My understanding is that parodies are treated differently and are given a bit more leniency, though he always asks for permission and sometimes they deny him. Though I guess if one really wanted to, they could make a case that he's writing his songs while using someone else's tunes.
I don't think so. The George Harrison case didn't do that and his case was arguably more famous than this one. So you're against copyright ownership being passed on to surviving family members? I actually agree with this, but I think the problem was that Pharell and Thicke copied the most distinctive part of Gaye's song too closely. The verse and chorus melodies aren't much in Gaye's song. The most recognizable part of his song is the rhythm track. That is the song's real hook (as opposed to the title). That is likely what caught Pharell and Thicke's ear's and prompted them to use it in their song. So, they copied the thing that arguably "made" the song a hit. Pop music copyright infringement claims and lawsuits happen all the time but most get settled informally. In the last couple of weeks it was announced that there had been a claim brought by Tom Petty, that the song by Sam Smith, Stay With Me, infringed on the Petty's copyrighted Won't Back Down. The hook melody in "Stay" is nearly identical to Petty's song. But this one was rather quietly settled. That's why I'd like to know about the Blurred/Give it Up negotiations. One of the parties was being unreasonable. BTW, per the report I heard, not only was there a monetary payment in the Smith/Petty case, as part of the settlement, Petty now and forevermore gets a songwriting credit on Smith's song. Now that is a win.
No not at all, in fact I strongly disagree with the prevailing opinion these days, which seems to be that copyright should expire even before the creator does. I'm all in favour of strong intellectual property rights, and children should be able to reap the rewards of their parents work the same as if they had inherited property, or money, but this is a clear abuse IMO. This is a bunch of people who did not write or partake in the creation of Gayes music abusing his legacy to extort money from other artists, just because they declared what an inspiration he was to them. I can't help but feel that as a credible artist Gaye would be horrified, although that is pure conjecture of course. Perhaps, but that it isn't the thing that made their song a hit. There's a very catchy and distinctive melody, and lots of content that bears no relation to the Gaye track. Those elements, in addition to very controversial lyrics and a raunchy video, are what made the song a hit. I wouldn't deny that there's a flavour of the Gaye track there, but that's well within the bounds of homage rather than plagiarism. This verdict places Gaye's music at the heart of Blurred Lines' success, and that is simply not the case. As I understand it, the Gaye estate accused Williams & Thicke of copying from the track, and started needling them for money. That prompted W&T to pre-emptively sue to obtain a judgment that the track was not infringing copyright to head off any future legal action, not for damages, but simply to protect their creation. A perfectly reasonable response in the face of a claim that should never have been made in the first place. Gaye's family countersued for $25million in damages, essentially ALL profit associated with the track, as they would have done anyway if W&T had not given in to their attempts at extortion, and that is what ultimately led to this travesty. Using a melody as the centrepiece of a song that was also the centrepiece of another song is a little murkier than this case I feel. In that case a unique and distintive melody was central to the success of both pieces of music. That's not really comparable to this case, where all W&T were accused of was stealing the "feel" and "sound" of Gaye's track.
"Surviving family members" are almost always "people who did not write or partake in the creation" of the copyrighted material. And as owners of the copyright, they do have the right to "protect" their interests. The Gaye family's stated reasons for filing the original claim was because they thought "Lines" sounded to close to "Give it Up", not because of W and T's statements. I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you here, The rhythm track is what made Gaye's song a hit partially because there just isn't much else to the song. Same with "Lines". There just isn't much to "Lines" either except that it is a killer dance track. The reason it is a killer dance track is because of it's rhythm track, which sounds almost identical to "Give if Up's". The reason they copied the rhythm track (and not the verse or chorus melodies of Gaye's song) is because it is the best and most distinctive part of the original recording. And they lost their bid for a summary judgment because the judge who heard it didn't agree that the songs were so different that the Gaye's lawsuit was groundless. The 25 mil didn't include all of the track's profit as it was reported that the record company was held harmless. Maybe the record company's profits were so small that it wasn't worth going after. This is part of what makes this case so groundbreaking I suppose. It is the first one that was decided because of similarities between rhythm tracks rather than verse and chorus melodies. This is a new precedent set now for these types of cases. With some artists, some recordings, the rhythm track IS the song. James Brown famously had the JB's playing instruments usually reserved for melodic support, like brass, woodwinds, and keyboards, playing like percussion instruments. To lift the rhythm tracks from some of his recordings, drop your melodies and lyrics on top and then claim there is not rights infringement, from this point on is going to be a problem.
The permission thing is professional courtesy I think. While some artists might own exclusive rights to their songs most could be licensed through ASCAP or BMI or other avenues. Again, if I'm not mistaken.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. It always pays to be more polite and courteous as the artists are much more likely then to work with them. And I think most artists consider themselves flattered when asked. I've also heard some artists say that they feel they've 'made it' when Weird Al wants to parody one of their songs. In one way, it could be considered another form of exposure.
But wasn't the isse there, the melody. I can understand copyright issues with melodies as they're often the defining feature of a song. With the Marvin Gaye song however, it seems to be the percussion and tempo that are very similar (I certainly don't hear a similar tune....I just hear that beat similarity) If copyright issues can be raised because your percussion and tempo resemble the percussion and tempo of another song, then I think that does set a precedent that has never previously been seen I can think of countless songs that share percussion similarities (but only a few songs that share a very similar melody) It will be interesting to see what happens
Plus, he can keep it in the spirit of good fun as a celebrity can't play the card saying he was hurt by it. He's said that Prince is the only one who ever said no, and Michael Jackson was even good enough to let him film on the actual set for Bad.