Question

While some may think that the copyright case of Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams versus Marvin Gay’s estate was new (see below for details), copyright infringement cases in music have been going on for some time. In fact, a case just re-opened involving Stairway to Heaven which was produced in 1971 by Led Zeppelin and is claimed to have been copyrighted from a 1968 instrumental song called “Taurus” (or at least the most popular score from that song). This case is now being re-opened even though the alleged copyright happened 49 years ago and the fact that the case was decided in 2016 in Led Zeppelin’s favor. The case is being appealed because it is alleged that the judge gave an improper jury instruction regarding copyright.

In 2013, Thicke and Williams co-produced “Blurred Lines” a song that earned them over $16 million in sales and streaming revenues.   The song has been very popular, but Marvin Gaye’s estate claimed that it was very “similar” to Marvin Gaye’s 1977 hit song “Got to Give It Up”. Thicke filed a preemptive lawsuit to prevent the Gaye family from claiming any share of royalties.

Thicke did state that he was influenced by Marvin Gaye and, specifically, “Got to Give It Up” when he co-composed “Blurred Lines” with Williams. In response, the Gaye family sued Williams and Thicke. There was a little bit of contradiction in Thicke’s testimony about whether or not he co-wrote or just co-composed the song.   Williams claimed that, although Gaye’s music had influenced him in his youth, he did not copy Gaye’s song in his composition.

In March 2015, a jury ruled in favor of the Gaye estate, stating that while Williams and Thicke did not directly copy “Got to Give It Up,” there was enough of a similar “feel” to warrant copyright infringement. Gaye’s heirs were awarded $7.4 million in damages, the largest amount ever granted in a music copyright case.

Cases like these, cause concern to some about any precedent that this may cause. Robert Fink, for example, stated that this verdict had the potential to set a precedent for “fencing off our shared heritage of sounds, grooves, vibes, tunes, and feels.” Musicians, artists, and writers often note that previous works influence them in their creative process, and that there is very little that is completely original.

Thicke and Williams did not see the musical influence of Gaye as copyright infringement, but rather as inspiration that spurred them to create a new, original single. Case Study – “Blurred Lines” of Copyright

1. Do you think the Gaye family should own the rights to the “feel” of “Got to Give It Up” in addition to specific lyrics, melodies, harmony, etc.? Why or why not?

2. This court case is one among many over the past decade (like the Led Zeppelin case) that have placed limits on songwriting and musical composition. Do you think it is important to provide these legal protections for artists even if it means hindering artistic creativity and the new works that might come from musical influence? Explain your reasoning.

3. Should authors, musicians, and other artists acknowledge all of the influences on their work, regardless of the degree of influence? Why or why not?

4. If you purchase a song and then recognize that it is appropriating an earlier work, you are not legally obligated to stop listening, but are you obligated ethically? Explain your reasoning.

Answer 1

1) Here firstly lets understand what a copyright is ? Copyright is a type of intellectual property that gives its owner the exclusive right to make copies of a creative work, usually for a limited time. The creative work may be in a literary, artistic, educational, or musical form. Yes Gaye family should have own the rights to the "feel " of "Got to give it up " ,in addition to specific lyrics, melodies,harmony etc.Reasons for copyrights in music are:

• The work of an artist is his asset :If an artist has an original idea or piece of creative work, no matter what others may say, it’s still a potential asset and should be treated as such.For literary, musical or artistic works, copyrights can last a further 70 years after the death of the original creators death and in broadcast or publishing cases this time period extends to 50 years.   
• Protects rights of artists:If someone infringes copyright, there is a legal ground to pursue the guilty party to either pay for a license, or compensate for any financial loss you may have incurred. If they are using the work without knowledge of the artist , the artist is in his rights to stop them doing so and receive compensation for any earnings they have made off the back of your work.
• Licensing is the way forward :If any artist has copyrighted works that has attracted the interests of other parties,he can explore licensing options to make sure the artist can financially benefit from their use. Licensing is a legal authorisation from the artist to another party that permits them to use some (or all) of your copyrighted works.

2) It is important to provide legal protection for artists even if it means hindering future work. For a music creative, this is extremely important. It serves as a proof of ownership and prevents producers and musicians from being robbed of their own work.

• Intellectual property rights awards artists’ security against others copying their creation.
• The work cannot be copied unless the musician or the recording studio authorizes it.
• Distribution and broadcasting is also done with the permission of the composer and serves as a source of revenue. Authorization must be obtained to use the composition for works like movies.

3)Authors, musicians, and other artists should acknowledge all of the influences on their work, regardless of the degree of influence because .Copyright owner has economic rights as well as moral rights:

• Economic Rights:Copyright protection is a form of intellectual property which provides similar right as to the owner of Land/Home. The owner of a land can use, may give it on lease, and sell it. Similarly, the protection provided by Copyright to the efforts of writers, artists, designers, dramatists, musicians, architects and proShould authors, musicians, and other artists acknowledge all of the influences on their work, regardless of the degree of influence? Why or why notducers of sound recordings, cinematograph films and computer software, creates an atmosphere conducive to creativity, which induces them to create more and motivates others to create. A Copyright owner can:

1. Make use, sell and distribute his/her work to earn economical reward: The Copyright owner can make copies of the work protected by Copyright or related right and sell the same.Examples: Printed copies of the book and sell the same directly.
2. Assign the work (sell): The Copyright owner can assign his/her current work or proposed work to a third-party in return of onetime payment or royalty. For e.g. an author is writing a book and once fixed assigns the rights to sell the printed copies of this book to a publisher.
3. License the work (Lease): The creator/author can license his or her work to one or more companies with certain fixed set of terms and condition in exchange for payment.

• Moral Rights or Author’s Special Rights: Independent of the author’s copyright and even after the assignment either wholly or partially of the said copyright, the author of a work shall have the right:

1. To claim the authorship of the work; and
2. To restrain or claim damages in respect of any distortion, mutilation, modification or other act in relation to the said work

3)If we purchase a song and then recognize that it is appropriating an earlier work, you are not legally obligated to stop listening, but are you obligated ethically.The reasoning here is:

• Economic loss to the artist:This costs the recording industry/ artist billions of dollars in lost revenue.
• Morally incorrect: If we continue supporting piracy and infringement of copyrights we are supoorting stealing the rights of the artists and musicians.