Ninth Circuit Upholds $5M 'Blurred Lines' Verdict Against Thicke, Pharrell
In dissent, Judge Jacqueline Nguyen warned the decision amounts to copyrighting a musical style and will permit "entire genres of music to be held hostage to infringement suits."
March 21, 2018 at 01:33 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
The Ninth Circuit has upheld a $5 million jury award for copyright infringement against Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke.
A 2-1 majority led by Judge Milan Smith deferred to a jury's finding that Williams and Thicke copied Marvin Gaye's “Got to Give It Up” when they recorded “Blurred Lines.” The court also freed Clifford Harris, also known as T.I., of liability.
Dissenting Judge Jacqueline Nguyen accused her colleagues of being overly deferential to the jury in the case, saying the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's decision will permit “entire genres of music to be held hostage to infringement suits.”
Williams v. Gaye is a win for Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer's Lisa Blatt and King & Ballow's Richard Busch, who argued on behalf of Gaye's heirs, who hold the copyright in “Got to Give It Up.”
Beyond the individual result, the case adds momentum to the idea among Ninth Circuit judges that jurors ought to be able to hear performances of allegedly infringed music performed by the author, rather than stripped down versions of the sheet music, even in cases governed by the 1909 Copyright Act. Blatt had told the Ninth Circuit it was like trying the case blindfolded and handcuffed.
That same issue was debated last week by a different Ninth Circuit panel reviewing a copyright claim over the Led Zeppelin song “Stairway to Heaven.”
Smith on Wednesday deemed the issue “unsettled” and said he believed that U.S. District Judge John Kronstadt of Los Angeles was the first to impose such a limit in the Williams case. He further suggested that Ninth Circuit precedent is not so restrictive.
“Blurred Lines” became an international sensation in 2013. Thicke, Williams and Harris are credited as co-authors. In an interview with GQ magazine, Thicke recalled telling Williams that “Got to Give It Up” was one of his favorite songs of all time, and that “we should make something like that, something with that groove.” The two started playing and “we literally wrote the song in about a half hour and recorded it.” Harris separately wrote a rap verse that was added to the song months later.
After the interviews were published, Gaye's heirs sued for infringement. The jury awarded about $7.3 million, which Kronstadt reduced to just over $5 million, plus a 50 percent royalty on future sales.
Smith emphasized in Wednesday's opinion that the Ninth Circuit had to review the jury's verdict deferentially, especially because neither party moved for judgment as a matter of law before the case was submitted.
He observed that expert witnesses testified to similarities between the songs' signature phrases, hooks, bass melodies, word painting and parlance. “Thus, we cannot say that there was an absolute absence of evidence supporting the jury's verdict,” Smith concluded. Judge Mary Murguia concurred.
Smith did reverse Kronstadt's post-trial ruling that Harris should be held liable along with Williams and Thicke.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan represented Williams, Thicke and their music publisher. Sidley Austin partner Mark Haddad represented Harris' music publishers.
Nguyen argued in dissent that the case never should have gone to a jury. Instead, Kronstadt should have granted summary judgment. “The majority allows the Gayes to accomplish what no one has before: copyright a musical style,” Nguyen wrote.
The testimony from the Gaye heirs' experts was “the equivalent of finding substantial similarity between two pointillist paintings because both have a few flecks of similarly colored paint,” she wrote. The actual melody, harmony and rhythm of the songs are not objectively similar as a matter of law, she argued.
Nguyen repeatedly accused the majority of refusing to grapple with the musical elements of the song, many of which she said are shared by everyday compositions such as the “Happy Birthday” song.
Smith replied that the Supreme Court has forbidden appellate courts, except in rare circumstances, from reaching back to summary judgment decisions after cases go to trial. “The dissent improperly tries, after a full jury trial has concluded, to act as judge, jury and executioner,” Smith wrote, “but there is no there there, and the attempt fails.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllUS Judge Rejects Morgan Stanley Reconsideration Bid in Deferred Compensation Litigation
Transgender Woman Awarded $150K Default Judgment Against Corrections Officer for Alleged Assault
Legal Speak: A Convicted Felon is Coming to the White House. What Happens Now?
1 minute readAT&T General Counsel Joins ADM Board as Company Reels From Accounting Scandal
Trending Stories
- 1Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 2Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 3Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 4Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 5The Law Firm Disrupted: Big Law Profits Vs. Political Values
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250