The Controversy Behind "Blurred Lines": A Deep Dive Into Copyright And Profit

As you probably recall, "Blurred Lines" was the biggest hit of 2013. The song was practically unavoidable for six months. It sold five million copies in 22 weeks, six million copies in 29 weeks, and a total of 7.3 million copies in the US to date. It has sold 14.3 million copies worldwide. It’s the fastest selling song in digital history and the second best selling digital single of all time, right behind "I Gotta Feeling" by The Black Eyed Peas. Suffice it to say, "Blurred Lines" was an absolute musical phenomenon that, unsurprisingly, put A LOT of money in the pockets of the song's creators, Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams. BUT! There’s just one problem. "Blurred Lines" may not have actually been written by Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams. And thanks to legal paperwork that was filed this week, we’re learning some intimate financial details that would normally be kept top secret by the music industry.

Before we go any further, take a listen to this YouTube video. It plays "Blurred Lines" (BL) back to back with the song it allegedly infringes on, Marvin Gaye's 1977 hit "Got to Give It Up":

Can you hear the similarities? If so, you may understand why Marvin's children, Frankie and Nona Gaye, might be a little upset. Writing credit for BL is currently attributed Robin Thicke, Pharrell Williams, and Clifford Harris, Jr (better known as T.I.).

Understanding the Lawsuit

In August 2013, Mr. Thicke filed a preemptive lawsuit against the Gaye family after hearing rumblings that they were about to file a lawsuit of their own against him for copyright infringement. This proactive legal move was a significant moment in the ongoing debate about what constitutes copyright infringement in music.

One major problem for Mr. Thicke is that way before any lawsuits were filed, he told a number of media outlets that he and Pharrell set out to make a song exactly like "Got to Give It Up." He even claims they were listening to it when they first set out to write the lyrics and beats to what became BL. This admission complicates his defense, as it suggests an intent to mimic the original work.

Public Reactions and Opinions on Copyright

The public reaction to the lawsuit was mixed. Some believed that music should evolve and be influenced by past works, while others felt that artists should be held accountable for their inspirations. The complexities of copyright laws often leave artists and listeners divided on what constitutes original work versus derivative work.

Fellow musician Questlove chimed in his two cents in a Rolling Stone interview, stating, "Look, technically it’s not plagiarized. It’s not the same chord progression. It’s a feeling." This perspective highlights the subjective nature of music and how different ears interpret sounds differently.

The Financial Fallout

Regardless of who actually wrote "Blurred Lines" or if it plagiarized Marvin Gaye, the lawsuit has revealed some very interesting information about the song's profits. This information is especially significant because we almost never get to learn this kind of precise financial detail related to the music industry.

According to this week’s court filings, "Blurred Lines" generated $16,675,690 in profits. That’s more than any other song of 2013. Of that $16.67 million, $5,658,214 was paid to Robin Thicke, $5,153,457 was paid to Pharrell Williams, and $704,774 went to T.I. The remaining $5,159,245 was split between three different record companies. One of those record companies, Universal Music, testified in court that the song’s total overhead costs came to $6.9 million.

The Implications of Profit Distribution

Let’s take a second to recognize how significant it was for Robin to take credit from Pharrell. Not only was he taking credit for something he had nothing to do with creating, but he also essentially took $5.6 million out of Pharrell’s pocket. He actually ended up earning $600,000 more than Pharrell!

The Gaye family lawyers further contend that BL has generated $8 million in publishing royalties and that, under a traditional licensing agreement, they should have been entitled to a minimum of half that amount. This indicates a potential loss for the Gaye family, who claim they were not compensated for the use of Marvin Gaye’s influence.

Legal Outcomes and Future Considerations

Finally, the Gaye family lawyers testified that, by their estimation, the song generated an additional $11 million in touring revenue. The Gaye lawyers are seeking $40 million in damages. This legal battle raises questions about the future of copyright in music and how artists can protect their work.

So what do you think? Did "Blurred Lines" plagiarize "Got to Give It Up"? Does Marvin Gaye’s family deserve millions? As the music industry continues to evolve, the outcomes of such lawsuits will likely shape how artists approach their work and how they navigate the fine line between inspiration and imitation.