L.A. Jury Delivers $7.4 Million Verdict in “Blurred Lines” Lawsuit

A jury has awarded Marvin Gaye’s children nearly $7.4 million after determining that celebrity singers Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams plagiarized Gaye’s 1977 hit “Got to Give It Up” to create “Blurred Lines,” the longest-running number one single of 2013.

Thicke and Williams, who each earned more than $7 million apiece on “Blurred Lines,” claim to have written the song independently, but Gaye’s estate argued that a number of distinct elements from “Got to Give It Up” were used in “Blurred Lines” and it was ultimately left up to the jury to determine whether the defendants infringed upon Gaye’s copyright or simply emulated the sound of Gaye’s work. The jury concluded that “Blurred Lines” infringed on Gaye’s copyright, and that decision could have a chilling effect on musicians seeking to emulate the sounds of certain artists, genres, or eras going forward.

Certain aspects of a musical composition are protectable by copyright, such as particular arrangements of notes and harmonies, while others are not, such as style, feel, or the timbre of a certain combination of instruments. In this case, it would be naïve to believe that Gaye’s “Got to Give It Up” did not influence Thicke and Williams in crafting “Blurred Lines,” but copyright protection was not intended to extend to mere influence. While particular expressions of musical ideas can be protected, the ideas themselves, such as pairing an electric piano and a cowbell with a disco beat, cannot.

To the untrained ear, the similarity between the two songs may be striking. A musically trained ear, though, may notice that the two songs are in different keys and utilize different chord progressions. In other words, the success of Gaye’s infringement claim depended largely on the average juror’s inability to see past the similarities between the songs’ unprotectable characteristics (tempo, use of cowbell and Rhodes piano, use of syncopation, similar bass groove) to realize that “Got to Give It Up” and “Blurred Lines” are in fact two different songs whose similarities are mainly limited to characteristics that cannot be protected by copyright.

Had the jury been comprised of the defendants’ peers in the music profession, there is a strong possibility that Thicke and Williams would have prevailed. In light of this huge verdict, however, artists should be increasingly vigilant in their endeavors to emulate the sounds of other artists, genres, and eras in furtherance of their own art. Although the result of this case seems to blur the lines between what is protectable by copyright and what isn't, it nonetheless serves as a reminder that copyright infringement can lead to costly outcomes.

Frank Gulino is an award-winning composer and attorney with Berenzweig Leonard, LLP. He can be reached at FGulino@BerenzweigLaw.com.

Big Verdict for Funk Legend Sly Stone Puts Royalties in the Spotlight

Rock and Roll Hall of Famer Sly Stone has been awarded $5 million by a Los Angeles jury in a breach of contract case claiming that Stone’s former manager and business partners cheated Stone out of more than a decade’s worth of royalties. Stone is best known as the leader of the funk group Sly and the Family Stone, which he led to fame in the 1960s and 1970s with a number of big hits, including “Dance to the Music” and “Everyday People.”

Photo: www.slystonemusic.com

In 1989, a then-destitute Sly Stone was approached by manager Gerald Goldstein, who promised to revitalize Stone’s career. Goldstein proceeded to form Even St. Productions Ltd., of which Stone was made an employee and co-owner, and to which all royalties from Stone’s music were assigned. Although Sly Stone was supposed to receive a share of the royalties that Even St. Productions collected on his behalf, Goldstein and his attorney allegedly redirected and misappropriated the royalty revenue, and Stone received no royalty payments between 1989 and 2000. With evidence of alleged shady accounting practices coming out during trial, the defense’s argument that the royalty revenue went to paying off Stone’s IRS debt failed to convince the jury, who awarded Stone $5 million in damages.

This is an important verdict for artists, entertainers, and composers of all kinds; not only does it reinforce the importance of a creator’s rights to work generally, but also the strength of a creator’s rights to royalties specifically. This case also brings attention to the oppressive, one-sided deals many entertainers are presented with on a routine basis. In desperate times, the promise of a revitalized career sounds too good to pass up. However, it is certainly in every artist’s best interest to dig deeply into the terms of any management agreement to ensure that someone who promises you the world isn't trying to take the shirt off your back. A verdict of this size reminds us that, even in an age rife with music piracy and digital consumption, the public recognizes an artist’s right to profit from his or her work, and disapproves of those who would take advantage of the artistic community.

Frank Gulino is an award-winning composer and attorney with Berenzweig Leonard, LLP. He can be reached at FGulino@BerenzweigLaw.com.

Could Rappers Face Jail Time Over Lyrics?

San Diego-based rapper Tiny Doo, whose real name is Brandon Duncan, faces prosecution on nine counts of alleged criminal street gang conspiracy, which collectively carry a sentence of 25 years to life in prison. The charges arise from a rash of shootings in California that were allegedly carried out in 2013 by the Lincoln Park gang, of which prosecutors allege Duncan is a member. Duncan does not have a criminal record, and prosecutors haven’t even suggested that Duncan pulled a trigger or was involved in any shootings. The charges against him are simply based upon rap lyrics that the district attorneys allege helped increase the Lincoln Park gang’s stature in the San Diego gang community.

California Penal Code § 182.5 makes it felony for any member of a criminal street gang to benefit in any way from the felonious conduct of any other gang member. Duncan’s album “No Safety,” which includes lyrics such as “ain’t no safety on this pistol I’m holding,” was released shortly before the shootings, and prosecutors now allege that receiving income from album sales and intangible benefits such as increased stature in the gang community somehow provide a basis to charge Duncan with felony conspiracy despite his lack of involvement in the shootings. According to Duncan, he’s just using rap lyrics to paint a picture of urban life. “The studio is my canvas. I’m just painting a picture,” he said in an interview with CNN.

In order for the government to win its case, it will have to prove that Duncan was actually a member of the Lincoln Park gang, that he knew about the gang’s involvement in criminal activities, and that he benefited in some way from the felonious activities of other gang members, whether or not he was directly involved. The most disturbing part of this whole case is that the prosecution’s efforts to turn Brandon Duncan, rapper, into Brandon Duncan, convicted felon, hinge on the state’s opinion that the “No Safety” lyrics were somehow connected to the criminal activities of the Lincoln Park gang. Had Duncan’s album been about sunshine and rainbows instead of urban street life, he’d be busy recording his next disc instead of facing nine counts of felony conspiracy in a criminal prosecution over song lyrics.

If it sounds to you like this law is at odds with the First Amendment right to freedom of speech, you’ve got a good point. While it is noble of the district attorney’s office to try to crack down on the glorification and glamorization of violent gang activity, the prosecutors in this case are sure to face a high Constitutional hurdle in their efforts to turn rap lyrics into a life sentence. In the meantime, rappers, lyricists and songwriters should keep a close eye on this case; with the criminalization of lyrics at stake, the outcome of Tiny Doo’s case could have a profound effect on the entire music industry.

Frank Gulino is an award-winning composer and attorney with Berenzweig Leonard, LLP. He can be reached at FGulino@BerenzweigLaw.com.

A-List Artists Threaten YouTube With Billion-Dollar Lawsuit

Music industry juggernaut Irving Azoff, who manages music licensing for some of the biggest artists in the business, including Pharrell Williams, the Eagles, Van Halen, Steely Dan, and the late John Lennon, has threatened YouTube with a $1 billion copyright infringement lawsuit unless over 20,000 songs are taken down. Azoff says that the infringing content was created by about 40 of his artists, and that YouTube has made them available online without permission to do so.

Azoff’s threatened lawsuit is just the latest instance of artists beginning to resist the streaming culture that makes music available to consumers for little or no compensation. Recently, Taylor Swift elected to remove her entire catalog of songs from the popular streaming radio provider Spotify, citing the disparity in artist compensation between streaming media and purchasing music through conventional means, such as CD.

Indeed, Pharell Williams, one of the leading plaintiffs in Azoff’s threatened lawsuit, is a prime example of why the culture of streaming media has so outraged artists of late. Williams’s 2014 hit song “Happy” has garnered over 525,000,000 YouTube views, for which Azoff alleges no license was purchased. Pandora, another streaming radio station similar to Spotify and the most-used streaming service on the market, did compensate Williams—to the tune of $2,700 for 43,000,000 plays, or just $60 for every million plays.

While streaming services have allowed unknown artists that may never have been discovered to make their music available to the masses, artists at the very top of the industry, including those represented by Azoff, have taken a large revenue hit as a result of exceedingly low per-play royalties and widespread unlicensed streaming of their work.

Azoff has ordered YouTube to pull down 20,000 songs by about 40 of his artists in order to avoid $1 billion in copyright infringement liability. Google, who owns the online streaming video giant, appears ready to go to court rather than give in to Azoff’s request, stating that the allegations are “misguided.” Given the popularity of Azoff’s artists’ music and Google’s ostensible refusal to back down, this is shaping up to be the biggest music-industry legal showdown since the illegal file-sharing litigation of the Napster days. Expect this large-scale development to shed some much-needed light on artist compensation in the world of streaming media, and possibly a tempering of the expectation that music should be available for free.

Frank Gulino is an award-winning composer and attorney with Berenzweig Leonard, LLP. He can be reached at FGulino@BerenzweigLaw.com,

Adventures in Licensing, Part II: It’s Not Just About Live Music

In an earlier article, we discussed the importance of getting a license from ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, or all three before presenting live music at your bar, restaurant, or other venue. Purchasing blanket licenses from one or all of those organizations allows you avoid harsh copyright infringement penalties. As we’ve seen, these penalties can find you no matter how far off the beaten path your restaurant is, how unknown the band is, or how unlikely you think it is that the  music being played at your bar will be surveyed.

But what about showing major sporting events, HBO, or Netflix at your bar or restaurant? Can you broadcast the World Series, the Super Bowl, or the Game of Thrones season premiere? Believe it or not, the United States Code provides for some exceptions to broadcasts that would otherwise constitute copyright infringement, allowing you to freely engage in showing some of those, provided certain conditions are met.

If you are receiving an over-the-air broadcast of a sporting event televised on a major network like Fox, for example, it is perfectly legal to show it at your bar or restaurant provided that (1) you don’t charge for admission; (2) your establishment is smaller than 3,750 square feet; (3) you have no more than four televisions showing the broadcast; and (4) none of those televisions is larger than 55 inches. Yes, the law actually specifies qualifying square footage and screen size!

Over-the-air broadcasts, however, are increasingly becoming things of the past. Most establishments now receive their network programming through cable, satellite, or online streaming subscriptions, in which case copyright infringement cannot be avoided without a proper license, regardless of how few televisions are showing the broadcast or how small the screens. Unfortunately, the typical contract with FiOS, Comcast, Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, and others don’t include the proper licenses required for commercial or non-personal viewing. For example, if you plan to draw a die-hard baseball crowd to your bar during Game 7 of the World Series, you can put the game on as long as the above criteria are met and you’re receiving an over-the-air broadcast signal. If you happen to be a cable or satellite subscriber and have not purchased the appropriate license, however, showing that very same ballgame could result in steep fines and a lawsuit brought against you by your provider.

But there’s good news: just like in circumstances where you might find yourself purchasing a blanket license from a performing rights organization to facilitate the performance of live music at your bar or restaurant, many broadcast media providers offer affordable licenses that will allow you to show the big game, the big fight, or the big season finale of your favorite show without the fear of racking up damages to the tune of $150,000 per violation. Verizon, Time Warner, DirecTV, and others all offer business-level packages containing enhanced licenses for precisely such a purpose. Like in the case of live music, the cost of a license is much, much less than the cost of defending just a single copyright infringement lawsuit, so if part of your business’s appeal derives from showing sports or TV, the safe bet is to buy the appropriate license.

Frank Gulino is an associate attorney with Washington, DC business law firm Berenzweig Leonard. He can be reached at FGulino@BerenzweigLaw.com.

Cautionary Tale: When Contemplating Live Music at Your Venue, Get a License

Last summer, a small band performed at a bar called 69 Taps in Medina, Ohio, near Cleveland. That evening, the band covered a number of popular songs that the mostly middle-aged audience had grown up listening to. The bar had not asked for a set list, nor had the band provided one. The band took requests, playing hits like “Brown Eyed Girl” and “Freebird” for a small audience. The problem? “Freebird” and nine other songs that the band covered that evening are protected by Broadcast Music, Inc. (“BMI”), a performing rights organization tasked with collecting royalties, and 69 Taps did not have a license to present music from BMI’s catalog.

 The bar was slammed with a lawsuit brought by BMI and the copyright holders of each of the ten covered songs, demanding that 69 Taps pay significant damages and attorneys’ fees. While it may seem harsh to sue a small-time bar for copyright infringement over an amateur cover band’s decision to take requests on a summer evening, this lawsuit is a testament to the fact that BMI (one of the “big three” American performing rights organizations along with ASCAP and SESAC) takes aggressive steps to protect the intellectual property of its artists. Because 69 Taps did not ask for a set list or post one on its website, BMI could only have found out about the performance of the infringing works through its survey process—by actually having a representative in the audience to keep tabs on the performance. Any venue that presents live music, no matter how small or obscure, should expect to be “surveyed” by the three performing rights organizations. 

The solution to avoiding these lawsuits is for venues to purchase a “blanket license.” For example, if 69 Taps had purchased BMI’s blanket license, it would have had unfettered permission to present any of the roughly 8.5 million songs in BMI’s catalog for a flat annual fee. BMI allocates shares of the licensing fee to the artists whose work is represented in the venue’s programming, as determined by the same survey methodologies that discovered 69 Taps’s unlicensed performances. The cost of the blanket license is much less than the cost of defending just one copyright infringement lawsuit, so if your business plans on offering live music, the safe bet is to purchase blanket licenses from all three major performing rights organizations. Otherwise, businesses may have to “face the music.”

Frank Gulino is an associate attorney with Washington, DC business law firm Berenzweig Leonard. He can be reached at FGulino@BerenzweigLaw.com.

Stairway to the Courthouse: Part II

Led Zeppelin, one of the most popular bands of all time, has lost its first court battle in the lawsuit over iconic megahit “Stairway to Heaven,” brought by the estate of guitarist Randy California and profiled in one of our earlier blog posts.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by the trust of the late Randy California, a founding member of the band Spirit, and Spirit bassist Mark Andes, and alleges copyright infringement as well as “Falsification of Rock N’ Roll History.”

In 1968 and ‘69, Spirit and Led Zeppelin performed several concerts together that featured one of Spirit’s instrumental tracks, called “Taurus.” The lawsuit states that Stairway’s iconic introduction was lifted directly from Taurus, which Led Zeppelin heard while opening for Spirit on those concerts, and seeks monetary damages as well as a writing credit for California.

The Led Zeppelin members named as defendants moved to dismiss the suit on the grounds that they are all British and have no ties to Pennsylvania. The District Court judge, however, denied the band’s motion and has allowed the lawsuit to proceed. Under the so-called “effects” test, a district court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant if the plaintiff felt the brunt of the harm there or if the defendants allegedly aimed their conduct there. In this instance, the fact that Stairway to Heaven is one of the best-selling, most profitable musical works of all time suggests that Led Zeppelin’s conduct in marketing, selling, and performing the song was essentially aimed at Pennsylvania, among other places, so the judge ruled that the case will remain in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The cause of action for “Falsification of Rock N’ Roll History” will almost certainly be invalidated because, frankly, it’s both non-existent and completely ridiculous, but the plaintiffs here have won the first procedural battle and successfully thwarted Led Zeppelin’s efforts to have the case tossed on jurisdictional grounds. If nothing else, this development serves to show that musicians and entertainers are uniquely vulnerable to the “effects” test, and can be hailed into court in far off places simply by having successfully marketed and sold records there. We will continue to monitor the case as the battle against the legendary rock band continues.

Frank Gulino is an award-winning composer and attorney with Berenzweig Leonard, LLP. He can be reached at FGulino@BerenzweigLaw.com.