Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The hotly disputed legal issue between the majority and dissent in the recent, highly-publicized “Blurred Lines” decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Williams v. Gaye, 15-56880, concerned whether Marvin Gaye's 1976 hit song “Got to Give it Up” was entitled to “broad” or “thin” copyright protection. The Ninth Circuit, in a 2-1 decision over a vigorous dissent, upheld the jury's determination that Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke's worldwide No. 1 2013 hit song “Blurred Lines” infringed Gaye's work. Williams and Thicke are asking the Ninth Circuit to rehear the case en banc.
The 2-1 panel's determination that the musical compositions at issue were entitled to “broad” copyright protection was critical to the outcome of the case because if a work is determined to be entitled to “thin” copyright protection, then proving infringement requires showing the works are “virtually identical.” In contrast, establishing infringement for a work that enjoys “broad” copyright protection only requires showing that the works are of “substantial similarity,” making it much easier to prove infringement.
|The distinction between “thin” and “broad” copyright protection is based on the principle that copyright protects expressions and not ideas. Determining whether a category of work can claim “broad” or “thin” copyright protection is a function of the “range of expression” available for the idea. That determination is often tedious, requiring in-depth, case-by-case examination and analysis. The following examples from prior court decisions are instructive.
With regard to depiction of animals in their natural surroundings in a dispute between glass-sculpture artists, in Satava v. Lowry, 323 F.3d 805 (2003), the Ninth Circuit identified non-protectable ideas, such as “an eagle with talons extended to snatch a mouse.” However, the appeals court found certain expression of these same ideas dealing with “pose, attitude, gesture, muscle structure, facial expression, coat, or texture” may be protectable. Because of the relatively narrow range of expressions available, courts find that depictions of live animals in their natural surroundings have “thin” copyright protection. In contrast, courts are likely to find “broad” copyright protection for animal depictions that are not realistic or not in their natural habitats because “an illustrator can find endless ways to combine colors, textures, dimensions, poses, and postures within the confines of depicting a recognizable” animal.
In another example, the Ninth Circuit determined in Printex Industries v. Aeropostale, 676 F.3d 841 (2012), that a fabric design, consisting of “a repeating pattern of bouquets of flowers and three-leaf branches,” was entitled to broad copyright protection because “there is 'a wide range of expression for selecting, coordinating, and arranging floral elements in stylized fabric designs.”
|The detailed and vigorous debate between the “Blurred Lines” majority and dissent is highly informative as to the scope of protection of musical works. The “Blurred Lines” majority held that musical works are generally entitled to “broad” copyright protection, explaining that “[m]usic … is not capable of ready classification into only five or six constituent elements, but is instead comprised of a large array of elements, some combination of which is protectable by copyright.” The dissent disagreed, arguing for a judgment as a matter of law that there is only a limited number of original combinations that are capable of protection under copyright law. Musical works are generally expressed by reference to primary compositional elements of melody, harmony and rhythm. Less prominent musical elements include tempo, dynamics (the volume of sound) and instrumentation.
Concerning sufficient similarity of the melodies, Gaye's expert opined that a 10-note melodic sequence in “Got to Give it Up,” which the expert defined as the “Signature Phrase” of the song, was also present in “Blurred Lines.” In support, the expert “identified four similar elements: each phrase begins with repeated notes; the phrases have three identical pitches in a row in the first measure and two in the second measure; each phrase begins with the same rhythm; and each phrase ends on a melisma (one word sung over multiple pitches).” The dissent disagreed, pointing out that the melodies of the two works begin and end on different pitches and that the highest, longest, most stressed pitch in each phrase is different.
Another disagreement focused on “the hook phrase,” which the expert for Gaye described as the four melodic pitches in “Got to Give It Up” sung to the lyrics “keep on dancing.'” According to the expert, “Blurred Lines” used similar hook phrases in two different places. The dissenting opinion, while conceding that three of the four pitches may be the same, pointed out the differences in the phrase's rhythms and in the underlying harmonies, and that the placement of the similar phrases in the songs were different.
Yet another disagreement in Williams v. Gaye concerned the songs' lyrics and related musical techniques, including word painting, which is “a compositional technique in which the music can be used to illustrate the words in the lyrics, such as setting the word 'higher' to an ascending melody,” and parlando, which is spoken word in the middle of a song, and lyrical themes.
|The extensive and detailed arguments about the similarity, or lack thereof, of the two works highlighted that multitude of components, techniques and elements on which musical works are built and strongly supports the conclusion that musical works enjoy a wide range of expression and thus must be entitled to “broad” copyright protection.
*****
Dr. Dariush Adli is founder and president of ADLI Law Group in Los Angeles. His practice includes business and intellectual property litigation, media and entertainment law. He can be contacted at [email protected].
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
In a profession where confidentiality is paramount, failing to address AI security concerns could have disastrous consequences. It is vital that law firms and those in related industries ask the right questions about AI security to protect their clients and their reputation.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, some tenants were able to negotiate termination agreements with their landlords. But even though a landlord may agree to terminate a lease to regain control of a defaulting tenant's space without costly and lengthy litigation, typically a defaulting tenant that otherwise has no contractual right to terminate its lease will be in a much weaker bargaining position with respect to the conditions for termination.
The International Trade Commission is empowered to block the importation into the United States of products that infringe U.S. intellectual property rights, In the past, the ITC generally instituted investigations without questioning the importation allegations in the complaint, however in several recent cases, the ITC declined to institute an investigation as to certain proposed respondents due to inadequate pleading of importation.
Practical strategies to explore doing business with friends and social contacts in a way that respects relationships and maximizes opportunities.
As the relationship between in-house and outside counsel continues to evolve, lawyers must continue to foster a client-first mindset, offer business-focused solutions, and embrace technology that helps deliver work faster and more efficiently.