Marvin Gaye family sues over Robin Thicke's 'Blurred Lines'

Marvin Gaye and Robin Thicke: Much of the lawsuit focuses on claims that EMI should have pursued a copyright infringement claim. It also alleges the company's executives used intimidation to try to stop the Gaye family from pursuing a lawsuit.

Victoria Will/Invision/AP/File
R&B singer-songwriter Robin Thicke is seen in August, in New York. Two of Marvin Gaye's children, Nona and Frankie Gaye, countersued Thicke and his collaborators on the hit song "Blurred Lines" on Wednesday, Oct. 30, 2013, in Los Angeles claiming the singers improperly copied their father's hit 'Got to Give It Up.'

Two of Marvin Gaye's children sued Robin Thicke and his collaborators on the hit song "Blurred Lines" on Wednesday, accusing them of copyright infringement and alleging music company EMI failed to protect their father's legacy.

Nona Marvisa Gaye and Frankie Christian Gaye's suit is the latest action in a dispute over Thicke's hit and whether it copies elements of Gaye's song "Got to Give It Up."

Their lawsuit seeks to block Thicke and collaborators Pharrell and T.I. from using elements of their father's music in "Blurred Lines" or other songs.

Thicke has denied copying Gaye's song for "Blurred Lines," which has the longest streak this year atop the Billboard Hot 100 chart and has sold more than 6 million tracks so far. The suit also accused Thicke of improperly using Gaye's song "After the Dance" in his song "Love After War."

Much of the lawsuit focuses on claims that EMI should have pursued a copyright infringement claim. It also alleges the company's executives used intimidation to try to stop the Gaye family from pursuing a lawsuit.

The suit claims EMI, which is owned by Sony/ATV Music Publishing, has allowed a conflict of interest between the family's rights and the profits it is earning from "Blurred Lines" sales.

"This conflict has resulted in EMI's intentional decision to align themselves with the ('Blurred Lines') writers, without regard to the harm inflicted upon the rights and interests of the Gaye Family, and the legacy ofMarvin Gaye," the lawsuit states.

Sony-ATV said it takes "very seriously" its role of protecting its songwriters' works from infringement.

"While we have not yet seen the claims by the Gaye family against EMI, we have repeatedly advised the Gaye family's attorney that the two songs in question have been evaluated by a leading musicologist who concluded that 'Blurred Lines' does not infringe 'Got To Give It Up,'" the company said in a statement.

Sony-ATV also said that while it treasures Marvin Gaye's works and the company's relationship with his family, "we regret that they have been ill-advised in this matter."

Thicke and his collaborators filed a case in August asking a federal judge to rule that the singers did not copy "Got to Give It Up" for their hit.

Howard King, who represents the singers, said the Gayes' countersuit was not unexpected.

He rejected the notion that EMI ignored improper copying of Gaye's music. "EMI is in the business of collecting money for infringements," King said.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.