A jury in the United States has ruled that the writers of Blurred Lines - one of the best-selling singles of all time - copied a Marvin Gaye track.

Jurors in Los Angeles decided that the 2013 single by Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke breached the copyright of Gaye's 1977 hit Got To Give It Up.

The family of the late soul singer has been awarded $7.3m (£4.8m) in damages.

Thicke and Williams denied copying the hit, and their lawyer said the ruling set a "horrible precedent".

Meanwhile, the Gaye family's lawyer told Rolling Stone he wanted to stop the sales of Blurred Lines.

"We'll be asking the court to enter an injunction prohibiting the further sale and distribution of Blurred Lines unless and until we can reach an agreement with those guys on the other side about how future monies that are received will be shared," attorney Richard Busch said.

Gaye died in April 1984, leaving his children the copyright to his music.

His children - Nona, Frankie and Marvin Gaye III - sued Thicke and Williams in 2013. Nona wept as the verdict was read in court.

"Right now, I feel free," she told reporters after the ruling. "Free from... Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke's chains and what they tried to keep on us and the lies that were told."

In court, Williams had told jurors that Gaye's music was part of the soundtrack of his youth but he insisted it was not on his mind when he wrote the song.

But the musician recognised a likeness between the songs and agreed he was "channelling... that late-70s feeling" when he co-wrote the song.

Thicke testified that he had contributed little to the writing of the song.

"While we respect the judicial process, we are extremely disappointed in the ruling made today, which sets a horrible precedent for music and creativity going forward," the pair's lawyer Howard E King said.

"We are reviewing the decision, considering our options and you will hear more from us soon about this matter."

The hit, which earned a Grammy nomination, generated more than $16m (£10.8m) in profits and made more than $5m (£3m) for both stars.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-31825059

I'm all for Gaye's children. That song is definitely degrading to women, extremely immoral, and is a pollutant to the minds of our youth. I never bought the song, because I never liked it. I knew it was sordid and satanic from the get-go.

"What a pleasure it is to degrade a woman."

Robin Thicke - GQ Magazine, 2013

I'm all for Gaye's children. That song is definitely degrading to women, extremely immoral, and is a pollutant to the minds of our youth. I never bought the song, because I never liked it. I knew it was sordid and satanic from the get-go.


Yeah. I never understood how a 'song' that implies anal rape could be a mainstream hit.

Yeah. I never understood how a 'song' that implies anal rape could be a mainstream hit.


Yep. I bet there was a rise in anal sex among young people once that song became popular.

Yep. I bet there was a rise in anal sex among young people once that song became popular.


I'm not sure that would be the result, but I guess you never know.

Yeah. I never understood how a 'song' that implies anal rape could be a mainstream hit.


most of Marvin Gaye's music during the early 80's was about sex.

most of Marvin Gaye's music during the early 80's was about sex.


Yeah but he was not singing about how he was going to "rip her @#% in two".  Marvin was smooooooth.

Yeah but he was not singing about how he was going to "rip her @#% in two".  Marvin was smooooooth.


Sexual Healing and Sanctified Lady

I'm all for Gaye's children. That song is definitely degrading to women, extremely immoral, and is a pollutant to the minds of our youth. I never bought the song, because I never liked it. I knew it was sordid and satanic from the get-go.

Just because you don't like the song doesn't make it fair that it's sued for all that money. It sounds nothing like it in my opinion.... I can think of several songs that sound more alike and never received a lawsuit. People shouldn't use their emotions to cloud their judgement and think it deserves to be sued because it looks like it's "degrading women".

Just because you don't like the song doesn't make it fair that it's sued for all that money. It sounds nothing like it in my opinion.... I can think of several songs that sound more alike and never received a lawsuit. People shouldn't use their emotions to cloud their judgement and think it deserves to be sued because it looks like it's "degrading women".


Well a jury seems to agree with Mr. Gaye's estate.

If Marvin Gaye was still around, What would he have thought of Robin Thicke? ???

If Marvin Gaye was still around, What would he have thought of Robin Thicke? ???


That he was a rip-off.

That he was a rip-off.


Robin would've paid royalties to Marvin Gaye.