Texas

Pharrell Williams did not commit perjury in the Blurred Lines case, Judge’s rules

Pharrell Williams received good news on Friday after the judge determined that he was not lying under the oath.

A ruling in favor of a 47-year-old musician and songwriter in a long-standing court battle in which the property of the late singer Marvin Gaye sued Williams and his collaborator Robin Thicke in their single blurry line. It seems to be the end.

Real estate has successfully claimed that Williams and Sick plagiarized gay 1977 hits to Got To Give It Up in a 2015 trial and subsequent appeals.

Free and Clear: Judges of the US District Court testify on Friday from a 2015 proceeding in which Pharrell Williams claims that his song “Blurred Lines” was afflicted by Marvin Gaye’s hit “Got To Give It Up”. It was ruled that he did not commit any harm in the recording. Seen in 2019

The jury initially determined that Williams and Chic had plagiarized the R & B Classic at the 2013 hit Bullard Lines in 2015 and awarded gay real estate $ 7.4 million.

In 2018, a split panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ended the appeal against the decision, confirming that Williams and Sick had plagiarized the song, but the decision was reduced to $ 5.3 million.

Gay has also been added as a co-author of the song, and his property will receive half of all future royalties from Bullard Lines.

However, according to Digital Music News, real estate also wanted to pay Farrell and Chic statutory costs, but they were not obliged because the court did not determine that their plagiarism was intentional.

The two would have had to pay the statutory fee only if the judge determined that they had deliberately plagiarized the gay song.

Payment: Williams and his co-songwriter Robin Thicke lost their 2015 ruling and 2018 appeal and were forced to pay more than $ 5 million to Marvin Gaye's property for plagiarizing a 1977 song. it was done.Still from the blurry lines between Chic and Emily Ratajkowski

Payment: Williams and his co-songwriter Robin Thicke lost their 2015 ruling and 2018 appeal and were forced to pay more than $ 5 million to Marvin Gaye’s property for plagiarizing a 1977 song. it was done.Still from the blurry lines between Chic and Emily Ratajkowski

Ask for Money: After Williams claimed in a GQ interview that he

Ask for Money: After Williams claimed in a GQ interview that he “reverse-engineered the blurry lines from Got To Give It Up,” the gay family claimed to have perjuried himself to force him to pay the statutory costs. Seen in 2019

However, after a conversation with rock and hip-hop producer Rick Rubin, which was unveiled at GQ in November 2019, the estate brought Williams back to court from December 19th.

Real Estate quoted a line from a conversation where the songwriter “reverse-engineered” and gave up on it to create a blurry line, as evidence that he lied under an oath and committed perjury. ..

“I didn’t go to the studio with the intention of making it feel or sound like Marvin Gaye,” Williams swore in a testimony record.

If the property was successful, Williams would probably have been forced to pay its legal costs.

In an interview with GQ, Williams said: ‘We are wondering if we can build a building that doesn’t look the same, but feels the same. I did it on Blurred Lines and I was in trouble. “

Retreat: Sick later claimed in court that he didn't actually write the song, even though he was credited as a co-songwriter. Seen in 2015

Retreat: Sick later claimed in court that he didn’t actually write the song, even though he was credited as a co-songwriter. Seen in 2015

Doesn't Hold Water: Judge John Kronstadt of the U.S. District Court has determined that Williams' interview is not sufficient evidence to suggest that he lied to the testimony record. .. Seen in 2019

Doesn’t Hold Water: Judge John Kronstadt of the U.S. District Court has determined that Williams’ interview is not sufficient evidence to suggest that he lied to the testimony record. .. Seen in 2019

However, Judge John Kronstadt of the US District Court ruled on Friday that a statement alone was not enough to prove that Williams had committed perjury.

“Williams’ remarks during the November 2019 interview were puzzling and obedient to multiple interpretations,” wrote a California judge.

“For example, it’s unclear what Williams means to be a” reverse engineer. “[ing]Reading the context, Williams’ statement about “reverse engineering” can be interpreted as a process of remembering one’s emotions when listening to certain music and trying to reproduce those emotions in one’s work.

“This is consistent with his testimony-taking testimony. He claimed that after creating Blurred Lines, he realized that the emotions he tried to incorporate into the song were related to Marvin Gaye.” He added.

“For these reasons, gay parties are clear and convincing that there is a sufficiently significant contradiction between Williams’ remarks in the November 2019 interview and his oath testimony to support the perjury finding. Not shown by some evidence. “

Controversial Decision: Several legal scholars have accused Williams of the first decision, arguing that it was under-decided and not based on the finer details of music copyright law. Gay seen in 1976

Controversial Decision: Several legal scholars have accused Williams of the first decision, arguing that it was under-decided and not based on the finer details of music copyright law. Gay seen in 1976

The gay family initially sought a statutory cost of $ 3.5 million, which was initially denied.

At the time of the initial ruling that Williams and Chic plagiarized the song, some legal scholars and copyright experts said the two songs were similar rather than focusing on a particular musical aspect. They blamed the decision for being based on a general sense of what they shared.

In a New Yorker 2015 article, legal scholar Tim Wu wrote that this decision was a “serious mistake” because it focused on superficial similarities.

“Gay Estate’s copyright is only for the notes (composition) of his songs, not for the playback method (recording). These copyrights are separate,” Wu wrote.

He heard the two songs, but the Blurred Lines note sequence wasn’t shared with Got To Give It Up, so instead of drawing the original conclusion to the jury, the judge “legal to abandon the proceedings.” I have a duty. ” Similar to many listeners.

However, the Judges’ Committee largely upheld the decision on appeal.

Details: Law scholar Tim Wu criticized the 2015 New Yorker decision. This is because BlurredLines does not share a common note with Got To Give It Up, which should be a prerequisite for the decision. Williams seen in 2019

Details: Law scholar Tim Wu criticized the 2015 New Yorker decision. This is because BlurredLines does not share a common note with Got To Give It Up, which should be a prerequisite for the decision. Williams seen in 2019

Pharrell Williams did not commit perjury in the Blurred Lines case, Judge’s rules

Source link Pharrell Williams did not commit perjury in the Blurred Lines case, Judge’s rules

Back to top button