Pharrell Williams v. Bridgeport Music

Pharrell Willams et al. v Bridgeport Music et al., No. 15-56880 (9th Cir. July 11, 2018) is a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case concerning Copyright Infringement of Sound Recording. In August 2013, Pharrell Williams, Robin Thicke and Clifford Joseph Harris (known by his stage name, “T.I.”) filed a complaint for declaratory relief against the members of Marvin Gaye's family and Bridgeport Music in the United States district court for the Central District of California; that the song Blurred Lines did not infringe the copyright of defendants in Got To Give It Up and Sexy Ways respectively. 
On 6 October 2017, Circuit Court held oral arguments on the appeal to vacate the district court’s Judgement. The Ninth Circuit upheld the District Court's decision against William and Thicke and affirmed liability of millions of dollar as damages. It was established that "Got to give it up" is "entitled to broad protection against copyright infringement liability because musical compositions are not confined to a narrow range of expression".
Background.
Blurred Lines is a song by American songwriter Thicke, William and rapper T.I. It was an undeniable hit, spending 12 weeks at the top of the Billboard Hot 100 and ultimately reaching the number two spot on the year end Billboard Hot 100.
However, the song became a subject for bitter dispute with Gaye's family and Bridgeport Music, who claimed that the song infringed on their copyright and is inspired by their songs i.e. 'Got to give it up' and 'Sexy Ways' respectively.
Complaint for declaratory relief.
Notably, unlike the traditional manner, the litigation started with preemptive filing of declaratory relief. On August 2013, Williams, Thicke and T.I filed a complaint for declaratory relief against Gaye's family and Bridgeport Music. Prior to the complaint, Gaye's family and Bridgeport Music alleged that the plaintiff has "ripped-off" the 1977 Billboard single, " Got to Give it Up". The complaint argued that, "The basis of the Gaye defendants' claims is that "Blurred Lines" and "Got To Give It Up" "feel" or "sound" the same. Being reminiscent of a "sound" is not copyright infringement. The intent in producing "Blurred Lines" was to evoke an era. In reality, the Gaye defendants are claiming ownership of an entire genre, as opposed to a specific work". They argued that they did not copy the expression but only the 'idea' or the 'genre', which is not copyright-able.
Plaintiff's disposition.
Pharrell Williams stated that the two songs were "completely different" adding that "Just simply go to the piano and play the two. One's minor and one's major. And not even in the same key". Robin Thicke stated that at the time of recording he was, "high on Vicodin and alcohol when [he] showed up at the studio", and so "Pharrell had the beat and he wrote almost every single part of the song".
Counter-claim.
In the counter-claim Gaye's family argue that the songs were not merely stylistically similar; instead, they claim that "Many of the main vocal and instrumental themes of Blurred Lines are rooted in Got to Give it Up; namely, the signature phrase, vocal hook, backup vocal hook, their variations, and the keyboard and bass lines" and "the substantial similarities are the result of many of the same deliberate creative choices made by their respective composers."
Motion for summary judgement.
In July 2014, the plaintiff's filled for a motion of summary judgement arguing. However, on 30th October 2014, the court denied the motion. Judge John A. Kronstadt after reviewing the reports from competing musicologists, decided that, "[the plaintiffs] have made a sufficient showing that elements of 'Blurred Lines' may be substantially similar to protected, original elements of 'Got to Give It Up'."
Holding.
Trial.
The trial started in District Court on 10 February 2015. Plaintiffs filed a successful motion "in limine" pleading that Gaye's sound recording of "Got to give it up" shall be excluded from being played during the trial. The motion was successful since Marvin Gaye's voice had no relevance in the case. The dispute was limited to the elements from sheet music. Judge Kronstad stated that, "I don't expect Gaye's voice to be a part of the case".
The jury was to decide whether "Blurred Lines" infringed upon the following limited elements: i) "Signature Phrase" ii) "Hooks" iii) "Bass Lines" iv) "Harmonic Structures," and v) "Keyboard Chords." The Jury was allowed to hear a limited portion of Gaye's sound recording that substantially reflected the disputed subject-matter. The portion was edited to remove unprotected elements.
On 10th March 2015, the jury unanimously found Thicke and Williams liable for copyright infringement. It awarded a sum of $7.4 million as damages for the infringement to Gaye's family. The amount was reduced by the District Court to $5.3 million, along with 50 percent royalty on future songwriter and publishing revenue of Blurred Lines.
On 11 January 2016, Gaye's family moved an application for approximately $3.5 million in attorney fees and costs on the grounds that the jury verdict prevailed on merits, rather than on a technical issue. The Court denied the application and ordered further submissions on the issue of costs.
Appeal.
In August 2016, Thicke, Williams and T.I. appealed against the judgement on the grounds that the Gaye family failed to show substantial similarity between the two songs. Later, a number of "amicus curiae" briefs were filed in support of the appeal by musicians, musicologists and copyright scholars. Musicians such as John Oates, R. Kelly, et al. filed the brief drafted by attorney Edwin McPherson. They claimed that the judgement would have a deleterious effect on innovation in popular music industry and that the jury's verdict was based on flawed testimony by Gaye's family musical expert. In March 2018, the Court of Appeals upheld the District Court's decision against Williams and Thicke.
Dissent.
Appellate Court Judge Jacqueline Nguyen, in her dissenting opinion, held that "Blurred Lines" and "Got to Give Up" were not subjectively similar. These songs differed in "melody, harmony" and "rhythm" and thus lack extrinsic similarity. She claimed that the judgement allows for protection over musical style and stated that, “ [it] establishes a dangerous precedent that strikes a devastating blow to future musicians and composers everywhere”.
Subsequent development.
In December 2019, Gaye filed a second attempt for attorney's fees and costs based on Williams remark after the disposition was in favor of Gaye's. In March 2020, Pharrell Williams has filed a counter-claim for the same.
Commentary and implication.
Copyright scholars and musicians closely followed the case since it directly addressed the question of copyright protection for sheet music elements other than melody, harmony and rhythm. Many scholars have expressed concern that the case can open a pandora's box of litigation and will cause substantial damage to the music industry, potentially causing a chilling effect. Another concern was that the case was essentially decided by the jury and judge, thus potentially failing the requirement of 'extrinsic test'. Another set of scholars supports the judgement, claiming that the revenue of the music industry is not impacted.