Are the lines of copyright blurred

Not hearing any 'rip off' tbh..it's a similar groove, but there are a thousand tracks like that, and the melody in Gaye's song is completely different (and much stronger IMO). 'Blurred Lines' sounds more like Prince to me.
 
I thought Nona Gaye's reaction outside the court was bizarrely 'emotional', but that's just me, I'm a cynic.

Someone once said "Hey there are only thirteen notes"

The two songs do not sound particularly alike. That said neither song sounds like it is original, or at least the amount of distinctive music in either song is so sparse that either could be said to sound like dozens, if not hundreds, of songs in the genre. Part of the problem with paring the music to a few notes and a lot of beats is that it all begins to sound very similar to ignorant people like me, and other potential jurors. Asking a juror to make a decision like this is probably worse even than asking a judge to do it. The sympathy factor for the children of the poor deceased pop music legend vs the upstart self-promoting neo-wealthy beneficiaries of his legacy, and the conflicting testimony of paid experts, makes this an unsurprising outcome. Certainly there are songs out there that could more easily have been called infringement, but they probably did not rise to the level of reward for the lawyers that this one did. 
 
The message for anyone writing a popular song in the current era is that if you think it will be a hit, you are probably better off just trashing it, and setting your lyric to something that is clearly in the public domain like Greensleeves or Beautiful Dreamer. But if that version becomes a big hit you are probably still not home free.

Wookiee
Someone once said "Hey there are only thirteen notes"

13? A Baker's dozen? 
(See what I did there?)

...or white and gold.

UbiquitousBubba
In other gnus, all blues artists are now guilty of copyright infringement. Lawyers were disappointed to realize that these artists were already bankrupt, so there is no money to collect. 

 Best post of the day!!

[Post deleted to avoid © infringement in the event someone else posted same or eerily similar comments.... I'd hate to loose millions over something assessed @2¢]
 
[To see what ©ed blurred lines actually look like, go here -->http://forum.cakewalk.com/What-Copyrighted-Blurred-Lines-look-like-m3190152.aspx#3190152

Yeah!  What's going on?
 

It's not a silly question. "Are you going to eat all of that becan?" That's a silly question. 
 
There's a difference between what is legally permissible and what people will do. Some laws vary in different countries. In general, you own the copyright when you write a piece of music. Whether you post the song in the Songs forum, Soundcloud, EweToob, or anywhere else, you still own the copyright. Legally, someone else can't steal your work and claim it as their own. If some nefarious scum steals your song (definitions obviously vary), you are legally entitled to sue the miscreant for any damages. Whether or not you can win depends on a number of things. Registering your copyright may support your claim to your material, but proving copyright infringement is not as straightforward as some might like to believe. (Apparently, proving there was no infringement is difficult as well.)

And of course no surprise.... according to the latest news they're going to seek an appeal of the decision. I hope it don't cost them more than 7.4 million.

Labels, producers should be more focused on coming up with unique (new) rather than digging up old trends and/or following the current trend ((as explained in my previous post)) ironically they (major labels, producers, writers) think its a safer bet to follow a trend.
 
Trends: I know this is the case because I've sat in meetings with major labels and publishers in regards to production i.e. they use other writers/musicians they have signed for ideas. You cannot copyright an idea, aww heck you cannot copyright chord progressions either.  Anyway, they gave me a recording by another writer/musician ideas / techniques, and yes I didn't feel comfortable about that... Publishers and labels will shape the music direction, production and selection of songs as they see fit and if you say nay? Since this was a period of see how it goes prior to signing a long-term contract... Of course, there's the door, goodbye. In my case, this wasn't the only reason, they claim too difficult to market as is, would cost too much. Its also worth mentioning that the Australian market is much smaller compared to for example, Europe and the US. So, this brings us back full circle to what I said in regards to Trends, they want to play it safe? Ironic eh and worse, the writer/musicians are to blame and take the full brunt of the responsibility if they're taken to court.
 
@ Kakku, Copyright is automatic (as UB explained). IMHO, its best to hold on to your works (songs) and not do what most musicians do, which is to upload just about all their music and provide these sites free content 'Royalty Free' and possibly in worse case scenario, 'Exclusive Rights', in other-words, you get nothing whereas the CEOs of such music sites will make a lot of money, which they invest in magnificent properties, yachts and other luxuries. 
 
That said, first up register a label (R) registered trademark will do and register your works to ASCAP or BMI, your works are registered with both you AND a registered label (which is also you) -- This will also give you more clout in recouping royalties and negotiating business deals, especially if you sign with a major label, if so? Your label becomes the sub (partner) for which they (major label) cannot take more than 50% royalties (usually musicians/writers with no strings attached the deal is 85% to the major label)!   And if the latest copyright reforms specifically in favor of writers/performers is accepted? It will see a more simplified process of registering that ensures proper (complete) protection of copyrights for both the writers, performers and sound recordings.  It will also see a fair-share of royalties based on the acceptance that more and more professional writers/musicians are opting to be independent i.e. have their own registered label, in most cases effectively give them more clout on the negotiation table with major partners (e.g. Labels, Publishing/Licensing, Royalties)! 
 
Part of the reason why the music business is so messed up, is because of Internet and rapidly evolving business tactics / schemes and also is in part due to musicians, for several reasons.... The main reasons being;
 
1... Most musicians/writers are doing it for 'Art' and 'Enjoyment' whilst providing music sites 'Free' content (see my above explanation in regards to music sites, CEOs). These music sites are protected (legal) due to musicians accepting terms i.e. 'Royalty Free'. The other reason being;
 
2.. Most musicians don't know the business side of the equation let alone willing to learn more about branding and marketing strategies. The other reason being;
 
3.. Most musicians/writers do not register their works properly (entirely/completely)!
 
To conclude, its best to hold off / limit uploading songs to music sites, until your best works of art (music) is ready for release, but prior to that make sure all works are properly registered (also see my sticky topic; Resources in the Song Forum > copyright protection, registering)!  It is also worth knowing that: Distributors should not take a slice of your royalties and hit you with recurring distribution fees. The only exception is retailer commission, which is standard trade practice.   A good distributor will also provide a means to include marketing although usually its what is called; Kick Start marketing and it involves closer work-ties with them, you also need to plan way ahead of release.  In regards to marketing strategies, you need to keep the momentum rolling once the Kick Start engages.  Distributors will also have options to release music videos that ensure greater monetization i.e. give you the best solution for recouping royalties and possibly also advertising revenue options. When music videos are professionally released (distributed) they usually include the label (I explained the benefits of that earlier)!  Kakku, I hope this helps set you on the right path. Wish you great success!
 
 

SGodfrey
Interestingly, for some bizarre reason they were not permitted to play the entire Marvin Gaye song in court - only extracts!  The LA Times said:-
 
"The eight-person jury, most of whom appeared to be more of Gaye's generation than Thicke and Williams' demographic, heard "Blurred Lines" several times during the trial and twice watched the raunchy music video — but never got to hear the full recording of 'Got to Give It Up.' Because laws when Gaye wrote the song allowed only the sheet music composition, not the sound recording, to be copyrighted, jurors heard short snippets and a stripped-down version created by Thicke and Williams' musicologist with just Gaye's vocals over a bass line and chords on a keyboard."
 
That's crazy and a miscarriage of justice in my opinion!

I am not sure what part that restriction had in shaping the verdict. Much of the similarity, which the jury apparently found significant, is in the "sound" of the production. By being unable to hear the full version, a lot of that spurious and potentially confusing noise should have had less influence. If the jury had confined their decision to what is normally considered protected content in music there would be little basis for the award. A jury of trained musicians would have been aghast that the suit was ever brought. But in the US we pretend that randomly selected citizens can make distinctions which they are untrained to recognize, and depend on their ability to decide which of two teams of bought and paid for expert witnesses are telling them the truth when they are confused by technical issues. The style, flavor and color of the two songs are similar. The music and lyrics are pretty easily distinguishable. Good luck to anyone writing original material if style becomes the deciding issue.
 
For an example of how a musicalogical analysis of these similarities is even less convincing than listening to the full versions:
http://joebennett.net/2014/02/01/did-robin-thicke-steal-a-song-from-marvin-gaye/