Right, much of art is in response to other art, which is a response to culture, social influences, trends, religion, politics, government, etc. In the case of bubble-gum pop-type music like this, not so much - it is often just fun, and there isn't much depth involved. In terms of other artists sampling or copying other works, again, if it is copy-righted, you have to credit and/or pay people for that. It doesn't matter if you agree with me there, as that is the law, and it is there to protect artists, and yes, an artist's works should be defended as much as any other patent or project, because it is people's creativity and people's livlihoods. Just because consumers and the inernet have devalued all art in an unprecedented manner through piracy and ripping it off, it doesn't mean artists shouldn't be protected any less, or that credit shouldn't be given where credit is due. In the case of Thicke and Pharrel, they seemed to genuinely think their work was truly different enough to be outside the parameter of giving credit where credit is due, because they thought it was original, and thus, their work. Which I think is what they believed, and I agree, being that the melody is one of the simplest melodies out there, and more related to the genre rather than Gaye's particular song. Their problem, IIRC, is that Gaye had his melody copy-righted, at least a tiny section of it. That was it. End of story. That being said, for something as simple as that which seems like such a stretch, it seems that if Gaye's Estate is going to sue Williams/Thicke for something as simple as a basic funk melody, than rap artists might as well copy-right the word nigger and sue every other rapper who uses it, and rock musicians should be copy-righting the basic blues, jazz, 50's, and modern chord progressions, since everyone uses them in varying degrees as well. Worth noting, I don't even like Pharrel or Thicke, but fuck Marvin's daughter for being a dramatic, greedy cunt.