Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Section

 View Only

EASL Blog Post: ‘Blurred Lines’ Court trims damages to $5.3 Million, but denies bid for new trial

By Stacey Lee Trien posted 07-20-2015 02:24 PM

  

You may recall that I last posted about the recent high-profile lawsuit involving Marvin Gaye’s family, Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams. Specifically, last March, a jury found by a preponderance of the evidence that Thicke and Williams, along with other related parties (the “Thicke Parties”), “infringed the Gaye Parties’ copyright in the musical composition Got to Give It Up in Blurred Lines.” (See 2:13-cv-06004-JAK-AGR to view the docket report and opinion.)

In May and June 2015, U.S. District Judge John Kronstadt was confronted with arguments pertaining to the Thicke Parties’ Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, a New Trial, or Remittitur and three motions filed by the Gaye Parties: (i) a “Motion for Declaratory Relief,” in which they sought to hold additional parties liable for infringement of the copyright in “Got to Give It Up”; (ii) a “Motion for Injunctive Relief, or in the Alternative, for Ongoing Royalties”; and (iii) a “Motion for Prejudgment Interest.” Last week, the Court considered parties’ submissions and denied Thicke/Williams’ bid for a new trial. The Court also found Clifford "T.I." Harris Jr., the rapper who contributed a mere verse on the song, to be an infringer and accepted the Gaye family's contention that certain record labels should also be held liable for distributing Blurred Lines.

While the Court granted the Gaye family's request for an ongoing royalty rate of 50% of songwriter and publishing revenues, it denied the family’s request for an injunction, thereby keeping the song on distribution outlets.

Additionally, the judge cut the jury's prior award of $7.4 million to $5.3 million, which includes a reduction in actual damages from $4 million to ~$3.2 million and requires Williams to turn over $358,000 in profits rather than ~$1.6 million.

In reflecting upon the decision, Howard King, counsel for Williams, has indicated that he “look[s] forward to exercising our further remedies and ultimately achieving clarity on the difference between inspiration and copyright infringement.”

Until the expected appeal, we will await any further developments.

Read more here.
View the July 14, 2015 Opinion here.

Permalink