The Marvin Gaye/Blurred Lines Verdict and Al Originals

[Wizzerkat]

Here's an AP article about the suit:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a8afe101 ... c-business" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


As we know, Al's originals are in the style of artists sometimes with small riffs of their songs in there. For instance, in Mission Statement, a tiny part of Suite Judy Blue Eyes is in it. Also, I believe a part of the very beginning of Debaser is at the start of First World Problems.

Pharrell Williams said during the trial that he was only trying to mimic the "feel" of Gaye's late 1970s music, but insisted he did not use elements of his idol's work. A lawyer they interviewed said, "The Gaye verdict is precedential in that whereas prior to today, it was generally understood that paying homage to musical influences was an acceptable, and indeed commonplace way of conducting business and even showing respect for one's musical idols, after today, doubt has been cast on where the line will be drawn for copyright infringement purposes."

So, I wonder if any of this will affect Al in the future?

[mellow weasel]

I think in the worst case scenario, he'll have to ask for permissions and pay for the use of melodies, like he does for straightforward parodies. One problem that comes to mind - if he wants to use pieces of several songs in one style parody, would he have to pay for all of them, or would it be a matter of an agreement with artist's people?
Sorry if I'm talking complete bs, I have no idea how those things work

[Kevbo1987]

I think mellow weasel could be right. It seems like Al might at least want to start approaching artists and informing them that he's doing a style parody of their work. If they understand what he's doing and approve, they'd probably be much less likely to raise a stink about it down the road.

[tomatochives]

I think in the worst case scenario, he'll have to ask for permissions and pay for the use of melodies, like he does for straightforward parodies. One problem that comes to mind - if he wants to use pieces of several songs in one style parody, would he have to pay for all of them, or would it be a metter of an agreement with artist's people?
Sorry if I'm talking complete bs, I have no idea how those things work

I think this court decision has less to do with the technicalities of the song and more to do with the infringing artist's reputation. Robin Thicke is (more or less) hated by everyone for his lyrics. And his testimony about being intoxicated while recording the song may have been the ultimate nail in the coffin. Honestly, the verdict could have been a lot worse than a $7 million settlement.

Al is still protected by Fair Use law. His work is transformative enough and creative enough to prevent litigation against him. Also he's been in the industry for three decades and has cultivated a reputation for being respectful to other artists who, in turn, respect him.

[TMBJon]

I had the exact same thought as Wizzerkat when I read about this ruling. I have no legal qualifications, but my understanding is that style parodies would be covered under fair use if one of Al's targets ever did get litigious. I think there has to be a difference between something like Blurred Lines, where Pharrell and Thicke are trying to profit off of Marvin Gaye's existing songs, vs a style parody that borrows heavily from a few recognizable songs, like Mission Statement, CNR, Germs, where the purpose of Al's is to parody the original artist & composition (still, for profit).
Where it gets questionable for Al would be something like Dick's Automotive vs Albuquerque. If the Rugburns decided to pursue legal action they would probably have a case, especially because Al wasn't really vocal about the source material at the time until he was found out.

[minnick27]

And of course recently the singer of Southern Culture on the Skids commented that Lame Claim to Fame was extremely close to one of their songs and it would have been nice to get paid, but that's the way the business works

[mrmeadows]

Would be weird if Al was free-and-clear to do a straight parody of a song but would need to get permission (legally) to do a style parody. I think Jon is right about being covered by fair use for both. Plus, ever since the Dick's Automotive mini-debacle Al has begun to list his style parody targets in the Special Thanks section of each album, so unlike Pharrell/Thicke he's acknowledging up front that he's borrowing their work.

[mellow weasel]

Would be weird if Al was free-and-clear to do a straight parody of a song but would need to get permission (legally) to do a style parody. I think Jon is right about being covered by fair use for both.

But Al has said a few times that fair use only applies AS LONG AS he doesn't change a melody. Unless I misunderstood/misheard something.

[anthontherun]

Aside from "Dick's Automotive," the one example that would give me pause would be the "Slither" riff in "My Own Eyes." By Al's own admission, it's a style parody of Foo Fighters, not Velvet Revolver, but it's almost a note-for-note lift of the VR riff--and considering that song was utilized in "Polkarama!" obviously Al was familiar with it.

[Wizzerkat]

Regardless of how things play out regarding this, Al might be better served being more careful in the future about this sort of thing. Using a small part of a song falls under fair use, but I am not sure Al would want to worry about which artist would get their panties in a twist about riffs in songs and use this ruling to justify suing him.