Ed Sheeran’s copyright trial is already worthy of a courtroom drama
A member of the family accusing Ed Sheeran of copyright infringement over similarities between "Thinking Out Loud" and "Let's Get It On," collapsed on Wednesday
Aux News Ed Sheeran
Since it kicked off on Tuesday, the trial determining whether Ed Sheeran’s 2014 hit “Thinking Out Loud” copied Marvin Gaye’s 1973 staple “Let’s Get It On”— and in turn, infringed upon copyright held by the family of co-writer Ed Townsend—has already made a strong case for a future dramatic rendering. There are the photos of a suited-up Sheeran surrounded by lawyers, evading paparazzi; opening statements invoking the very building blocks of pop music as Sheeran’s protection; and not to mention, the literal promise of a “smoking gun” recording.
Yesterday, the trial even faced a delay after one of the plaintiffs, Kathryn Townsend Griffin, collapsed in the courtroom. Per CNN, during Sheeran’s counsel’s cross-examination of Dr. Alexander Stewart—a music expert the prosecution called to the stand who testified the chord progressions in “Let’s Get It On” and “Thinking Out Loud” “sound very, very similar”—Townsend Griffin’s “eyes shut and legs failed.”
After individuals from both Sheeran and Townsend’s teams rushed to her aid, Townsend Griffin was carried from the courtroom amid calls to contact 911. Following the incident, the other Townsend family members present did not return to court, and Sheeran’s attorney Ilene Farkas considered her cross-examination of Stewart after a roughly fifteen-minute break. The A.V. Club has reached out to Townsend Griffin’s attorney for updates on her health.
Per Judge Louis L. Stanton, court will resume on Thursday morning at 11 A.M. E.T. So far, both sides have offered opening statements and Sheeran has testified. While on the stand, the singer stated that the idea to perform a live medley “Let’s Get It On” and “Thinking Out Loud”— the “smoking gun” recording Townsend attorney Benjamin Crump spoke of— was “probably mine.” He contextualized however, that if he indeed cribbed “Let’s Get It On,” he “would’ve been an idiot to stand on stage in front of 20,000 people.”
18 Comments
Just show the judge this
if he looks like a hobbit, he is a hobbit. GUILTY!
Ed Sheeran is a Hobbit from The Shire. But Ed Sheeran lives in the United Kingdom. Now think about it, that does not make sense! Why would a Hobbit, used to the tranquil, pastoral climes of Hobbiton want to live in a rainy, foggy, dreary place like London? That does not make sense!
The Shire was industrialized back in the 30s or whatever. It’s never been like it was in the fairy stories since. Millennial Hobbits are stuck with much less options.
I thought he moved to Westeros.
-You- try spinning the Chewbacca defense in a way to make moving away from Westeros look illogical!
People find it easy to dunk on Ed Sheeran, but, these lawsuits are doing far more damage to music than even AI.And AI is going to destroy music as is.
But it is easy to dunk on Ed Sheeran.
a music expert the prosecution called to the stand TIL that civil suits filed between private parties have prosecutors.
you can’t expect research or fact checking at these wages
“Yeah, and then Ed Sheeran was brought in by the bailiff or whatever idk”
Seems pretty bland so far. What’s the dramatic part?
Can we focus on the trial and not Ed Sheeran’s music, please?
This is a civil case; there is no prosecutor, genius. While I would argue that should be common knowledge to begin with, it would have taken literally about 10 seconds of research to discover that and thus write an article that isnt actively embarrassing.
There seem to be several words missing from the concluding sentence. “…and perform a song that sounded like it” or something like that?
Former music producer Rick Beato made a video about this the other day. It seems clear that the backing tracks are pretty much identical once you adjust them to the same key, but the melodies are significantly different and Sheeran’s has a chorus which is absent in the original.From that assessment, he concludes that Sheeran likely owes Gaye’s estate some minor percentage of royalties for copying the backing track, but that’s all.
Yeah, here’s the video (I posted this in AV Club’s previous article ):
Honestly, much as I know that everyone has influences and there are some fundamentals about music (e.g. chord progression resolutions, use of dissonance and consonance, etc.) that are the foundation of 99.99% of pop songs, I concede it could be argued that since Sheeran has performed a medley of both songs live then this is similar to sampling someone else’s music and using it in your own without paying royalties to that someone else.
He almost certainly should have asked permission to do so.
“Sheeran’s attorney Ilene Farkas considered her cross-examination of Stewart after a roughly fifteen-minute break.” That was probably pretty dramatic.