![](\"https:\/\/www.ghanamma.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/Ed-Sheeran.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Last April, after a London judge ruled that\u00a0Ed Sheeran\u2019s chart-topping 2017 hit \u201cShape of You\u201d\u00a0didn\u2019t infringe the copyright of an earlier song, the pop superstar sounded more tired than celebratory.<\/p>\n
The ruling had come after a two-week trial in which Sheeran took the stand to defend himself, briefly even singing in court to show that different songs frequently contain similar-sounding materials.<\/p>\n
Though the judge had cleared his name, Sheeran took the occasion to lament that such cases were \u201cway too common now\u201d and were \u201creally damaging to the songwriting industry.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThere\u2019s only so many notes and very few chords used in pop music. Coincidence is bound to happen if 60,000 songs are being released every day on Spotify,\u201d Sheeran said at the time.<\/p>\n
\u201cI just want to say: I\u2019m not an entity, I\u2019m not a corporation, I\u2019m a human being and a father and a husband and a son. Lawsuits are not a pleasant experience and I hope that this ruling means in the future baseless claims like this can be avoided.\u201d<\/p>\n
But now, just over a year later, Sheeran is headed right back into the fire.<\/p>\n
Lawyers for the pop star will head to a Manhattan federal courthouse Monday to defend him against allegations that he lifted key elements of another smash hit, his 2014 tune \u201cThinking Out Loud,\u201d from\u00a0Marvin Gaye\u2019s iconic \u201cLet\u2019s Get It On.\u201d<\/p>\n
The two songs at issue in the case\u00a0do\u00a0<\/em>sound similar, as even Sheeran has seemingly acknowledged: The star was\u00a0captured on video\u00a0at a 2014 concert toggling back and forth between them, drawing huge applause from the audience. That clip might be played for jurors in the courtroom next week.<\/p>\n His accusers say the songs sound alike because Sheeran \u201cknowingly and intentionally infringed\u201d the earlier tune, stealing the \u201cheart\u201d from one of the most \u201cinstantly recognizable songs in R&B history.\u201d<\/p>\n But Sheeran says it\u2019s simply because the two tracks share commonplace musical building blocks \u2013 elements that are free for all to use and cannot be \u201cmonopolized\u201d under copyright law.<\/p>\n Need to get caught up before things kick off Monday? Here\u2019s everything you need to know about Ed Sheeran\u2019s big copyright trial.<\/p>\n Released in September 2014, \u201cThinking Out Loud\u201d was a commercial and critical success for Sheeran, reaching No. 2 on the Hot 100 before winning song of the year and best pop solo performance at the 58th Grammy Awards.<\/p>\n But listeners quickly noted similarities to \u201cLet\u2019s Get It On.\u201d YouTube mashups and social media comments claimed there was serious overlap, and a 2015 article in\u00a0Spin\u00a0<\/em>said that the song was an \u201cincredibly obvious successor\u201d to Gaye\u2019s famed slow jam.<\/p>\n It didn\u2019t take long before those comments turned into legal accusations.<\/p>\n In August 2016, Sheeran was hit with a copyright infringement lawsuit by\u00a0Kathryn Townsend Griffin<\/strong>\u00a0and other heirs of\u00a0Ed Townsend, Gaye\u2019s longtime producer who co-wrote \u201cLet\u2019s Get It On.\u201d<\/p>\n They said he had intentionally copied the earlier song to create his own, violating federal copyright law.<\/p>\n \u201cThe defendants copied the heart of \u2018Let\u2019s\u2019 and repeated it continuously throughout \u2018Thinking,\u2019\u201d attorneys for the Townsend heirs wrote in their complaint. \u201cThe melodic, harmonic, and rhythmic compositions in \u2018Thinking\u2019 are not the product of independent creation.\u201d<\/p>\n (Gaye\u2019s actual heirs, who infamously won a jury verdict that\u00a0Robin Thicke\u00a0and\u00a0Pharrell\u2019s megahit \u201cBlurred Lines\u201d infringed the singer\u2019s \u201cGot To Give It Up,\u201d are not involved in the case.)<\/p>\n Faced with those allegations, Sheeran\u2019s lawyers soon asked the judge to toss the case out.<\/p>\n They argued that the only real similarity between \u201cThinking\u201d and \u201cLet\u2019s Get It On\u201d was a simple chord progression \u2014 I-iii-IV-V \u2014 that they said was so unremarkable that it could not form the basis for an infringement lawsuit.<\/p>\n Sheeran\u2019s lawyers cited an expert report they had commissioned from\u00a0Lawrence Ferrara<\/strong>, a well-known musicologist at New York University, who pointed to 13 other songs featuring that same progression that came before \u201cLet\u2019s Get It On,\u201d including tunes by\u00a0The Beach Boys\u00a0and\u00a0Buddy Holly.<\/p>\n \u201cIt is such a basic chord progression that it is taught in elementary guitar method books, one of which ironically opines that [\u201cLet\u2019s Get It On\u201d] did not infringe earlier songs using the same progression since it is so \u2018common\u2019,\u201d Sheeran\u2019s attorneys wrote.<\/p>\n \u201cAccording a monopoly over the use of a common chord progression to any author would undermine the central aim of copyright law \u2026 and unduly chill future expression.\u201d<\/p>\n But attorneys for Townsend\u2019s heirs sharply disagreed, citing their own expert report to the contrary and arguing that the case must proceed to a trial. And in 2019, the federal judge overseeing the case,\u00a0Judge Louis L. Stanton<\/strong>, agreed with them.<\/p>\n \u201cA jury might side with either view,\u201d the judge wrote at the time. \u201cThe question whether [\u201cThinking Out Loud\u201d] infringes on [\u201cLet\u2019s Get It On\u201d] should be determined by trial rather than summarily.\u201d<\/p>\n Before the case got to trial, the parties heavily sparred over a seemingly technical issue, but one with huge stakes for the case: Whether the judge and jury should be able to listen to Gaye\u2019s famed recorded version of \u201cLet\u2019s Get It On\u201d when deciding the case.<\/p>\n It seems like they should, right? But it\u2019s not that simple.<\/p>\n That\u2019s because the Townsend heirs don\u2019t actually own a copyright to the sound recording created by Gaye during a March 22, 1973 studio session \u2013 the version you\u2019ve heard countless times.<\/p>\n Instead, they only control what\u2019s known as a \u201clead sheet\u201d or \u201cdeposit copy,\u201d a bare-bones written version of the song that includes core notation but lacks many more detailed musical choices made in the studio.<\/p>\n It\u2019s an issue that came up in many copyright lawsuits over old songs, including the \u201cBlurred Lines\u201d case and the high-profile battle over\u00a0Led Zeppelin\u2018s \u201cStairway To Heaven.\u201d<\/p>\n But it was particularly important to the \u201cThinking\u201d case, because Sheeran\u2019s lawyers says that two of the key elements that he allegedly infringed \u2013 the drum pattern and the bass-guitar line \u2013 don\u2019t appear in the deposit copy.<\/p>\n In arguing the issue, the Townsend heirs said that those extra recorded elements are \u201cimplied\u201d in the written music and that the recorded version was the true embodiment of the song; Sheeran\u2019s attorneys argued back that the case must be strictly limited to the deposit copy, or risk unfairly expanding the rights at issue.<\/p>\n In March 2020, Judge Stanton sided with Sheeran, saying the deposit copy was the \u201csole definition\u201d of the copyrighted song.<\/p>\n He said the more famous recording would be \u201cinadmissible in any way which might confuse the jury into thinking it represents what is protected by copyright.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe Gaye sound recording contains many elements \u2026 which do not appear in the simple melody of the deposit copy,\u201d the judge wrote at the time. \u201cThese additional elements \u2014 at least some of which appear in \u2018Thinking Out Loud\u2019 in more or less similar form \u2014 are not protected by copyright, because they are not in the deposit copy.\u201d<\/p>\n As the trial has drawn nearer, the two sides switched to fighting about a key piece of potential evidence: That video of Sheeran playing both songs.<\/p>\n In the six-minute snippet of a November 2014 concert in Zurich that\u2019s been viewed nearly 300,000 times on YouTube, Sheeran seamlessly switches from \u201cThinking\u201d to \u201cLets\u201d and back again, drawing huge cheers from the crowd.<\/p>\n In\u00a0seeking to introduce the clip into the trial, lawyers for the accusers argued that the medley video is \u201camong the most important and critical evidence\u201d in their case against Sheeran, saying it will provide \u201chelpful guidance to highlight and\/or illustrate those similarities and why they are significant.\u201d<\/p>\n But Sheeran\u2019s attorneys argued that playing the clip in the courtroom would\u00a0\u201cmislead the jury and cause unjustified prejudice.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n While such a performance might appear to be evidence of illegal copying, Sheeran\u2019s team argued that it really only showed that both songs feature that common chord progression that\u2019s \u201cfreely available to all songwriters.\u201d<\/p>\n Last month, Judge Stanton\u00a0denied Sheeran\u2019s request to ban the video\u00a0from the proceedings, meaning that the clip could be fair game.<\/p>\n But the judge also explicitly noted that Sheeran\u2019s attorneys could re-raise their objections to the video at trial \u2014 meaning the infamous YouTube video might ultimately still be barred from the courtroom. Stayed tuned.<\/p>\n The trial, taking place at the U.S. federal courthouse in Lower Manhattan, kicks off with jury selection on Monday before actually getting under way with opening statements on Tuesday.<\/p>\n Testimony is expected to run at least through Friday, meaning a verdict could arrive Friday or early the following week.<\/p>\n Though a witness list hasn\u2019t been made public, Sheeran himself is likely to testify in his own defense, just like he did at the trial in London last year. Earlier this month, attorneys for the Townsend heirs filed a formal notice that had sought a subpoena requiring the star to appear at the upcoming trial.<\/p>\n Witnesses will also likely include\u00a0Amy Wadge<\/strong>, who co-wrote \u201cThinking\u201d with Sheeran (but isn\u2019t named as a defendant), and\u00a0Jake Gosling<\/strong>, who produced the song (also not named as a defendant), as well as Sheeran\u2019s manager\u00a0Stuart Camp<\/strong>. Both sides will also call their musicologists as expert witnesses \u2013 Ferrara for Sheeran and\u00a0Alexander Stewart<\/strong>, a professor at the University of Vermont, for the plaintiffs.<\/p>\n Sheeran will be represented by\u00a0Donald S. Zakarin<\/strong>,\u00a0Ilene S. Farkas<\/strong>,\u00a0Andrew M. Goldsmith<\/strong>\u00a0and\u00a0Brian M. Maida<\/strong>\u00a0of the law firm Pryor Cashman, a veteran music litigation team that has previously handled such cases for\u00a0Ariana Grande\u00a0and\u00a0Megan Thee Stallion\u00a0and just\u00a0won the dismissal of a similar lawsuit\u00a0against\u00a0Childish Gambino.<\/p>\n Handling the case for Kathryn Townsend Griffin and the other Townsend heirs will be\u00a0Patrick R. Frank<\/strong>,\u00a0Keisha D. Rice<\/strong>\u00a0and\u00a0Katherine L. Viker<\/strong>\u00a0of the Florida-based firm Frank & Rice PA, as well as\u00a0Benjamin Crump<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 a well-known civil rights attorney who rose to prominence representing the families of Trayvon Martin, George Floyd and Ahmaud Arbery in wrongful death cases. Crump has recently been busy in the music world, representing both\u00a0Dorothy Carvello<\/strong>\u00a0in\u00a0her case against Atlantic Records\u00a0and victims of the disaster at Astroworld in their cases against Live Nation.<\/p>\n With Crump in the courtroom, some fireworks could be in store. Last month, he held a press conference outside the courthouse in which he claimed that Sheeran \u201cblatantly took a Black artist\u2019s music who he doesn\u2019t view as worthy as compensation.\u201d<\/p>\n In filings since then, Sheeran\u2019s attorneys have warned Judge Stanton that they believe Crump is planning to make similar statements about \u201cracism in the music industry\u201d and \u201ccultural appropriation\u201d as part of his closing arguments to the jury \u2014 and that doing so might present grounds for a mistrial.<\/p>\n \u201cWe believe the weakness of the [copyright] claim accounts for the plaintiffs\u2019 effort to taint the jury by insinuating emotionally charged, untrue and completely irrelevant accusations \u00a0into this case, not as evidence, but as argument and attempted character assassination,\u201d Sheeran\u2019s lawyers wrote. \u201cWe respect Mr. Crump\u2019s right to raise institutional concerns he may believe exist, but not in this case and not in this forum.\u201d<\/p>\n DISCLAIMER: <\/strong>The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Last April, after a London judge ruled that\u00a0Ed Sheeran\u2019s chart-topping 2017 hit \u201cShape of You\u201d\u00a0didn\u2019t infringe the copyright of an earlier song, the pop superstar sounded more tired than celebratory. The ruling had come after a two-week trial in which Sheeran took the stand to defend himself, briefly even singing in court to show that […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":23796,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-60470","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-entertainment"],"yoast_head":"\n