Williams v. Gaye
895 F.3d 1106 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A jury's finding of copyright infringement can be based on the substantial similarity of a combination of individually unprotectable musical elements. An appellate court will not disturb such a verdict if it is supported by some reasonable evidence, affording great deference to the jury's credibility determinations and factual findings.
Facts:
- In 1976, Marvin Gaye recorded the song 'Got To Give It Up,' which became a number one hit in 1977.
- In 1977, the song's copyright was registered under the 1909 Copyright Act by depositing six pages of handwritten sheet music, as the Act did not protect sound recordings themselves. Marvin Gaye did not write or prepare this sheet music deposit copy.
- Marvin Gaye's children (the Gayes) inherited the copyright to his musical compositions.
- In June 2012, Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke wrote and recorded the song 'Blurred Lines,' acknowledging they were inspired by Marvin Gaye's music.
- Several months later, Clifford Harris, Jr. (T.I.) independently wrote and recorded a rap verse that was added to the 'Blurred Lines' track.
- 'Blurred Lines' became the best-selling single in the world in 2013.
- After the song's release, the Gayes made a demand on Williams and Thicke, claiming 'Blurred Lines' infringed on the copyright for 'Got To Give It Up.'
Procedural Posture:
- Pharrell Williams, Robin Thicke, and Clifford Harris, Jr. filed a lawsuit in federal district court seeking a declaratory judgment that 'Blurred Lines' did not infringe on the Gayes' copyright.
- The Gayes filed a counterclaim for copyright infringement against Williams, Thicke, and Harris (Thicke Parties), and also named the distributors (Interscope Parties) as third-party defendants.
- The district court denied the Thicke Parties' motion for summary judgment.
- The court ruled that under the 1909 Copyright Act, the Gayes' copyright protection was limited to the elements present in the deposited sheet music, not the commercial sound recording of 'Got To Give It Up.'
- After a trial, the jury found Williams and Thicke liable for infringement but found Harris and the Interscope Parties not liable.
- The jury awarded the Gayes $4 million in actual damages and over $3 million in profits.
- The district court denied the Thicke Parties' motion for a new trial, though it reduced the total award.
- The district court granted the Gayes' post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law, overturning the jury's verdict for Harris and the Interscope Parties and holding them liable.
- The Thicke Parties, Harris, and the Interscope Parties appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the song 'Blurred Lines' infringe on the copyright of 'Got To Give It Up' based on substantial similarity in a combination of musical elements?
Opinions:
Majority - M. Smith
Yes, 'Blurred Lines' infringes on the copyright of 'Got To Give It Up.' A combination of unprotectable musical elements can be protected by copyright, and a jury's finding of substantial similarity based on such a combination is entitled to significant deference. The Thicke Parties' failure to make a proper motion for judgment as a matter of law at trial limited the scope of appellate review, making the jury's verdict 'virtually unassailable' unless there is an 'absolute absence of evidence' to support it. The Gayes' expert musicologists provided testimony about a 'constellation' of similarities in elements like signature phrases, hooks, bass lines, and keyboard parts, which provided a reasonable basis for the jury's verdict. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial, as the jury was entitled to weigh the conflicting expert testimony and make credibility determinations. The court also erred, however, in overturning the jury's verdict that found Harris and the Interscope Parties not liable, as the Gayes waived their objection to verdict inconsistency and failed to prove Harris was vicariously liable.
Dissenting - Nguyen
No, 'Blurred Lines' does not infringe on the copyright of 'Got To Give It Up.' The majority's decision allows the Gayes to copyright a 'musical style,' which is an unprotectable idea. A proper objective analysis under the extrinsic test reveals the two songs are not substantially similar; they differ in their core protectable elements of melody, harmony, and rhythm. The similarities identified by the Gayes' expert consist of individually unprotectable, commonplace musical elements, or 'scènes à faire,' that are standard to the genre. Affirming the verdict on such thin evidence establishes a dangerous precedent that strikes a 'devastating blow' to future musicians who draw inspiration from earlier works, thereby stifling creativity and harming the public interest in the development of art.
Analysis:
This decision proved highly controversial in the music and legal communities for expanding the basis of copyright infringement beyond the direct copying of melody or lyrics to include the overall 'feel' or 'groove' of a song. It signals that a 'constellation' of individually common or unprotectable elements can, in combination, be sufficient for a finding of substantial similarity, creating uncertainty for artists seeking to evoke a particular style or era. The case also serves as a strong reminder of the importance of procedural diligence; the majority heavily emphasized that the defendants' failure to make a Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law severely limited the appellate court's ability to review the sufficiency of the evidence, making the deferential standard of review for the jury's verdict nearly insurmountable.
Unlock the full brief for Williams v. Gaye