There have been a lot of changes in music law since the new millennium - in fact, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act was created in part to protect the intellectual property rights interests of musicians and other stakeholders in the music industry. Music copyright law has undergone numerous changes in the past decades as a result of the increased use of sampling, the shift toward music streaming, and other industry shifts. In this article, we’re going to talk about an interesting development in music copyright that’s best illustrated by recent cases, including Williams vs. Gaye.

This case is wild. In brief, the Gaye estate accused Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke of ripping off Marvin Gaye’s “Got To Give You Up (Part 1)” on their song, “Blurred Lines”. The arguments made by the estate are that “Blurred Lines” has certain stylistic qualities in common with Gaye’s song, notably “(a) each phrase begins with repeated notes; (b) the phrases have three identical pitches in a row in the first measure and two in the second measure; (c) each phrase begins with the same rhythm; and (d) each phrase ends on a melisma (one word sung over multiple pitches).” To my ears, there’s undeniably a similar feel to the two songs, but does a similar feel or certain shared stylistic elements make it copyright infringement?

The debate, in this case, boils down to some of the core axioms of music - that it’s a shared language, that each piece influences subsequent pieces, that it’s an artist’s creative expression, which will always influence others. The folk tradition, where artists work off of a shared repertoire of music, interpreting each style in their own way, changing the lyrics, melody, and rhythm but retaining reference points, might not have been as strong with aggressive copyright law. Looking at almost any song - you can point back to other songs that share elements with it, melodic or otherwise. What’s the limit at which we say one song was not influenced by another?

There’s a lot of worries that the precedent set in Williams vs. Gaye (Williams and Thicke lost the case) will lead to a chilling effect on musicians. These musicians probably won’t be hyper-vigilant in copyright law, and it may fall on their labels to decide what is too risky to be released. There has already been what seems like an uptick in similar cases - just recently, Katy Perry lost a lawsuit against rapper Flame; her song “Dark Horse” was found to have infringed the tune “Joyful Noise”, though only a part of the instrumental was in question.

As an avid music lover, I fear a dystopia in which publishers are too afraid to let truly wonderful music reach the public’s ears. While I can’t predict the fate of the music industry, one thing I do know is that if you’re looking for local counsel services, you can get in touch with us here at Attorneys on Demand.