About a year and a half ago, I blogged about the lawsuit over Robin Thicke's song "Blurred Lines"'s alleged similarity to the late Marvin Gaye's song, "Got To Give It Up." Here is a link to my original blog post. I wrote about my disagreement with the verdict of the suit, due to lack of similarity between the two songs. The problem was that while they do have a similar groove, or feel, there aren't actually any copyrightable features that the two songs share (melody, harmony, or lyrics). As it turns out, I wasn't the only one that felt that way.
The guilty verdict was appealed, and over 200 musicians weighed in with their opinions about why it should be overturned. Even more relevant to my point of view, several musicologists and music theorists joined the fight as well. A copy of their amicus brief can be seen here. In the summary of the brief, the academics express their concern that this verdict "would curtail creativity...inhibiting songwriters by the threat of far-fetched claims of infringement..." This is why so many scholars and musicians spoke out against the original verdict. Precedent is a huge deal when it comes to the law. This case could potentially be cited for years to come, and be used as a deciding factor against other musicians who (like all artists) are influenced by those who came before them.
The musicologists and music theorists dissect the alleged similarities between the two songs, and demonstrate, through transcription and analysis, that these similarities were either the result of creative analysis (picking and choosing notes from different places in each song, inaccurate transcription, etc.) or stock musical figures used so often they have become commonplace (e.g. a ii-V-I progression).
The result of the appeals case has not been decided yet.