Business News Labels & Publishers Legal

American lawyer disagrees with Pharrell over Blurred Lines case

By Chris Cooke | Published on Wednesday 1 April 2015

US-based entertainment lawyer Michael Sukin has responded to comments made by Pharrell Williams in his previously reported recent interview with the Financial Times regarding the ruling against him and Robin Thicke in the high profile ‘Blurred Lines’ copyright case.

In a letter to the broadsheet, Sukin notes that Williams mused “there are songs that utilise other material, but until now there has not been copyright infringement, which is why this is so scary”. But that’s just not true, says the attorney.

“This could not be further from the truth”, he writes. “Even in current popular music. George Harrison’s infringement of ‘He’s So Fine’, written by Ronald Mack and interpreted by the Chiffons, was decided in favour of Mr Mack. Mr Harrison apologised. And the 1990s saw the first significant sampling decision by a federal court, Biz Markie’s looping of my client Gilbert O’Sullivan’s ‘Alone Again Naturally’, without permission, resulted in a judgment in Mr O’Sullivan’s favour against Biz Markie, his record company and Warner Brothers Records, the distributor”.

Defending the ruling in the ‘Blurred Lines’ case, which has been criticised in various quarters since the jury spoke last month – including by people in both the legal and songwriting communities – Sukin says: “Remember, the award was made, not because the jury were ‘experts’, but because they were an average group of normal people who heard a substantial similarity to the underlying work. All of the experts seemed to disagree depending on which side of the litigation they were on”.

He concludes: “There is a moral to the story: If the lines are ‘blurred’, ask permission. It is the right, civil and moral thing to do”.

You can read Sukin’s full letter – an edited version of which is published in today’s FT – on the CMU site here.