Business News Legal Top Stories

Gaye lawyer says Thicke defence is misleading the jury in ‘Blurred Lines’ trial

By | Published on Tuesday 3 March 2015

Robin Thicke

The attorney speaking for Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams in the ongoing ‘Blurred Lines’ copyright case has made statements that are “confusing, wrong, and entirely prejudicial” according to legal reps for the Gaye family. The confusing statements, it’s claimed, relate to the relevance of the sound recording of Marvin Gaye’s ‘Got To Give It Up’ in the case.

As previously reported, Thicke and Williams are accused of stealing from the Gaye track when writing ‘Blurred Lines’. Given that there are definite similarities between the two songs, a core element of the case even before it reached court last week was a debate over what elements of ‘Got To Give It Up’ are even protected by copyright.

Thicke and Williams’ lawyer Howard King argued that, because of the whims of American copyright law and the age of the Gaye song, only the core composition of ‘Got To Give It Up’ as represented in the original sheet music is protected. Other elements in Gaye’s recording of the song are not part of that composition, and therefore are not protected.

Ahead of trial, the judge overseeing the case basically agreed with King, limiting the reach of the litigation and reducing the Gaye family’s chances of winning. It was because of that decision that the judge said that the two recordings could not be played side by side to jurors, but instead the core compositions of ‘Got To Give It Up’ and ‘Blurred Lines’ should be played on a keyboard.

But despite that pre-trial decision, the Gaye’s attorney Richard Busch has continued to argue that the full ‘Got To Give It Up’ composition, as represented by the recording, should have copyright protection, and therefore, if jurors conclude that elements of that recording are directly replicated in ‘Blurred Lines’, that must constitute copyright infringement.

While that might seem optimistic given the judge’s pre-trial opinion on the matter, Busch did persuade said judge to allow a stripped down version of the ‘Got To Give It Up’ track to be played in court in addition to any piano-based interpretation. And he does seem to keep coming back to the argument that the song as performed by Gaye, as opposed to what may or may not have been put in the sheet music, should still be under consideration.

Meanwhile Busch has complained that King is trying to confuse jurors by repeatedly declaring that the sound recording of ‘Got To Give It Up’ is owned by the Motown label and not the Gaye family. Busch says that the Gaye family has never claimed to own the sound recording, and this is just an attempt by King to confuse the jury over the distinction between the copyright in the sound recording itself, and the copyright in the song as captured in the sound recording.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, Busch wrote in a motion submitted to court yesterday: “The Gaye Parties have never claimed ownership of the Motown sound recordings, but the Thicke parties have committed copyright infringement by copying the musical composition as embodied in those sound recordings. The jury simply will not understand that fine distinction unless specifically instructed. [King’s comments are] confusing, wrong, and entirely prejudicial”.

He goes on: “The sound recording is not irrelevant, as has been continually stated by the Thicke parties during the trial, and the jury is being confused and will likely believe, unless this matter is clarified, that the Gayes have no rights in the musical composition as embodied in such recording. This will further reinforce the improper remarks by the Thicke parties noted above, and will continue to prejudice the Gaye parties. These blurred lines must be sharpened and focused”.

Hey, clever little punchline there Mr Busch, well done. The case continues.



READ MORE ABOUT: | | |