When does similarity become plagiarism?

[3mmargaret]

www.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/business/media/blurred-lines-infringed-on-marvin-gaye-copyright-jury-rules.html 

Marvin Gaye’s family recently sued Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke for similarities between their hit “Blurred Lines” and Gaye’s “Got to Give it Up.” On tuesday, the Gayes won and Williams and Thicke were fined $7.3 million. The ruling has sparked serious controversy, since many artists are undoubtably guilty of the same charges but have not been brought to court. That aside, I’m not even sure the jury made the right decision.

I recognize the similarities between the two songs, but I think the jury's justification for the verdict was flawed:
   
    “The eight jurors in the case were instructed by the judge, John A. Kronstadt of United States District Court, to compare “Blurred Lines” and
    “Got to Give It Up” only on the basis of their “sheet music” versions — meaning their fundamental chords, melodies and lyrics, and not the
    sounds of their commercial recordings.” (Link to article above)

In many cases, sheet music is the heart of the song; however, it is barely recognizable under the chatter and effects in “Blurred Lines.” Oddly enough, these atmospheric noises are what make it sound so much like “Got to Give it Up.” The melody is actually quite different from Gaye’s. Overall, the style of music Williams and Thicke produce is too heavy on added effects to be accurately evaluated by sheet music.

Copyright law serves an important purpose, but I understand why some argue that it might infringe on an artist’s freedom of expression. Art is many things, not the least of which is a medium to express and share ideas - which can’t be copyrighted. Creativity isn’t always originality. Unless it is obvious that a song is a complete rip-off of another, I see no reason to put the artists on trial.

While part of me is fist-pumping simply because “Blurred Lines” in it of itself makes my blood boil (that’s a separate issue), I see both sides of the case. Perhaps there are certain indisputable similarities between the two songs, but I’m not sure the $7.3 million fine was necessary. What do you think? Where would you draw the line between similarity and plagiarism?

[3taliac]

    I think that this entire lawsuit is ridiculous. It would be one thing if Marvin Gaye brought this lawsuit to court, but it’s his adult kids who sued. At this point in their lives, they aren’t suing for the integrity of their father’s song; they’re suing because they want money. “Blurred Lines” made so much more money than Gaye’s original song and they just wanted in on its makings.


    I remember watching an interview of Robin Thicke defending his song by saying that during his collaboration with Pharrell Williams he mentioned he wanted to create a feel for the music of the 70s. And truly, I don’t see the two songs as too similar. If anything, the two songs are different interpretations the same musical style.
As Margaret said, the songs were compared based on the sheet music. The sheet music doesn’t include the various sounds such as alarms, cowbells, etc. The entire song is known for all of these untraditional elements, which when stripped off the song make it unrecognizable. It should have been judged on all aspects and not just the technical ones. Creativity cannot be judged based upon a one-dimensional view. It must be taken in as a whole.

    
So many songs have been seen as a “rip-off” or “un-original”. Many of these original artists haven’t gone to court. Why you might ask? I think they all believe that “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery”.