Ed Sheeran takes the stand in “Let’s Get It On” copyright trial
The heirs of Marvin Gaye's co-writer Ed Townsend sued Sheeran in 2017, alleging "striking similarities" between "Let's Get It On" and "Thinking Out Loud"
Aux News Ed Sheeran
Ed Sheeran took the stand today in a trial nearly five years in the making regarding his 2014 track “Thinking Out Loud,” which has been accused of sharing “striking similarities” with Marvin Gaye’s 1973 classic “Let’s Get It On.” The trial will determine whether or not Sheeran infringed on copyright in crafting “Thinking Out Loud,” which won Sheeran a Grammy in 2016.
The lawsuit comes from the heirs of Ed Townsend, Marvin Gaye’s co-writer on the sensual, soulful standard. Townsend’s heirs allege that Sheeran’s 2014 hit “Thinking Out Loud” features “overt common elements” that directly violate their copyright. Although the lawsuit was first filed in 2017, it has faced multiple delays.
During questioning today (via People), Sheeran made it clear that he believes it’s normal for pop songs to use similar chord progressions, citing various examples (like Van Morrison’s “Crazy Love” and Lewis Capaldi’s “Someone You Loved”) and suggesting that “most pop songs are built on building blocks that have been freely available for hundreds of years.”
The jury for the trial, which is taking place in Manhattan, has been instructed not to focus on the lyrical content of the song, but instead “only consider the raw elements of melody, harmony and rhythm that make up the composition of ‘Let’s Get It On,’” per NBC News. Both songs will be played aloud in court for the jury to compare.
“The two songs share versions of a similar and unprotectable chord progression that was freely available to all songwriters,” they said in a court filing.
The Townsends have pointed to videos of Sheeran segueing during live performances between “Thinking Out Loud” and “Let’s Get It On,”— they originally sought to include video of such a performance in the trial, but presiding Judge Louis L. Stanton denied the motion. Conversely, Sheeran’s attorneys have argued that any likeness between the songs stems from the foundational aspects of pop music, as he said today in court, and he also pointed out that, if he were really guilty of consciously ripping off “Let’s Get It On,” then he would have to “be an idiot” to stand onstage “in front of 20,000 people” and play the two songs together.
Of course, Gaye has a looming presence in the DNA of popular music, which has gotten other artists in hot water before. Notably, Gaye’s heirs won a lawsuit in 2018 against Robin Thicke, Pharrell, and T.I. over their unfortunately seminal hit “Blurred Lines” after accusing the trio of copyright infringement over the song’s similarity to Gaye’s 1977 hit “Got To Give It Up.” The courts awarded Gaye’s estate $7.4 million at trial— although the number was eventually lowered to $5.3 million, the sum remains one of the largest payouts from a copyright trial in recent memory.
Sheeran has gone to court (and settled outside of it) before over his music, winning a U.K. copyright trial last year that compared his 2017 song “Shape Of You” to the 2015 track “Oh Why” by Sami Chokri, who performs as Sami Switch. In a statement released after the verdict, Sheeran took the industry to task over the growing prevalence of copyright claims.
“Whilst we’re obviously happy with the result, I feel like claims like this are way too common now and have become a culture where a claim is made with the idea that a settlement will be cheaper than taking it to court, even if there is no basis for the claim,” Sheeran shared on Twitter after the verdict. “It’s really damaging to the songwriting industry.”
Creative freedoms aside, it’s worth noting that much of Sheeran’s inspiration comes from pioneering Black creatives. His music—which undeniably draws from R&B, soul, and doo-wop—falls in line with an industry tradition even more well-traveled than copyright infringement lawsuits: young white artists seemingly cribbing from creative strides made by Black predecessors.
“Mr. Sheeran blatantly took a Black artist’s music who he doesn’t view as worthy as compensation,” Ben Crump, a Civil Rights attorney who represents the Townsend family outside of the trial, shared in a March 31 news conference.
As the trial—expected to last roughly two weeks—forges on, Sheeran is gearing up to release a new album and embark on an extensive U.S. stadium tour. With the physical, emotional, and financial costs of touring at an all-time high—especially for international artists, who could face a nearly 250% increase in the price of touring visas under a new Homeland Security proposal — it’s unclear how a loss would affect these plans.
27 Comments
I dunno. Let’s Get it On sounds a lot like He’s So Fine to me.
His music—which undeniably draws from R&B, soul, and doo-wop—falls
in line with an industry tradition even more well-traveled than
copyright infringement lawsuits: young white artists seemingly cribbing
from creative strides made by Black predecessors.Well, good composers borrow, great composers steal.
Creative freedoms aside, it’s worth noting that much of Sheeran’s inspiration comes from pioneering Black creatives[…] young white artists seemingly cribbing from creative strides made by Black predecessors.No,
it’s not worth noting this. Those black creatives are gonna have a much
harder time pioneering in the kind of world the Gaye estate are trying
to shape. They (the estate) are a bunch of grasping
litigious fucks who are prepared to ruin music in order to line their
pockets, since apparently they’re not satisfied with the wealth
they already have. The overwhelming consensus among music
experts was that the Blurred Lines decision was a travesty and sets an incredibly harmful precedent, and this is the same. Before BL, musical plagiarism meant copying a melody. Now, it’s about copying a set of vaguely-defined elements of a song or its ‘vibe’.As for this one – Sheeran obviously imitated Let’s Get It On. But the point is that he did so in a way that musicians have done and been allowed to do since forever.
Wait, does this mean there’s a chance Aussie Crawl can get some justice for having “Unpublished Critics” ripped off by Guns & Roses for “Sweet Child O’ Mine”?
I’m not an expert, but based on a quick listen: If there was a claim there, it seems like it could already have been made based on the vocal melody, which is certainly similar to Sweet Child O’ Mine. But the backings are different, I think, and the beat is way too generic to count as evidence one way or the other.
Having said that, Post-Blurred Lines, I could see a judge viewing the rhythmic similarities as lending credence to the claim.
Maybe the Bar-Kays can get paid for Ghostbusters and I Want A New Drug? The relevant part of the songs in the Ghostbusters lawsuit is directly ripped off from Soul Finger.
What parts are those? I used to play the bass on Soul Finger and Ghostbusters pretty regularly and they’re not similar.
Slash has said in interviews that the main riff of “Sweet Child o’ Mine” is a warm-up exercise he got from an instruction book. If that’s true, it’s possible that book was purchased by more than one guitar player.
Yeah, there’s cultural appropriation and there’s this case, and they’re not the same thing.
Ed Sheeran would probably be the first to acknowledge his influences just like any reasonable person. As for whether his work is plagiarism, well good luck proving that.
Ed Sheeran would probably be the first to acknowledge his influences
just like any reasonable person.
Yep. From my understanding, he’s pretty open about it when he’s drawing inspiration for a song – in this case, playing them on stage together is a pretty major acknowledgement.
As for whether his work is plagiarism,
well good luck proving that. Hopefully the judge in this case isn’t like the Blurred Lines guy, who apparently decided that he didn’t need to listen to musicologists or actually understand anything about the topic to make a judgement.
also, they forgot dancehall. these british artists love their dancehall.
I often wonder do people like the writer of this piece know how ridiculous this kind of cultural gatekeeping sounds to the vast majority of people.Just one other point, it isn’t the Gaye estate but the estate of his cowriter who are making this claim.
Marvin Gaye BLATANTLY appropriates such White instruments as the electric guitar, electric bass, the saxophone,ectEtc
Can’t we all compromise and agree that this kind of lawsuit is bullshit. And Ed Sheeran is a derivative hack.
This is the way.
It is all these things, it is none of these things.
The Weasley family has been stealing from human creatives for generations. It is pretty much their whole schtick.
Yeah, this is a real slippery slope regarding copyright in art and…holy shit, benjamin crump is representing the gaye family and playing up the race angle?! Yeah, you lost me-hard.It’s sad to see that marvin gaye’s legacy in time might not be his incredible music, but race-baiting litigation by his heirs
“The jury for the trial, which is taking place in Manhattan, has been
instructed not to focus on the lyrical content of the song, but instead
“only consider the raw elements of melody, harmony and rhythm that make
up the composition of ‘Let’s Get It On,’” per NBC News.”Sure. A random group of 12 people can surely be trusted to make this kind of decision.
Reading that line I was thinking I’d hate to be on that jury. It sounds like a headache.
Imagine not only getting called for jury duty but also finding out you have to listen to the same Ed Sheeran song on repeat for multiple hours a day.
Immediate suicide.
Meh, soon AI will be writing all pop music so the implications for the future are moot anyway.
Ed Sheeran continues his slow yet inexorable transformation into a hobbit.
An axolotl.
An educated opinion:
Just letting you all know I have a registered copyright on the I-IV-V progression.