Williams v. Gaye - Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center

Contents:

• WILLIAMS V. GAYE, NO. 15-56880 (9TH CIR. 2018)
• WILLIAMS V. GAYE
• WILLIAMS V. GAYE: “BLURRED L” APPEAL HEARG CENTERS ON ADMISSIBILY OF EVINCE ABOUT ORIGAL SOUND RERDG
• WILLIAMS V. GAYE: BLURRG THE L OF COPYRIGHT INGEMENT MIC

WILLIAMS V. GAYE, NO. 15-56880 (9TH CIR. 2018)

Gaye. ’s song “Blurred L, ” the world’s btsellg sgle 2013, ged Frankie Christian Gaye, Nona Marvisa Gaye, and Marv Gaye III’s pyright Marv Gaye’s 1977 h song “Got To Give It Up. The panel held that “Got To Give It Up” was entled to broad pyright protectn bee mil posns were not nfed to a narrow range of exprsn; the panel accepted, whout cidg, the mers of the district urt’s lg that the spe of fendants’ pyright was limed, unr the Copyright Act of 1909, to the sheet mic posed wh the Copyright Office, and did not extend to sound rerdgs; the district urt’s orr nyg summary judgment was not reviewable after a full trial on the mers; the district urt did not err nyg a new trial; the district urt did not abe s discretn admtg portns of expert ttimony; the verdict was not agast the clear weight of the evince; the awards of actual damag and profs and the district urt’s nng royalty were proper; the district urt erred overturng the jury’s general verdict favor of Harris and the Interspe Parti; the district urt did not abe s discretn nyg the Gay’ motn for attorney’s fe; and the district urt did not abe s discretn apportng sts among the parti.

Gaye” on Jtia Law. Spl Nth Circu panel upholds jury verdict fdg 2013 h song “Blurred L” ged the mil posn pyright of Marv Gaye’s 1970s song “Got To Give It Up” and affirms district urt’s nial of Gaye’s heirs’ applitn for attorneys’ fe, but restat the jury verdict clearg a rap ntributor to the song and an owner of the master rerdg.

After hearg “Blurred L, ” the 2013 bt-sellg sgle wrten and rerd by Pharrell Williams and Rob Thicke, fay members of Marv Gaye who had hered the pyrights his mil posns believed that the song ged Gaye’s 1976 h “Got To Give It Up. ” The Gay ma an gement mand, but, after negotiatns failed, Williams and Thicke filed su California feral urt seekg a claratory judgment of non-gement.

WILLIAMS V. GAYE

The Gay unterclaimed allegg pyright gement and add Clifford Harris, Jr., monly known as the rapper T. The jury found that Williams and Thicke had ged the Gay’ pyright “Got To Give It Up, ” but that Harris and Interspe were not liable for gement. The jury award the Gay $7.

The district urt also overturned the jury’s verdict favor of Harris and Interspe as nsistent wh the fdg of liabily, apportned sts between the parti, and nied the Gay’ motn for attorneys’ fe.

WILLIAMS V. GAYE: “BLURRED L” APPEAL HEARG CENTERS ON ADMISSIBILY OF EVINCE ABOUT ORIGAL SOUND RERDG

Ultimately, the district urt award the Gay $3, 188, 527.

The Gay appealed the orr on attorneys’ fe and sts, and also lodged a “protective” appeal, argug that, the event the jury verdict is overturned and a new trial tak place, the jury should be permted to listen to the mercially-released rerdg of “Got To Give It Up, ” and not jt a rendn of the sheet mic that had been posed wh the pyright office. In challengg the district urt’s nial of their motn for a new trial, the Thicke Parti argued that certa jury stctns were erroneo, that the district urt had abed s discretn admtg portns of the Gay’ expert ttimony, and that the verdict agast Thicke and Williams was agast the clear weight of the evince. The appellate urt likewise found no abe of discretn admtg the challenged portns of the Gay’ expert ttimony.

While the Thicke Parti argued that the experts had based their ttimony on unprotectable elements of the Marv Gaye song, the Nth Circu reasoned that the dispute boiled down to a qutn of which si’s expert ttimony to believe on the issue of which elements are protectable. Given the extensive and tailed expert ttimony put forth by the Gay regardg the siary between the two songs, the urt reasoned uld fd no “absolute absence of evince” requirg reversal and a new trial. ” The urt held that the license rate of 50% was not unduly speculative, as was based on the ttimony of an expert for the Gay who had over twenty years of experience the field of negotiatg and assigng valuatns for the e of portns of olr mil posns.

WILLIAMS V. GAYE: BLURRG THE L OF COPYRIGHT INGEMENT MIC

Havg creded the methodology and opn of the Gay’ expert, which the appellate urt noted was “tethered to her ep dtry expertise, ” the urt easily and quickly held that the damag award was proper. First, on procral grounds, the urt held that the Gay had waived challenge to any perceived nsistenci between the jury’s verdicts by failg to object to the jury’s verdicts before the jury was discharged, or even durg a lloquy wh the district urt after the jury was discharged. The Nth Circu held that the Gay had also waived their objectn by failg to move for judgment as a matter of law before the se was submted to the jury, an absolute prerequise for nsirg a renewed motn for judgment as a matter of law after trial.