Marvin Gaye accused Robin Thicke of plagiarism

Marvin Gaye accused Robin Thicke of plagiarism

Marvin Gaye accused Robin Thicke of plagiarism. This artist sang the song “Blurred Lines” in 2013, which was thought to be owned by Mr. Gaye (Sisario & Smith, 2015, para. 1). This revelation occurred during a lawsuit that had been filed against the artist. Thus, the allegation leveled against Robin Thicke was a matter that required determination of whether it was plagiarism or not.

Question 2

Pharrell Williams was found guilty of copyright infringement due to his involvement in the “Blurred Lines.” Mr. Williams co-wrote the song with Mr. Thicke (Sisario & Smith, 2015, para. 2). These two artists were required to compensate Mr. Gaye by paying $7.3 million. Hence, the participation of Mr. Williams in writing the song was considered a violation of copyright policies.

Question 3

Mr. Thicke copied Marvin Gaye’s elements of the song. The artist of “Blurred Lines” copied parts of “Got to Give It Up,” a song which was sung in 1977, without the owner’s consent (Sisario & Smith, 2015, para. 2). A federal jury ruling agreed with this accusation in Los Angeles. Thus, Mr. Marvin had violated the infringement policy by copying another artist’s work.

Question 4

Gaye’s children would receive the damage awarded by the court. The author noted that “Nona and Gaye, the two of Marvin’s Gaye’s children,” would be paid the damages (Sisario & Smith, 2015, para. 3). These children would receive $4 million, and the culprit’s profits of $3.3 million. Thus, the children would be compensated by them, with a total of $7.3.

Question 5

Another comparable case was determined by the jury in 1994. The case involved Sony, and his partner, Michael Bolton, who infringed the 1960s Isley Brothers’ song copyright (Sisario & Smith, 2015, para. 3). They were required to pay $5.4 million as a compensation fine. Thus, this case is similar to Mr. Thicke’s case due to the enormous monies involved.

Question 6

The case has prompted debate in the music industry due to conflicting ideas. The discussion aims at differentiating plagiarism, homage, and their impact on music creation in the future (Sisario & Smith, 2015, para. 4). Mr. Thicke’s lawyer based both songs’ similarities as their upbeat dance tunes, which is common in many pieces, and remembrance of an era. Thus, these aspects associated with copyright infringement need further debate.

Question 7

Howard E. King was a representative lawyer for Mr. Williams and Mr. Thicke, and his perspective on the case was interesting. Mr. King “said that his clients were considering their legal options” (Sisario & Smith, 2015, para. 8). There were alternative options that the accused could use to change the verdict. Thus, Mr. King’s perspective showed that there were legal loopholes that could be explored by his clients.

Question 8

Richard S. Busch was a lawyer to the Gaye’s family and argued contrary to the accused. He claimed that the case was about the infringement of his client’s copyright (Sisario & Smith, 2015, para. 6). Busch spoke about this case to the reporters after the determination of the verdict. Thus, he vehemently denied the justification of the song representing an era and insisted it was a copyright infringement.

Question 9

Thicke and Mr. Williams responded by showing disappointment in the ruling. The two artists claimed that the verdict set undesirable music creativity patterns henceforth (Sisario & Smith, 2015, para. 7). The accused commended this as a joint statement. Thus, the verdict was inappropriate since it would affect creativity in the music industry in the future.

Question 10

The case was unusual due to finances and officers involved. The verdict required was costly, and it was determined by the jury (Sisario & Smith, 2015, para. 10). The case involved a successful court ruling, which was a rare incidence. Thus, this case’s verdict was embarrassing, which was not a usual scenario in many cases because such cases involved little money.