Blurred Lines/Got To Give It Up Lawsuit

Has anybody heard of the recent suit from Marvin Gaye's people against Robin Thicke for copyright infringement involving the songs "Blurred Lines" (Thicke) and "Got To Give It Up"  (Gaye)?  The court ruled against Thicke and in addition to a cash settlement, he also also has to pay Gaye's people half the royalties of the sales of the song moving forward.
 
Not being familiar with either, I listened to both and the only similarity I hear is in the beat.  Neither song has much of a melody per se.
 
So, what does this mean for those of us who use loops for drums from Toontrack and others who market them?  Before you tell me that the loops that Toontrack sells are royalty free and anybody can use them please know that I already know that.  But my question is if I use a loop from one of their MIDI packs and 50 other people use the same loop, which one of the 51 of us gets to sue the other 50 for copyright infringement?
 
This is ridiculous!  Since when is copyright infringement based on STYLE?  Based on this logic, I could possibly be sued by Steely Dan because many of you tell me in reviews how much I sound like them on some of my original tunes.
 
I thought only lyrics and melody could be criteria for copyright infringement, but I guess the laws have changed.  Based on that maybe some of us best give up making original music because we could be sued if we sound too similar to a big star's sound. IOW-Make sure you don't sound "too much" like Bruce Springsteen because the Boss just might be able to take you to court even if the song is yours!
 
What say y'all?
 
John B.
 
 

The ruling seemed to be based on similarity of 'feel', which to me is setting a very dangerous precedent. How on earth does anyone quantify that?

The original jury decision probably reflected the juror's sympathy for Gaye and their dislike for what some considered rape inciting Thicke song. If you are going to use untrained juror's to determine matters of fact after listening to forensic musicologists talking about stuff they do not understand, then likely anything that sounds enough like something else will be at risk. The majority appeal decision basically rested on procedural issues, without really reanalyzing the musicological issues. The moral is, if you make a lot of money on a song that sounds sufficiently like an earlier song to a non-musician, then be prepared to share the proceeds. If you are not making a mega-hit, then the cost of bringing a lawsuit will pretty much immunize your efforts from legal attack, but if you plan to get it published in the paranoid world of the future, be prepared for rejection because the sound (not just the music) is insufficiently "original."
 
And never, ever say you like respect or admire the work of another musician let alone that your work is a tribute to his style.

Being sued for millions of dollars over a song is an issue that's unlikely to affect any members here - I've seen the Readers' Wives pages. 
 

John,
 
Fully agree, sounding similar is not copyright infringement.  Melody and lyrics are protected by copyright, you can't copyright chord progressions, rhythms, beats, etc...except as a finished work, i.e. loops, samples, etc..   I think people involved in these decision are letting emotion or sentiment dictate the rule of law.   How many Country, Motown/R&B, Rock songs sound similar, have similar beats or chord progressions, that could become subject to frivolous copyright infringement cases?   
 
Many new artists are influenced by their musical heroes.  How much influence is allowable before you become liable for infringement.   If influence and similarity were the bar, Oasis would certainly owe the Beatles a ton of money.     A very slippery slope for certain and where does it end?   You might be sued by Steely Dan:)   Someone generating advertising revenue on YouTube, totally unrelated to selling music, might be subject to a lawsuit of their earnings for "sounding similar" or for offering lessons on how to play a particular song.   You can't just look at this as effecting the "rich musicians who can afford it" because eventually a precedent works it's way down the chain to affect everyone one way or another.  
 
Interesting comparison by Rick Beato below - The Gaye estate is suing Ed Sheeran for 100M claiming his song Thinking Out Loud is infringing Let's Get It On.   Look at the song as a whole, there may be some similarities and people have strong opinions about it.   However, if you were to compare lyrics and melody, there are no similarities.   The beat is the same and chord progression are similar but that is it.    Very interesting topic and one that seems like it is not going away any time soon.
 
Rick Beato - ED SHEERAN VS. MARVIN GAYE LAWSUIT: Let's Compare!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kt1DXu7dlo
 
Regards

 
I've always went by the case of two particular songs-1 "Werewolves of London" by Warren Zevon/ "All Summer Long" by Kid Rock and 2 "Super Freak" by Rick James/ "Can't Touch This" by MC Hammer.  If you listen to these pieces of music it sounds like Kid Rock used the exact backing track that Zevon made for "Werewolves" and just sang a new vocal track over it.  The same with the Rick James and MC Hammer tunes.  But I've never heard of any litigation in either of these cases (although there might be.  I just didn't hear of it).  I was always assured that it was because MC Hammer and Kid Rock changed the melody of their songs.  But I guess that's all changed now.
 
EDIT-Did some research on these.  Turns out Kid Rock paid Zevon's publishing co for the rights to use his track via sampling.  He also named Zevon and his Werewolves co writers as co composers of ASL.  Same thing for the MC Hammer/Rick James situation.
 
JB