Copyright lawsuit between pop singer-songwriter Ed Sheeran and heir to Ed Townsend, co-writer of soul artist Marvin Gaye’s 1973 hit “Let’s Get It On.” is pending in Manhattan federal court. The lawsuit alleges that Sheeran’s multi-platinum, Grammy-winning 2014 song “Thinking Out Loud” violated copyright law by making the chord structure too close to “Let’s Get it On.” increase. But Sheeran claims both songs are based on a common chord progression used in many pop songs, and last week he brought his guitar to the stand to demonstrate the composition process, and this week he’s suing. threatened to quit music altogether if he lost to
Joe Bennett, a forensic scientist and professor at Berklee College of Music in Boston, is following the case closely. Because the consequences could seriously affect the future of popular music (whether or not Sheeran stays in the game).
“This is going to be a game-changer in the songwriting world,” says Bennett. “What if a simple chord progression in a basic book on music theory became the property of the Gay/Townshend family? And whenever you wanted to play a song you did— [for example] Four chords in C, E Minor, F and G — Couldn’t you do that without paying royalties to Marvin Gaye? It would be a very strange world to live in. ”
Bennett says Sheeran’s pushback is a matter of principle important to defending the rights of songwriters.
“The fact of the matter, at least in my opinion, is that he didn’t plagiarize anything here,” he says. We are standing up for the right to have so many mundane musical building blocks that can be reused, recycled, and incorporated into any song, with a creative twist on .
Bennett uses numerous go-to song examples that highlight how similar chord progressions are common in both “Thinking Out Loud” and “Let’s Get it On”. A peak case, he says, is his 1967 hit “Georgy Girl” with his Australian folk-pop group, The Seeker. Although it differs in tempo and mood from the two songs at the center of the suit, it precedes them while sharing the basics of sonic structure.
Bennet argues that the additional elements that make Gaye and Sheeran’s songs sound similar (bass drums that push the downbeat, soaring basslines) are not necessarily copyrighted as well. What is copyrighted must be unique in the history of the world and invented by the copyright holder. He states that if a chord progression can be proven to be a common element in music, there is no copyright to protect it.
“I often find that when people ask themselves, [whether] When one thing is copied from another, they ask themselves a very simple question: How similar are they?” he says. “But you have to ask a slightly more nuanced question: how original is the similar element itself?”
The question remains whether Sheeran used the same chords in the same way, like syncopation and rhythmic patterns. Bennett shows that there is a substantial difference between the two, but he is concerned that an untrained ear may not be able to tell the difference.
“Basically, some very common rock-ballad-pop-ballad tropes are put together here in a similar fashion,” he says. “Also, jurors were unable to parse the difference between mundane elements such as chord sequences and half-bar pushes found in many songs, and unique copyrighted elements such as top line melodies and lyrics. So I’m really worried about this incident because there are a lot of people here in the Berklee community here in Boston, and we’re all watching this incident with a little trepidation.
more: The ‘blurred line’ at the heart of plagiarism trials
Sheeran’s lawsuit follows another Marvin Gaye copyright infringement lawsuit from 2018, in which Robin Thicke and producer Pharrell Williams allege Gay’s “Got to Give it Up” and Williams and Thicke’s It ended up paying a gay property $5.3 million over its similarity to “Blurred Lines.” It’s the latest example of how the lines between pay and rewards are becoming increasingly blurred, creating big stakes.
Earlier this year, sampraderic hip-hop pioneers De La Soul saw their groundbreaking 1989 debut LP. 3 feet tall and rising After years of painstaking negotiations over the digital rights to the hundreds of samples the group used to create its influential and highly imaginative work, streaming platforms like Spotify and YouTube have finally The much-delayed release highlights the ongoing battle hip-hop has endured since its birth half a century ago. Even if it has arguably become the dominant genre of popular music, its central tenant, sampling, remains legally questionable at best.
Meanwhile, the emergence of AI-generated tracks, such as the viral Drake and Weekend emulation of “Heart on My Sleeve,” fuels copyright controversy and raises existential questions about artist rights and creative control. doing. Pop electronic artist Grimes spoke out on the issue this week, criticizing music copyright laws for stifling creativity and offering her to use her voice for creative uses in exchange for a division of copyright. launched AI-equipped software Elf.Tech.
The issue of ownership and creativity extends to the realm of live music, too, with one filmmaker using over 100 videos shot by concert-goers shared on social media to create the 2023 Frank Ocean movie. They are facing legal threats from Coachella’s parent company for co-editing a concert film of their festival performance. But Sheeran’s case is unshakable, and the broader climate points to an industry on the brink of dramatic shifts in collective understanding of artistry.
