Contracts
- Submitted by: sunshinesunrise
- Views: 187
- Category: Other
- Date Submitted: 03/31/2015 08:51 AM
- Pages: 2
- Report this Essay
Rule:
The relevant law the court has applied to Gaye v. Pharrell and Thicke case in order to make its decision is copyright infringement. Cheeseman (2013) states, “Copyright is a legal right that gives the author of qualifying subject matter, and who meets other requirements established by copyright law the exclusive right to publish, produce, sell, license, and distribute the work.” (p. 128). The California federal jury refers to the Copyright Revision Act of 1976, which protects the intellectual property (copyright works) from infringement and provides financial incentives to be written. Therefore, the federal court charged Pharrell and Thicke with $7.3 million for copyright infringement.
Relation to Managerial Law
The Gaye v. Pharrell and Thicke case is only one example of hundreds more similar cases in this industry. The case could take different direction and the copyright law would have protected Pharrell and Thicke if they have licensed the song and secured their work, crediting Gaye on “Blurred Lines” with originality ("Hiphop Dx", 2015.) However, in cases like this, when it comes to the point of making a decision, we look from the ethical and legal perspective. The ethical issue cannot be controlled; however, when it comes to the legal side of the case, there are regulations that everyone should follow. In this particular case, the musician artists Pharrell and Thicke have failed to act ethically, trying to take advantage of Gaye’s intellectual property.
References
HipHop Dx. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/id.33028/title.marvin-gayes-children-issue-open-letter-regarding-blurred-lines-case
Cheeseman, H.R. (2013). Business Law: Legal Environment, Online Commerce, Business Ethics,
and International Issues (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
The relevant law the court has applied to Gaye v. Pharrell and Thicke case in order to make its decision is copyright infringement. Cheeseman (2013) states, “Copyright is a legal right that gives the author of qualifying subject matter, and who meets other requirements established by copyright law the exclusive right to publish, produce, sell, license, and distribute the work.” (p. 128). The California federal jury refers to the Copyright Revision Act of 1976, which protects the intellectual property (copyright works) from infringement and provides financial incentives to be written. Therefore, the federal court charged Pharrell and Thicke with $7.3 million for copyright infringement.
Relation to Managerial Law
The Gaye v. Pharrell and Thicke case is only one example of hundreds more similar cases in this industry. The case could take different direction and the copyright law would have protected Pharrell and Thicke if they have licensed the song and secured their work, crediting Gaye on “Blurred Lines” with originality ("Hiphop Dx", 2015.) However, in cases like this, when it comes to the point of making a decision, we look from the ethical and legal perspective. The ethical issue cannot be controlled; however, when it comes to the legal side of the case, there are regulations that everyone should follow. In this particular case, the musician artists Pharrell and Thicke have failed to act ethically, trying to take advantage of Gaye’s intellectual property.
References
HipHop Dx. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/id.33028/title.marvin-gayes-children-issue-open-letter-regarding-blurred-lines-case
Cheeseman, H.R. (2013). Business Law: Legal Environment, Online Commerce, Business Ethics,
and International Issues (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.