Williams v. Gaye
895 F.3d 1106
9th Cir.2018Background
- Marvin Gaye composed and recorded "Got to Give It Up" (1976). Jobete registered a six‑page handwritten deposit copy with the Copyright Office under the 1909 Act; the commercial sound recording was excluded at trial.
- Pharrell Williams, Robin Thicke, and T.I. wrote/recorded "Blurred Lines" (2012–2013). The Gayes (Frankie, Nona, Marvin Gaye III) sued, alleging "Blurred Lines" infringed the compositional copyright in "Got to Give It Up."
- The district court limited the Gayes’ protected work to the four corners of the 1909 Act deposit copy, excluded the commercial recording, denied summary judgment, and the case proceeded to a seven‑day jury trial.
- The jury found Williams and Thicke liable, awarded actual damages and profits; it found T.I. (Harris) and several record/distribution defendants not liable. The district court later entered judgment against Harris and the distributors, awarded a 50% running royalty, remitted some awards, and denied attorney’s fees to the Gayes.
- On appeal the Ninth Circuit (majority) affirmed in part and reversed in part: it reversed the district court’s post‑trial entry of judgment against Harris and the Interscope parties, and otherwise affirmed (including damages, profits, and the 50% running royalty), applying deferential review given the case’s procedural posture.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reviewability of denial of summary judgment after full trial | Gayes: district court correctly denied summary judgment; factual disputes warranted trial | Thicke: denial of summary judgment was legal error and should be reviewed and reversed | Majority: Ortiz bars appellate review of denial of summary judgment after a full trial absent a narrow purely legal issue; Thicke’s challenge was factbound and not reviewable |
| Sufficiency of evidence / new trial (instructions, expert testimony, verdict weight) | Gayes: experts and evidence supported extrinsic and intrinsic tests; instructions and evidence were proper | Thicke: jury instructions 42/43, admission of Finell/Monson testimony, and verdict were erroneous and against weight of evidence | Majority: district court did not abuse discretion; instructions were adequate when read as a whole; expert testimony admissible; there was at least some reasonable basis for the verdict |
| Damages, profits, and ongoing royalty (50%) | Gayes: industry expert established reasonable hypothetical‑license benchmark (50% pre‑release; higher post‑release); profits apportionment supported by evidence | Thicke: damages speculative; apportionment excessive | Majority: Stern's industry experience provided non‑speculative support for hypothetical license and royalty; jury/district apportionment not clearly erroneous |
| Entry of judgment against co‑defendants (Harris and Interscope) after jury verdict in their favor | Gayes: post‑trial JMOL was proper to reconcile inconsistent verdicts and find distributors/vicarious liability | Harris/Interscope: Gayes waived inconsistency challenge and failed to preserve Rule 50(a); no evidence of vicarious liability | Majority: Gayes waived objection and failed to move under Rule 50(a); district court erred to overturn jury verdicts; no evidence Harris had right/ability to supervise or direct profits to satisfy vicarious liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S. 180 (2011) (order denying summary judgment generally not reviewable after full trial)
- Swirsky v. Carey, 376 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2004) (extrinsic/intrinsic tests and role of expert musicological analysis)
- Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, 212 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. 2000) (jury may find substantial similarity from combination of unprotectable elements; handling of 1909 Act deposit copy issues)
- Benay v. Warner Bros. Entm't, Inc., 607 F.3d 620 (9th Cir. 2010) (intrinsic test reserved to the trier of fact)
- Newton v. Diamond, 388 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2004) (limits on protectability and de minimis use in music sampling)
- Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Int'l Serv. Ass'n, 494 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 2007) (elements of vicarious liability for infringement)
- VMG Salsoul, LLC v. Ciccone, 824 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2016) (sound recordings and compositions are distinct copyrights)