUT Jimmy Page was a great witness, charmed the jury, showed his musical chops by playing happy birthday in the style of stairway to heaven and convincing the jury he was more than capable of writing hit songs on his own, despite the fact that all the factors for a successful copyright case were satisfied. There was obvious "substantial similarity" in the compositions, LedZep had "access" to the Spirit song (they played the same gigs more than once) and a "lay-hearer" could easily confuse the 2 songs. They still defended the suit. On the other hand, Pharrell comes across as arrogant and charmless in his deposition (even though i know people that have worked with/for him and say hes actually humble and pleasant to deal with in person) and does anything but demonstrate the ability to independently compose music.

Yeah, its bonkers that intent or ("mens rea" in jurisprudence terms) isn't a factor in copyright. You can be ruled to have "inadvertantly" copied a song if it can be proved you MAY have heard it. Utterly bonkers!

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

@@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.

@@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...

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.

@@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.

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.

Thanks 🔥

That's what i expected too. There's a million ways he could have handled that better.

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. 🤷‍♂️

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