The Docket - Case No. 2
Seven days, $7.4 million, five years
Pharrell Williams sued first. The Gaye family won anyway, and the running royalty — 50% of songwriter and publishing revenue received by the specified counter-defendants, net of third-party administration costs — keeps paying them.
.jpg){kind=link}
On March 10, 2015, in a federal courtroom in Los Angeles, a jury comes back after a seven-day trial and two days of deliberation. Pharrell Williams, Robin Thicke, and Williams' publishing company infringed the Gaye family's copyright in "Got To Give It Up." Rapper T.I. and the record labels did not. The damages: $4 million in actual damages, $1,610,455.31 in profits from Williams, $1,768,191.88 in profits from Thicke. Add it up: $7,378,647.19.
What the papers say
The caption reads like the case is backwards, because it is. In August 2013, Pharrell Williams, Robin Thicke, and Clifford Harris Jr. (T.I.) filed a declaratory judgment action: "Blurred Lines" did not infringe Marvin Gaye's "Got To Give It Up." The Gayes, Frankie Christian Gaye, Nona Marvisa Gaye, and Marvin Gaye III, who inherited their father's composition copyrights, counterclaimed for infringement.
The record's best detail: Marvin Gaye did not write or fluently read sheet music. "Got To Give It Up" was registered in 1977 with six pages of handwritten sheet music notated by an unidentified transcriber after the 1976 studio recording. Under the 1909 Copyright Act, that deposit copy was treated as the legal footprint of the composition — the Ninth Circuit "accepted, without deciding, the merits of the district court's ruling" that the scope of the copyright was limited to the sheet music deposited — and the jury's comparison ran through that lead sheet.
The money
The jury's math came from a mistake. It was told publishing revenues were $8 million; the parties had stipulated $6,377,055. The jury applied a 50% royalty rate: $4 million in actual damages. The district court remitted that to $3,188,527.50, which is 50% of the stipulated number, and cut Williams' profits from $1,610,455.31 to $357,630.96. Thicke's $1,768,191.88 in profits stayed.
Judgment entered December 2, 2015: $3,188,527.50 in actual damages, $1,768,191.88 against Thicke, $357,630.96 against Williams and More Water from Nazareth Publishing, for $5,314,350.34. Plus a running royalty of 50% of the songwriter and publishing revenue received by the specified counter-defendants from "Blurred Lines," net of third-party administration costs, owed by Williams, Thicke, and Harris.
The Gayes' request for attorney's fees was denied on April 12, 2016, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial. No fee amount appears in the linked opinions.
The ruling
The dissent's line is the famous one: "The majority allows the Gayes to accomplish what no one has before: copyright a musical style."
Translation: the majority deferred to the jury's choice between dueling musicologists, and this record had enough to let the verdict stand. "Got To Give It Up" gets broad copyright protection because musical compositions are not confined to a narrow range of expression. The majority added that its decision grants no license to copyright a groove. The dissent said that is exactly what it did.
The Ninth Circuit also reinstated the jury's defense verdicts for T.I. and the labels, which the district court had overturned.
The risk ledger
The case ran from August 2013 to July 2018, nearly five years. The caption page reads like a law firm directory: Quinn Emanuel (Kathleen Sullivan) represented Williams and Thicke; Arnold & Porter (Lisa Blatt) plus King & Ballow represented the Gaye family; Sidley Austin represented the Interscope/label parties — plus amicus briefs from musicologists, 212 songwriters and producers, the RIAA, and music publishers. A seven-day trial with dueling experts, an omnibus post-trial order, three consolidated appeals.
The jury's verdict favored Harris and the Interscope parties; the district court then overturned those verdicts and entered judgment against them; the Ninth Circuit restored the jury's defense verdicts nearly three years later. They were right the whole time, and it still cost them nearly three years.
The opinions publish no legal bills, so I will not invent a number. Five years of big-firm time is not a rounding error. That is the cost of being right.
The meter runs whether you win or lose. Sit with that.
The coverage lens
This is the exact class of allegation that media liability coverage is built for: someone says your creative work infringes their rights, and you need defense counsel before you need anything else. Defense costs are a central part of what the coverage line addresses, and the defense bill is the certain bill in every case like this one. It arrives for winners and losers alike, years before anyone knows who won.
No promises here. Whether any particular claim would be covered depends on the policy as issued, its terms, conditions, limitations, and exclusions, and the facts of the claim. But the category exists because of cases like this.
Sources
Every factual claim in this article is drawn from the following court records:
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Williams v. Gaye, Nos. 15-56880, 16-55089, 16-55626, amended opinion filed July 11, 2018 (opinion by Judge Milan D. Smith Jr.; dissent by Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen): business.cch.com
- U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Williams v. Bridgeport Music, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-06004-JAK-AGR, judgment entered December 2, 2015: docs.justia.com
The docket
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Williams v. Gaye, Nos. 15-56880, 16-55089, 16-55626, amended opinion filed July 11, 2018 (opinion by Judge Milan D. Smith Jr.; dissent by Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen): business.cch.com
- U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Williams v. Bridgeport Music, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-06004-JAK-AGR, Judgment entered December 2, 2015: docs.justia.com
Legal disclosure
SongSure LLC is an insurance agency. This article is for general information and education only. It is not legal advice, not insurance advice, and not an offer, quote, or promise of coverage. Case summaries are based on publicly available court records and are simplified; they may omit details. Any coverage would be subject to underwriting review, carrier approval, and the terms, conditions, limitations, and exclusions of the policy as issued. Past case outcomes do not predict future results or coverage decisions. SongSure is in pre-launch and is not currently writing coverage. Consult a licensed attorney for legal questions and a licensed insurance producer for coverage questions.