Will ‘Blurred Lines’ Lawsuit Change Music?

Will ‘Blurred Lines’ Lawsuit Change Music?

Rumors have been swirling regarding the outcome of the lawsuit, which has many experts worried that the concept of copyright in music may have essentially changed following the court case. Pharrell and Thicke have contended that though “Blurred Lines” was inspired by Gaye’s “Got to Give It Up,” it wasn’t actually a rip-off of the song. Because of this, many have been led to believe that simple inspiration may be enough to propel a viable lawsuit in the future.

What the outcome of the ‘Blurred Lines’ case means for music

Attorneys explained to The Rolling Stone that following the lawsuit, there are a number of ways in which the music industry might change regarding copyright law. For one, there are bound top be a lot more settlements. In fact, recently English crooner Sam Smith reached a settlement with American rocker, Tom Petty, and his writing partner due to noted similarities between the young singer’s tune, “Stay With Me”, and the popular guitar player’s “I Won’t Back Down.” The amicable end to the settlement was in stark contrast with the conflict between the Gaye estate and the defendants.

Additionally, in the future, musicians are much less likely to head into the court with what may be called the “Thicke defense.” Telling the judge and jury that your decision-making process in the studio was hampered because you were high on Vicodin simply won’t due in the future, just like it wasn’t enough for Thicke to get by with in this case.

This may not be the Gaye estate’s final legal foray

And though the Gaye estate has won this round, the case doesn’t seem to completely over yet, for numerous reasons. First, Pharrell and Thicke plan to appeal the court’s decision. They believe that although Gaye served as an inspiration, “Blurred Lines” doesn’t actually steal anything from “Got to Give It Up.”

“The main misconception was what Pharrell said: ‘Silk and rayon feel exactly the same but are completely different materials,'” Howard King, the defendants’ attorney, explained to The Rolling Stone. “The owner of rayon better have his eyes turned toward the owner of silk because if this decision really stands, he’s going to get sued.”

However, Nona Gaye, the late singer’s daughter, noted that the duo had taken all of the “meat” away from the legendary singer’s song, leaving nothing but the “bones.”

Additionally, talk has arisen that the Gaye family may file another lawsuit, this time alleging that Pharrell’s “Happy” ripped off another one of Gaye’s songs, “Ain’t That Peculiar,” something that online users have brought up frequently, with mash-ups of the two songs on YouTube questioning “Happy’s” authenticity. The Gaye estate’s previous success against Pharrell and Thicke, and the idea that inspiration could be enough to constitute copyright, could serve as a basis for the new case. Though Janis Gaye, the soul legend’s ex-wife, has thus far denied the possibility, the potential for another case still remains.

Ultimately, there won’t be a massive shift in the entire legal paradigm that the music industry is based on following the ruling in favor of the Gaye estate. Artists won’t be able to rush to get returns on songs they knew could be rip offs, but weren’t sure about – there is a three-year statue of limitations to recover full damages. However, artists will surely have to be more conscious about where the line between inspiration and rip-off lies, because it seems to have become a bit blurred.