Marvin Gaye Case Study

672 Words3 Pages
Thicke v. Marvin Gaye’s Estate Lawsuit

Marvin Gaye family accused Robin Thicke of using elements of Marvin Gaye’s song, “Got to Give It UP” in “Blurred Lines” and allegedly threatened litigation if a monetary settlement was not paid. Thicke filed a preemptive declaratory judgment lawsuit against Gaye’s family after alleged preliminary settlement negotiations failed. In response, Gaye’s family filed a separate counterclaim accusing Thicke of copyright infringement of Gaye’s songs “Got to Give It Up” and “After the Dance”, as well as EMI April, Inc. of breach of contract and its fiduciary duties. Gaye’s family later submitted a separate counter claim against Thicke to include “Blurred Lines” co-writers Pharrell Williams and Clifford Harris, Jr. After a jury trial, Marvin Gaye’s family was awarded $7.4 million in copyright damages and attributable to infringement. The Gaye’s family was not awarded determined due to the infringement was found not to be willful. After researching facts about the
…show more content…
First, Marvin Gaye’s family began accused the songwriter of plagiarism of on song “Got to Give It Up”. When attending mediation they amended their accusation stating the plagiarisms was for “Got to Give It Up” and “After the Dance”. Throw the long court process they attempted to add more of Marvin Gaye’s song stating they all had influence on the song “Blurred Lines”. I believe they were grasping at straws at this point. Had it not been for the harming video of Thicke’s and Williams’ deposition I don’t believe the jury would have convicted them. Secondly, in many copyright cases if there is a significant differences between the original item in this case song for the new item no law is broken. Yet, they based the case on a rhythm/feeling of the song. This is extremely base on a person interpretation and opinion of music. With that said, I believe the jury made their decision on emotion and not of actual
Open Document