Originally Posted by Supermallet

Sins of the father, eh? You realize that Marvin Gaye was also part of that same family, right? Gaye had more talent in one fingernail than Thicke has in his entire body. If Thicke did plagiarize (and it sounds like he did to me, but that's for a judge to decide), then he should pay up, and be forced to buy a copy of "What's Going On" for every person who ever hears "Blurred Lines".

Originally Posted by The Hollywood Reporter

Marvin Gaye's Children Use Audio Mashup to Prove 'Blurred Lines' Is Infringing
3:33 PM PDT 9/8/2014 by Eriq Gardner

On Monday, Marvin Gaye's children delivered a message to a California federal judge: Hearing is believing, so listen up.

Nona Gaye, Frankie Gaye and Marvin Gaye III have now filed their summary judgment papers in a lawsuit over "Blurred Lines" and are pointing the judge to recorded depositions and media interviews given by producer Pharrell Williams and singer Robin Thicke. The children have also submitted an audio mash-up that's intended to serve as "concrete musical illustrations of the substantial similarities" between last year's huge hit and Gaye's "Got to Give it Up."

Williams and Thicke filed their preemptive lawsuit in August 2013 seeking a declaration of noninfringement. This past July, the plaintiffs suggested in their own summary judgment papers that the Gayes "smelled money" when asserting a copyright infringement. The Gaye children indeed fired counterclaims in October 2013, but they want it noted who sued first.

According to the Gayes' bid for summary judgment, "Not only was it, therefore, Thicke and Williams who actually 'smelled money,' but it was they who then played the role of bully by suing Marvin Gaye's children when the Gaye children had the temerity to question why their father was not credited, or why 'Got to Give it Up' was not licensed, betting that the Gaye children would not have the will or resources to fight this battle. Thicke and Williams bet wrong, and they will now have to face the consequences of their misjudgment and their blatant copyright infringement."

The counterclaimants look to use statements from Williams and Thicke as admissions of guilt. Unfortunately, much of the deposition testimony has been sealed and redacted, but according to a declaration by the Gayes' lawyer, Richard Busch, Williams has stated that he envisioned himself as Marvin Gaye while making the song. Other media interviews are cited as well. In one, Thicke said that "Got to Give it Up" is one of his "favorite songs of all time" and that he went into the studio and said, "You know, Pharrell, I'd love to make something like this."

In theory, the Gaye children should have an easier time on their counterclaims than most plaintiffs in copyright litigation. Under what's known as the "inverse-ratio rule," a lower standard of proof of similarity is necessary when a high degree of "access" is shown. The Gaye children say that with or without the application of the inverse-ration rule, they should prevail.

To that end, they have produced for the judge's ears a mash-up — quite possibly the first time ever in a courtroom that a mash-up has been exploited to prove copyright infringement. In the recording, the vocal material of "Blurred Lines" plays over the instrumental of "Got to Give It Up," and vice versa. "This material sounds like a perfect, natural match because it blends sonically," says the summary judgment memorandum.

If that's not enough, the Gayes have two expert musicologists describing eight substantial similarities: "(1) the signature phrase in the main vocal melodies; (2) the hooks; (3) the hooks with backup vocals; (4) the core theme in 'Blurred Lines' and backup hook in 'Got to Give it Up'; (5) the backup hooks; (6) the bass melodies; (7) the keyboard parts; and (8) the unusual percussion choices."

As a preemptive strike, the plaintiffs dismissed these as "unprotectable, commonplace ideas," but the counterclaimants retort they are distinctive. Take the bass melodies, for instance. Both songs are said by the musicologists to have "two-measure phrases, which leave space in the middle of each of the bars, rhythms and points of harmonic arrival. This is not simply an element of a genre, as it is unusual to have bass lines in R&B that leave this much space in the middle of the bar."

The Gayes also reject the notion that other songs constitute prior art. War's "Low Rider" isn't "rhythmically similar," they say; Curtis Mayfield's "Superfly" isn't "consistent with the disco pattern in the songs here"; and the cowbell on Lipps Inc.'s "Funkytown" "plays continuous sixteenth notes rather than a Latin time keeping rhythm."

The full summary judgment papers are below — absent the mash-up, which we hope to provide soon — and also argue why Thicke's "Love After War" should be seen as an infringement of Gaye's "After the Dance." Finally, attorneys for the Gaye children attempt to convince U.S. District Judge John Kronstadt on the legal standards on which to weigh both songs when ruling.

"They filed papers insulting the family of the great Marvin Gaye," says Busch. "We responded with the facts and the law. Beyond that, everything we have to say is in our papers, including the expert reports and audio files submitted therewith."

The decision should be coming in the coming months. A jury trial has been scheduled for February 10, 2015.

Originally Posted by JTH182

When the judge enters the room, will the bailiff say "everybody get up"?

Originally Posted by The Hollywood Reporter

Robin Thicke Admits Drug Abuse, Lying to Media in Wild 'Blurred Lines' Deposition (Exclusive)
9:00 AM PDT 9/15/2014 by Eriq Gardner

"Blurred Lines," the pop hit that has quickly become one of the most fascinating and controversial songs of the young century, has now spawned even more to discuss thanks to the appearance of absolutely bizarre depositions given by the song's singer Robin Thicke and producer Pharrell Williams. The sworn testimony, revealed for the first time in a Los Angeles federal court on Monday, covers such subjects as authorship, song credit, drug abuse and media promotion, and with almost certainty, will change perceptions of a hit recording that was dubbed last year's Song of the Summer.

When "Blurred Lines" was released in March 2013, the catchy harmony became a cultural phenomenon, but since then, there's been substantial reassessment of what this song is all about. In some corners of the public, "Blurred Lines," with lyrics that include "Good girl, I know you want it," has been attacked as "kind of rapey." And in the past few months, Thicke has had to endure accusations of misogyny.

Then, there's the lawsuit filed by Thicke, Williams and song co-writer Clifford "T.I." Harris Jr. intended to protect "Blurred Lines" from claims of being a rip-off. They are facing off against the children of Marvin Gaye, who in a cross-complaint accuse the plaintiffs of making an unauthorized derivative of their father's 1977 classic "Got to Give It Up."

Last week, Gaye's family filed summary motion papers and also lodged an audio mash-up of the two songs in an effort to win the case. A good portion of the court documents were designated as confidential, but after some back-and-forth between the parties, a judge has ordered that transcripts of the celebrities' depositions shouldn't be sealed. The Hollywood Reporter has obtained copies of the sensational testimony.

Thicke and Williams gave their depositions this past April, and they were both incredibly hostile.

For example, when Richard Busch, attorney for the Gayes, attempted to play the mash-up for Thicke's ears, the singer begged him to stop. "It's so hard to listen to it," said Thicke, referencing a clash between major and minor chords. "It's like nails on a f—ing chalkboard... This is [like] Stanley Kubrick's movie Clockwork Orange. Where he has to sit there and watch... Mozart would be rolling in his grave right now."

The deposition turns even more strange once Thicke is forced to explain his many statements to the media about how Gaye has inspired him. For example, he once told GQ Magazine, "Pharrell and I were in the studio and I told him that one of my favorite songs of all time was Marvin Gaye's 'Got to Give It Up.' I was like, 'Damn, we should make something like that, something with that groove.' Then he started playing a little something and we literally wrote the song in about a half hour and recorded it."

But that's not actually what happened, Thicke now admits.

The singer says under oath that after writing and producing six albums himself, "I was jealous and I wanted some of the credit... I tried to take credit for it later because (Williams) wrote the whole thing pretty much by himself and I was envious of that."

In his deposition (read in full here), Thicke soon gets more specific:

"Q: Were you present during the creation of 'Blurred Lines'?

Thicke: I was present. Obviously, I sang it. I had to be there.

Q: When the rhythm track was being created, were you there with Pharrell?

Thicke: To be honest, that's the only part where — I was high on vicodin and alcohol when I showed up at the studio. So my recollection is when we made the song, I thought I wanted — I — I wanted to be more involved than I actually was by the time, nine months later, it became a huge hit and I wanted credit. So I started kind of convincing myself that I was a little more part of it than I was and I — because I didn't want him — I wanted some credit for this big hit. But the reality is, is that Pharrell had the beat and he wrote almost every single part of the song."

Thicke says he was just "lucky enough to be in the room" when Williams wrote the song. Afterwards, he gave interviews to outlets like Billboard where he repeated the false origin story surrounding "Blurred Lines" because he says he "thought it would help sell records." But he also states he hardly remembers his specific media comments because he "had a drug and alcohol problem for the year" and "didn't do a sober interview." In fact, when he appeared on Oprah Winfrey's show with his young son and talked about how weird it was to be in the midst of a legal battle with the family of a legendary soul singer who "inspires almost half of my music," Thicke admits he was drunk and taking Norco — "which is like two Vicodin in one pill," he says.

The singer addresses his honesty ("I told my wife the truth. That's why she left me.") and after saying he's been sober for many months, clarifies towards the end of the depsotion, that he's given up Vicodin but not alcohol.

Despite having limited input in the creation of "Blurred Lines," Thicke was given a co-writer credit, which he says entitles him to about 18-22 percent of publishing royalties. Why would Williams be so generous?

"This is what happens every day in our industry," said Williams during his own deposition (read in full here). "You know, people are made to look like they have much more authorship in the situation than they actually do. So that's where the embellishment comes in."

Williams' own testimony also got off to a belligerent start. At one point during the examination, Williams says he can read music, but then is shown a transcription of a song, and asked to identify notes and durations. "I'm not comfortable," Williams responds eight times as Busch presses to figure out whether he really can read music.

The producer is evasive in other ways. Asked whether Marvin Gaye has influenced him, Williams says , "He's an Aries. I respect him."

Williams says he didn't go into the studio with the intention of making anything sound like Gaye. He takes the attorneys through his creative process and why the session on "Blurred Lines" was a bit different.

"When I work with a person, I think about three things," he says. "I think about the energy that they're coming with, but this wasn't the case because (Thicke) wasn't there yet. But usually, I think about the energy and what they come in with, like what's on their mind, you know, argument with a girlfriend, e-mail with the husband, politics, state of the world. People walk in with vibes. They walk in with feelings. This was not one of those days."

The producer says he was in the "driver's seat" on this particular song, but does give Thicke some credit in a rather interesting section that seems to imply that white people are victims and beneficiaries of racial discrimination in the music business:

"Q: In your view, what holds 'Blurred Lines' together throughout the different sections?

Williams: What holds it together?

Q: Yeah.

Williams: Robin Thicke's voice.

Q: Does the bass line and the keyboard hold the songs together through the different sections?

A: No

Q: Why not?

A: Because it's the white man singing soulfully and we, unfortunately, in this country don't get enough — we don't get to hear that as often, so we get excited by it when the mainstream gives that a shot. But there's a lot of incredibly talented white folk with really soulful vocals, so when we're able to give them a shot — and when I say 'we,' I mean like as in the public gives them a shot to be heard, then you hear the Justin Timberlakes and you hear the Christina Aguileras and you hear, you know, all of these masterful voices that have just been given, you know, an opportunity to be heard because they're doing something different."

Williams then adds that if he had sang the song, "It wouldn't be what it was — what it is today."

He admits, though, it's his song. Asked whose creation were the "Blurred Lines" words, he answers, "Mine."

How this all fits into the ongoing lawsuit is an intriguing question in and of itself.

In attempting to keep the depositions private, Howard King and Seth Miller — attorneys for Thicke and Williams — argued that they were hardly relevant and merely intended to "distract attention from the real issues and to embarrass, harass, and annoy Plaintiffs." They begged the judge to take note of the fact that celebrity depositions can be subject of "untoward media exploitation and public scrutiny," and instructed the judge, "Google 'Justin Bieber deposition.'" (The attorneys were at least successful in getting the judge to keep private the videotaped version of the depositions.)

The transcripts of the depositions don't necessarily refute the plaintiffs' contention in their own summary judgment motion that "Blurred Lines" and "Got to Give It Up" are not substantially similar for purposes of a copyright analysis, but on the road to a trial that is currently scheduled for February 10, 2015, the Gayes believe they have ammunition to destroy the plaintiffs' credibility and honor.

"Thicke, for his part, now claims he made all of his statements while drunk or on drugs, none of them true, and he mentioned Marvin Gaye only to sell records," states the counter-claimants' court papers. "He also actually testified that he is not an honest person. This complete contempt for the judicial system, and their obligations to tell the truth, can best be summed up by Thicke’s ultimate admission, while under oath, that he '[does not] give a f--k' about this litigation."