Business News Legal Top Stories

Blurred Lines plagiarism case to proceed to court

By | Published on Friday 31 October 2014

Robin Thicke

The big fat Blurred Lines plagiarism case is set to proceed to court, after a judge ruled that the family of Marvin Gaye had sufficiently demonstrated that elements of the controversial pop hit may be “substantially similar to protected, original elements of” Gaye track ‘Got To Give It Up’.

As previously reported, it was legal reps for Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams who initially filed papers over allegations that ‘Blurred Lines’ borrowed heavily from the 1977 Gaye record. They wanted judicial confirmation there was no case for song theft.

But the Gaye family quickly responded with their own copyright infringement litigation, citing previous Thicke remarks which possibly admitted to being heavily dependent on ‘Got To Give It Up’, and one of those crazy musicologist reports that claimed considerable overlap.

Comedy depositions from both Thicke and Williams followed, while legal reps for both parties called for summary judgements in their favour. Lawyers for the Blurred Lines terrible twosome argued that the Gaye family had jumped on comments made by (a probably prescription drug addled) Thicke about him being influenced by Gaye, and that “the defendants smelled money and rushed to make their infringement demand”.

But judge John Kronstadt yesterday ruled that, while there was still much about the Gaye’s legal claims to be assessed – including just how similar the two tracks are, and what elements of ‘Got To Give It Up’ are actually protected – there was a sufficient case for the ‘Blurred Lines’ makers to answer to let this case proceed to court.

Plagiarism cases of this kind rarely actually reach the courtroom, though both sides in this dispute have issued angry statements about the other side, so perhaps such back room negotiations won’t be possible. Though the Gayes’ team may be relying on the fact neither Thicke, Williams nor any of their business partners really want this dragged through the courts (“you know you don’t want it” they might be mumbling).

But for now, next February is pencilled in for a first court hearing. Good times.



READ MORE ABOUT: | |