## Facts

- Marvin Gaye’s heirs owned rights in the 1977 musical composition “Got To Give It Up,” registered under the 1909 Copyright Act with deposited sheet music.
- Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke wrote and released “Blurred Lines” in 2012; it achieved major commercial success.
- Williams and Thicke (and related entities) sued for a declaratory judgment of noninfringement; Gaye’s heirs counterclaimed for copyright infringement.
- The district court limited the protectable scope of the Gaye work to elements in the deposited sheet music, excluding the sound recording from the infringement comparison.
- The jury was instructed that infringement could be proven without deliberate copying and that “subconscious copying” could satisfy the copying element.
- After trial, the jury found “Blurred Lines” infringed the Gaye composition and awarded actual damages, profits, and a continuing running royalty.
- Post-trial, the district court set aside the verdict as to Clifford “T.I.” Harris Jr. and certain Interscope-related entities on vicarious-liability grounds; other relief largely remained in place.

## Issues

1. Under the 1909 Act, whether the protectable scope of the Gaye composition was limited to deposited sheet music rather than the sound recording.
2. Whether denial of summary judgment could be reviewed after a full jury trial and verdict.
3. Whether jury instructions and admission of expert musicology testimony improperly expanded the protectable comparison and affected the substantial-similarity finding.
4. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s infringement verdict or required a new trial as against the weight of the evidence.
5. Whether the damages, profits award, and running royalty were legally permissible.
6. Whether T.I. and certain label entities could be held vicariously liable, and whether the district court properly disturbed the jury’s general verdict as to them.
7. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying attorney’s fees and apportioning costs.

## Decision

- Affirmed the infringement verdict and monetary relief (including a running royalty) against Williams, Thicke, and certain affiliated entities.
- Held the denial of summary judgment was not reviewable after a full trial on the merits.
- Found no reversible error in the jury instructions limiting the comparison to the sheet-music deposit and permitting proof by subconscious copying.
- Found no abuse of discretion in admitting the challenged portions of expert musicology testimony and held the verdict was not against the clear weight of the evidence.
- Upheld the damages, profits award, and running royalty as proper remedies on the record.
- Reversed in part by reinstating the jury’s general verdict in favor of T.I. and certain Interscope-related parties, concluding the district court erred in overturning that verdict on vicarious-liability grounds.
- Affirmed denial of attorney’s fees and affirmed cost apportionment.

## Legal Principles

- After a case has been fully tried, an order denying summary judgment generally is not appealable for review of the merits.
- Musical compositions may receive broad copyright protection; infringement turns on protectable expression, not mere ideas.
- For works governed by the 1909 Act, the protectable scope may be limited to what is reflected in the deposited registration material (as accepted by the panel for purposes of decision).
- Copying need not be deliberate; subconscious copying can satisfy the copying requirement when access and probative similarity are shown.
- Trial courts have broad discretion to admit expert testimony assisting the factfinder on substantial similarity; appellate review is deferential.
- A jury’s infringement verdict will be upheld if supported by sufficient evidence and not against the clear weight of the evidence.
- Running royalties may be awarded as an equitable remedy to address post-judgment exploitation when otherwise appropriate.
- Vicarious liability requires a sufficient showing of both the right and ability to supervise the infringing activity and a direct financial interest; absent that basis, liability cannot be imposed.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit largely upheld the jury’s determination that “Blurred Lines” infringed protectable elements of “Got To Give It Up,” and affirmed substantial monetary remedies including an ongoing royalty, while reversing to reinstate the jury’s verdict absolving T.I. and certain label entities and affirming the denial of attorney’s fees and cost allocations.


Williams v. Gaye, 895 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2018)