Robin Thicke’s got to give it up … // Law and Entrepreneurship // Blog Network // University of Notre Dame

… millions in copyright royalties, that is. (Sorry – couldn’t resist!)

These two articles discuss the recent decision by a Los Angeles jury that found Robin Thicke’s “Blurred Lines” unintentionally plagiarized Marvin Gaye’s “Got to Give It Up.”

In the Chicago Tribune article, the author provides a cursory overview of the evolution of IP protection in the US and believes that the case turned on one key issue: Is the point to protect the moral rights of the original author or to maximize socially valuable artistic production? The Author argues that artistic production is more important and such decisions as these will inhibit artistic creation.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-blurred-lines-robin-thicke-court-perspec-0317-20150316-story.html

This article is on the Room for Debate section of the NY Times and has contributions from multiple authors with varying perspectives.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/03/17/robin-thicke-pharrell-williams-and-a-blurry-copyright-law/musicians-can-avoid-copyright-suits-by-showing-sense-and-respect

One thought on “Robin Thicke’s got to give it up …”

I agree with the author — artists should seek and obtain “any arguably necessary clearances and permissions.” This reminds me of a situation between notorious thief Will.I.Am and the awful Chris Brown and lesser-known progressive house artists Arty and Mat Zo. A song released by the very famous duo blatantly sampled Arty/Mat’s “Rebound,” and instead of using this opportunity to give some exposure to a much lesser-known artist, he did not give any credit to either artist on the single or the album, and failed to seek permission from their record label, Anjunabeats, to use what was their property. The first time Mat Zo even realized his work was famous was through a post on Twitter. Following the uproar from Arty’s and Mat’s fanbase, Chris Brown tweeted Chris originally tweeted: ‘I don’t even know who Mat Zo or Arty is? I ain’t go s**t to do wit if ur mad or not. Someone asked for a feature on a record and I did it.’ He later added, ‘I don’t listen to that s**t half the time anyway.” What a great guy!

Because it has become so easy for any artist from international icons to college kids recording on their MacBooks to sample the work of other artists, it is now more important than ever for those with the resources available to seek permission from the original artist if they are going to profit off of them at all. It is the only right thing to give credit where credit is due.

Eirene-Gin on March 22, 2015 at 10:40 pm said:

I agree with the author — artists should seek and obtain “any arguably necessary clearances and permissions.” This reminds me of a situation between notorious thief Will.I.Am and the awful Chris Brown and lesser-known progressive house artists Arty and Mat Zo. A song released by the very famous duo blatantly sampled Arty/Mat’s “Rebound,” and instead of using this opportunity to give some exposure to a much lesser-known artist, he did not give any credit to either artist on the single or the album, and failed to seek permission from their record label, Anjunabeats, to use what was their property. The first time Mat Zo even realized his work was famous was through a post on Twitter. Following the uproar from Arty’s and Mat’s fanbase, Chris Brown tweeted Chris originally tweeted: ‘I don’t even know who Mat Zo or Arty is? I ain’t go s**t to do wit if ur mad or not. Someone asked for a feature on a record and I did it.’ He later added, ‘I don’t listen to that s**t half the time anyway.” What a great guy!

Because it has become so easy for any artist from international icons to college kids recording on their MacBooks to sample the work of other artists, it is now more important than ever for those with the resources available to seek permission from the original artist if they are going to profit off of them at all. It is the only right thing to give credit where credit is due.