Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
4 opinions for “Pharrell Williams v. Frankie Gaye”
Pharrell Williams v. Frankie Gayepublic domain
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PHARRELL WILLIAMS, an individual; No. 15-56880 CLIFFORD HARRIS, JR., an individual; ROBIN THICKE, an individual, DBA I D.C. No. Like’em Thicke Music, 2:13-cv-06004- Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants- JAK-AGR Appellants, and ORDER AND AMENDED MORE WATER FROM NAZARETH
Pharrell Williams v. Frankie Gayepublic domain
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PHARRELL WILLIAMS, an individual; No. 15-56880 CLIFFORD HARRIS, JR., an individual; ROBIN THICKE, an individual, DBA I D.C. No. Like’em Thicke Music, 2:13-cv-06004- Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants- JAK-AGR Appellants, and OPINION MORE WATER FROM NAZARETH PUBLISHING, INC.; STAR TRAK ENTERTAINMENT; INTE
Williams v. Gayepublic domain
NGUYEN, Circuit Judge, dissenting: The majority allows the Gayes to accomplish what no one has before: copyright a musical style. "Blurred Lines" and "Got to Give It Up" are not objectively similar. They differ in melody, harmony, and rhythm. Yet by refusing to compare the two works, the majority establishes a dangerous precedent that strikes a devastating blow to future musicians and composers everywhere. While
Williams v. Bridgeport Music, Inc.public domain
OPINION SWEET, District Judge. Defendants and Counter-claimants Nona and Frankie Gaye (the “Gayes” or the “Counter-Claimants”) have moved this Court, sitting in Part One, to quash the subpoena served by Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants Pharrell Williams (“Williams”), Robin Thicke (“Thicke”) and Clifford Harris, Jr. (“Harris”) (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) on March 3, 2014 (the “Subpoena”),