U musta never seen don't be a menace
Music: DAMN!?! Gaye family wants T.I. held liable for Blurred Lines, too
- Thread starter playahaitian
- Start date
U musta never seen don't be a menace
Sue that engineer too
Everybody who had a hand
Everybody who had a hand
Of course, he must pony up that bread. He has a verse in the song, he's in the video, and collected checks from its sale. Why would he NOT be held partially liable? 
The irony...
He has a writer credit and a performance credit.
Both are for his verse, not the song itself.
He had no hand in the creation of the song, which is why the jury found him not liable for infringement.
Gaye family is bugging out at this point. Filing motions after you already won the case.
This is the kind of action that judges frown upon during an appeal hearing, which I'm sure f coming down the road.
<iframe id="kaltura_player_1427120003" height="360" width="640" style="border: 0px solid #ffffff;" src="http://cdnapi.kaltura.com/index.php/kwidget/wid/1_d3n5igqk/uiconf_id/6740162/st_cache/52912?&">Unfortunately your browser does not support IFrames.</iframe>
<div style="text-align:left;font-size:x-small;margin-top:0;">
<a href="http://www.tmz.com/videos/0_6gkffs9j">T.I. -- Gaye Family's Barking Up the Wrong Tree ... I Don't Steal!</a>
- Watch More
<a href="http://www.tmz.com/videos" title="TMZ Videos">Celebrity Videos</a>
or
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?&add_user=tmz" title="TMZ on YouTube">Subscribe</a>
</div>
<div style="text-align:left;font-size:x-small;margin-top:0;">
<a href="http://www.tmz.com/videos/0_6gkffs9j">T.I. -- Gaye Family's Barking Up the Wrong Tree ... I Don't Steal!</a>
- Watch More
<a href="http://www.tmz.com/videos" title="TMZ Videos">Celebrity Videos</a>
or
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?&add_user=tmz" title="TMZ on YouTube">Subscribe</a>
</div>
After winning a $7.3 million lawsuit against Robin Thicke and Pharrell over “Blurred Lines,” the Gaye Family now have their sights set on T.I.’s pockets. But the Atlanta rapper says they’ve got the wrong one. TMZ cameras recently caught up with the Kang at Los Angeles International Airport and the Atlanta rapper, who looks like he got a nice nap on the plane ride, didn’t seem worried about the Gaye family’s allegations that he, Interscope and Universal Records should also be held monetarily accountable.
“I don’t know what’s going on,” said Tip when questioned about him being added to the suit. “I never really got caught up with that. I have nothing but admiration and respect for the legacy and the estate of Marvin Gaye and I have nothing but admiration and support for my partners, Pharrell…”
Of course, Harris denied any wrongdoing. “I’m a writer, a creator. I don’t steal from anybody creatively when I make my music,” he said. “I know that. And I think anyone with common sense will be able to see that when they listen to it.” He added, “It’s out of my hands. Whatever happens…I’ll be exonerated because I know I did the right thing.”
As previously reported, “Blurred Lines” made a profit of $16,675,690 with $5,658,214 going to Thicke, $5,153,457 going to Pharrell and $704,774 going to T.I. The rapper and reality show star is only listed as writing his own verse for the track. Since the lawsuit, sales on the Marvin Gaye song in question have spiked 246 percent.
'Blurred Lines' Appeal Backed By 200 Musicians 'Concerned by the Potential Adverse Impact' of the Court's Decision
Over 200 recording artists, spanning genres and decades of popular music, saw Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams in legal trouble and realized their own art could be adversely affected by a 2015 legal ruling that went against the two pop stars. So they lent their signatures to an amicus brief filed on behalf of the "Blurred Lines" artists, who are currently hoping to overturn the 2015 copyright case against them.
A federal court ruled that Thicke and Pharrell infringed on Marvin Gaye's "Got to Get It Up" for their chart-topping hit, but many found the decision to be controversial. The stars immediately moved to appeal the hefty dues owed to the Gaye estate, citing the difference in melodic and harmonic structure between the two tracks. And, perhaps fearing that they too might come under more legal scrutiny for derivative rhythm lines and "vibes," (look at Ed Sheeran, Justin Bieber, Demi Lovato, and Led Zeppelin) musicians were willing to join the cause in the form of the amicus brief. In it the artists assert, "[they] are concerned about the potential adverse impact on their own creativity, on the creativity of future artists, and on the music industry in general." It goes on:
The verdict in this case threatens to punish songwriters for creating new music that is inspired by prior works. All music shares inspiration from prior musical works, especially within a particular musical genre. By eliminating any meaningful standard for drawing the line between permissible inspiration and unlawful copying, the judgment is certain to stifle creativity and impede the creative process.
Among the names listed on the document are members of Earth, Wind & Fire, Tears for Fears, Linkin Park, Three 6 Mafia, Weezer, Fall Out Boy, Hall & Oates, and solo artists including R. Kelly, Jennifer Hudson and Jean-Baptiste. You can read it in full below:
https://www.scribd.com/document/322...rs-Composers-Musicians-And-Produce#from_embed
Pharrell Williams Embarrassed By "Rapey" Song "Blurred Lines"
byAllHipHop Staff
12 hrs
Pharrell Williams said the #MeToo movement woke him up to his own chauvinistic lyrics.
SHARE COPY LINK TWEET
(AllHipHop News) Pharrell Williams is "embarrassed" by his Robin Thicke collaboration "Blurred Lines" after being forced to recognize the lyrics of the track are disrespectful towards women.
The 46-year-old music producer co-wrote the 2013 song with Thicke and rapper T.I., and he now accepts it promotes derogatory and sexist views.
As a result, he's now more sensitive about promoting harmful messages in his songs.
"I was also born in a different era, where the rules of the matrix at that time allowed a lot of things that would never fly today," he told GQ for November's New Masculinity issue. "Advertisements that objectify women. Song content. Some of my old songs, I would never write or sing today. I get embarrassed by some of that stuff. It just took a lot of time and growth to get to that place."
When asked if the #MeToo movement against sexual harassment changed his views on the subject, Williams explained his viewpoints had already shifted.
"I think Blurred Lines' opened me up," he explained. "I didn't get it at first. Because there were older white women who, when that song came on, they would behave in some of the most surprising ways ever. And I would be like, 'Wow!' They would have me blushing. So when there started to be an issue with it, lyrically, I was, like, 'What are you talking about? There are women who really like the song and connect to the energy that just gets you up. And I know you want it - women sing those kinds of lyrics all the time'. So it's like, 'What's rapey about that?'"
But the "Happy" hitmaker had to confront the harmful messages the song promoted.
"I realized that there are men who use that same language when taking advantage of a woman, and it doesn't matter that that's not my behavior or the way I think about things. It just matters how it affects women. And I was like, 'Got it. I get it. Cool'," he added.
byAllHipHop Staff
12 hrs
Pharrell Williams said the #MeToo movement woke him up to his own chauvinistic lyrics.
SHARE COPY LINK TWEET
(AllHipHop News) Pharrell Williams is "embarrassed" by his Robin Thicke collaboration "Blurred Lines" after being forced to recognize the lyrics of the track are disrespectful towards women.
The 46-year-old music producer co-wrote the 2013 song with Thicke and rapper T.I., and he now accepts it promotes derogatory and sexist views.
As a result, he's now more sensitive about promoting harmful messages in his songs.
"I was also born in a different era, where the rules of the matrix at that time allowed a lot of things that would never fly today," he told GQ for November's New Masculinity issue. "Advertisements that objectify women. Song content. Some of my old songs, I would never write or sing today. I get embarrassed by some of that stuff. It just took a lot of time and growth to get to that place."
When asked if the #MeToo movement against sexual harassment changed his views on the subject, Williams explained his viewpoints had already shifted.
"I think Blurred Lines' opened me up," he explained. "I didn't get it at first. Because there were older white women who, when that song came on, they would behave in some of the most surprising ways ever. And I would be like, 'Wow!' They would have me blushing. So when there started to be an issue with it, lyrically, I was, like, 'What are you talking about? There are women who really like the song and connect to the energy that just gets you up. And I know you want it - women sing those kinds of lyrics all the time'. So it's like, 'What's rapey about that?'"
But the "Happy" hitmaker had to confront the harmful messages the song promoted.
"I realized that there are men who use that same language when taking advantage of a woman, and it doesn't matter that that's not my behavior or the way I think about things. It just matters how it affects women. And I was like, 'Got it. I get it. Cool'," he added.
Maintenance men as well.they gonna go after the music engineers, mixers, and studio sound men next......whoever was in the studio during the making of the song.
Maintenance men as well.
If anyone wore beats headphones during that session?
Dre better watch his back.
Pharrell Williams did not commit perjury in 'Blurred Lines' case, judge rules
A judge ruled that Pharrell Williams did not commit perjury in the infamous 'Blurred Lines' copyright case.
Pharrell Williams did not commit perjury in 'Blurred Lines' case, judge rules
By Tyler Aquilina
February 13, 2021 at 01:04 PM EST
At long last, it seems the "Blurred Lines" copyright lawsuit has been put to rest for good.
The contentious case — in which Marvin Gaye's family alleged Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke ripped off Gaye's "Got to Give It Up" for their hit 2013 single — concluded in 2018 with a controversial ruling that Williams and Thicke were liable for copyright infringement. In December 2019, however, Gaye's family filed a motion in federal court accusing Williams of committing perjury during the case.
The plaintiffs cited a GQ interview from November of that year in which Williams said he "reverse engineered" Gaye's song, arguing that this contradicted his statement during a deposition that he "did not go in the studio with the intention of making anything feel like, or to sound like, Marvin Gaye."
Discussing his music production process in the GQ interview, Williams said, "We try to figure out if we can build a building that doesn't look the same, but makes you feel the same way. I did that in 'Blurred Lines,' and got myself in trouble."
On Friday, in what seems to be the final note of the long legal saga, a California federal judge ruled that Williams' statements did not show he committed perjury.
"The statements by Williams during the November 2019 Interview were cryptic and amenable to multiple interpretations," U.S. District Court Judge John Kronstadt wrote. "For example, it is unclear what Williams meant by 'reverse-engineer[ing].' Read in context, Williams statement about 'reverse-engineering' could be interpreted as a process in which he remembers his feelings when listening to particular music, and then attempts to recreate those feelings in his own works. This is not inconsistent with his deposition testimony, in which he claimed that he realized after creating 'Blurred Lines' that the feeling he tried to capture in the song, was one that he associated with Marvin Gaye."
"For these reasons, the Gaye Parties have not shown by clear and compelling evidence that there are sufficiently material inconsistencies between Williams' statements in the November 2019 Interview and his sworn testimony, to support a finding of perjury," the ruling continues.
Gaye's family had been seeking about $3.5 million in attorney fees and costs, which Judge Kronstadt had denied them in the copyright suit. He did, however, award the family damages as well as half of all future royalties for "Blurred Lines."
EW has reached out to Williams for comment.
'Blurred Lines' controversy resurfaces as Marvin Gaye's family claims Pharrell committed perjury
By Tyler Aquilina
December 06, 2019 at 08:28 PM EST
Yet another pop-culture revival has appeared on the scene, though it’s not one anyone was clamoring for. The long copyright lawsuit over Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke‘s “Blurred Lines,” and whether it ripped off Marvin Gaye‘s “Got to Give It Up,” reared its head again after supposedly concluding in 2018.
On Friday, Gaye’s family filed a motion in federal court alleging Williams lied under oath in the case. The motion points to a November GQ interview in which the “Happy” singer told producer Rick Rubin he “reverse engineered” Gaye’s tune.
“We try to figure out if we can build a building that doesn’t look the same, but makes you feel the same way,” Williams said of his production process in the interview. “I did that in ‘Blurred Lines,’ and got myself in trouble.”
Gaye’s family argues this statement shows Williams committed perjury during his deposition in the copyright case, when he stated: “I did not go in the studio with the intention of making anything feel like, or to sound like, Marvin Gaye.”
CREDIT: JOSH BRASTED/FILMMAGIC
“These admissions are irreconcilable with Williams’s repeated, sworn testimony in this action that: neither ‘Got To’ nor Marvin Gaye ever entered his mind while creating ‘Blurred,’ that he did not try to make ‘Blurred’ feel like ‘Got To’ or sound like Marvin Gaye,” the Gaye family’s motion reads, arguing this constitutes “a fraud on this Court.” The Gayes are now urging California Judge John A. Kronstadt to reverse his decision in the copyright suit denying them an award of millions in attorney fees.
“Williams made intentional, material misrepresentations to the jury and this Court as part of an unconscionable scheme to improperly influence the jury and the Court in their decisions,” the document continues. “Nothing was more central to this case than whether ‘Got To’ or Marvin Gaye was on Williams’s mind while he was engaged in creating ‘Blurred.’ That fact was central to the issue of whether Williams and Thicke illegally copied ‘Got To’ and whether their copying was willful, and they knew it. It was also central to their defense of ‘independent creation.’ And it became central in this Court’s analysis of whether to award attorneys’ fees.”
In 2015, a jury found Williams and Thicke liable for copyright infringement, and an appeals court upheld the ruling in 2018, with Judge Kronstadt awarding damages and half of all future royalties for “Blurred Lines” to the Gaye family.
The decision was highly controversial, with many musicians arguing the song was an homage to Gaye rather than a ripoff. Rubin echoes these feelings in the GQ interview, saying, “The song is nothing like the song…The feeling is not something that you can copyright.”
The accusations “hurt my feelings, because I would never take anything from anyone. And it really set me back,” Williams says.
“It’s bad for music,” Rubin continues. “We’ve had an understanding of what a song is, and now, based on that one case, now there’s a question of what a song is. It’s not what it used to be…. It leaves us as music-makers in a really uncomfortable place making things, because now we don’t know what you can do.”
By Tyler Aquilina
December 06, 2019 at 08:28 PM EST
Yet another pop-culture revival has appeared on the scene, though it’s not one anyone was clamoring for. The long copyright lawsuit over Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke‘s “Blurred Lines,” and whether it ripped off Marvin Gaye‘s “Got to Give It Up,” reared its head again after supposedly concluding in 2018.
On Friday, Gaye’s family filed a motion in federal court alleging Williams lied under oath in the case. The motion points to a November GQ interview in which the “Happy” singer told producer Rick Rubin he “reverse engineered” Gaye’s tune.
“We try to figure out if we can build a building that doesn’t look the same, but makes you feel the same way,” Williams said of his production process in the interview. “I did that in ‘Blurred Lines,’ and got myself in trouble.”
Gaye’s family argues this statement shows Williams committed perjury during his deposition in the copyright case, when he stated: “I did not go in the studio with the intention of making anything feel like, or to sound like, Marvin Gaye.”
CREDIT: JOSH BRASTED/FILMMAGIC
“These admissions are irreconcilable with Williams’s repeated, sworn testimony in this action that: neither ‘Got To’ nor Marvin Gaye ever entered his mind while creating ‘Blurred,’ that he did not try to make ‘Blurred’ feel like ‘Got To’ or sound like Marvin Gaye,” the Gaye family’s motion reads, arguing this constitutes “a fraud on this Court.” The Gayes are now urging California Judge John A. Kronstadt to reverse his decision in the copyright suit denying them an award of millions in attorney fees.
“Williams made intentional, material misrepresentations to the jury and this Court as part of an unconscionable scheme to improperly influence the jury and the Court in their decisions,” the document continues. “Nothing was more central to this case than whether ‘Got To’ or Marvin Gaye was on Williams’s mind while he was engaged in creating ‘Blurred.’ That fact was central to the issue of whether Williams and Thicke illegally copied ‘Got To’ and whether their copying was willful, and they knew it. It was also central to their defense of ‘independent creation.’ And it became central in this Court’s analysis of whether to award attorneys’ fees.”
In 2015, a jury found Williams and Thicke liable for copyright infringement, and an appeals court upheld the ruling in 2018, with Judge Kronstadt awarding damages and half of all future royalties for “Blurred Lines” to the Gaye family.
The decision was highly controversial, with many musicians arguing the song was an homage to Gaye rather than a ripoff. Rubin echoes these feelings in the GQ interview, saying, “The song is nothing like the song…The feeling is not something that you can copyright.”
The accusations “hurt my feelings, because I would never take anything from anyone. And it really set me back,” Williams says.
“It’s bad for music,” Rubin continues. “We’ve had an understanding of what a song is, and now, based on that one case, now there’s a question of what a song is. It’s not what it used to be…. It leaves us as music-makers in a really uncomfortable place making things, because now we don’t know what you can do.”
Similar threads
