2 bars, 4 chords: copyright applies?

[Roman Empire]

This is the first time ever that I tend to agree with a lawsuit like this. It´s not just the groove and the chords that are identical but also the sung melody in the chorus gets very close to the "original".

[vurt]

because c'mon, it is the exact same song.

Groove and chords are the same indeed, but melody & lyrics are very different. And that's up to the judge now: what constitutes a song, specifically the copyright-able parts?

Up until now it was believed that if you reuse a melody or lyrics and change everything else, then you may infringe on existing copyright. Here it's the exact opposite. Rhythm and chords were deemed too generic to be copyright-able.

From Sheeran's trial
A musicologist retained by the plaintiffs has described the chords in each song as “virtually interchangeable” while acknowledging they are slightly different. A musicologist for Sheeran has said the chord sequence is not unique, and gave numerous other examples of its use in songs by artists such as Donovan and the Seekers.

Sheeran himself pointed this out
“Most pop songs can fit over most pop songs … You could go from Let it Be to No Woman, No Cry and switch back,”

I have to say I think both songs are gawd awful cheese but having listened to them both they are clearly different songs. This is the worst example of shady legal practice that I have seen in a while.

legal business aside, thats rich people stuff, how dare you diss let's get it on!

[ericj23]

because c'mon, it is the exact same song.

Groove and chords are the same indeed, but melody & lyrics are very different. And that's up to the judge now: what constitutes a song, specifically the copyright-able parts?

Up until now it was believed that if you reuse a melody or lyrics and change everything else, then you may infringe on existing copyright. Here it's the exact opposite. Rhythm and chords were deemed too generic to be copyright-able.

From Sheeran's trial
A musicologist retained by the plaintiffs has described the chords in each song as “virtually interchangeable” while acknowledging they are slightly different. A musicologist for Sheeran has said the chord sequence is not unique, and gave numerous other examples of its use in songs by artists such as Donovan and the Seekers.

Sheeran himself pointed this out
“Most pop songs can fit over most pop songs … You could go from Let it Be to No Woman, No Cry and switch back,”

I have to say I think both songs are gawd awful cheese but having listened to them both they are clearly different songs. This is the worst example of shady legal practice that I have seen in a while.

legal business aside, thats rich people stuff, how dare you diss let's get it on!

Is that a challenge! Oh, it's on alright - outside now

[osiris]

Yes the 'video' that was on TV earlier in the day. To me, I don't understand how someone with an ear like Sheeran doesn't catch it or agrees to put it on a track thinking nobody will catch it. Even I know if you sample something you should mangle it beyond recognition before putting it in a tune.

[surreal]

There should be a set universal law on music practices and criteria as it seems more like a money chase from a specific blood thirsty lawyer representing a dead estate that seems to relentlessly chase celebrity singers.

In other news the case of Sting vs Puff Daddy seems a more realistic and plausible case of copyright infringement.

[ghettosynth]

[BertKoor]

Sting vs P.DiddyDooDoo is clearly a blatant sample. Not the same type of infringement. Just saying...

[wangeroge]

It's the same song. They took it, added some notes to the chords, changed some notes, but kept the timing of the hook.

[Lee N]

It's been going on for 60 years or more and it hasn't ruined anything yet. It's a very hard thing to prove.

Maybe, and I don't disagree so much as I find it a little worrying. It seems to be the latest business model, going after copyright. Again, I don't disagree with this practice, but the more they win, the worse it gets and the narrower the defining lines become. It ends in two extremes, one side potentially a blatant ripping off of someone else's music - the other side a blatant rip-off going after anything they can get.
The bottom line is it's quite easy to create a piece of music, perfectly honest and unknowingly, which coincidentally sounds close enough to fall below whatever the defining line might be for a copyright issue - and somehow, I think that also needs some form of protection.

[revvy]

Sheeran is repeatedly honest and unknowing.

Again.

[Jac459]

Ok, finally listened to both songs... I am on Sheeran's side.
Both songs have a very different ambiance and feel. And the lyrics/voice are so different.

Now the arrangement of both songs is super blend and heard a million times. Clearly not what made the success of Marvin's song initially. So I am not chocked at all that they are similar (even not equal)....

I really don't see how Marvin's familly could win....

[ghettosynth]

Ok, finally listened to both songs... I am on Sheeran's side.
Both songs have a very different ambiance and feel. And the lyrics/voice are so different.

Now the arrangement of both songs is super blend and heard a million times. Clearly not what made the success of Marvin's song initially. So I am not chocked at all that they are similar (even not equal)....

I really don't see how Marvin's familly could win....

The same way that the blurred lines case was won. One thing that I'm assuming might go in Sheeran's favor is, and I'm assuming here, I haven't watched the video, that the video doesn't contain a fully dressed man flirting with scantily dressed women in the context of fairly obvious sexual innuendo.

[revvy]

I really don't see how Marvin's familly could win....

Especially as they're not even involved.

[vurt]

I really don't see how Marvin's familly could win....

they can't, they're not involved.
it's the townsend estate, the writer of the song.

[ghettosynth]

You guys are being pedants. The comment was clearly made with respect to the merits of the copyright claim and Sheeran vs the other party. It's easy to make the mistake based on the media coverage.

Here, first link, emphasis mine:

https://uproxx.com/pop/ed-sheeran-marvi ... explained/

"The copyright infringement lawsuit against Sheeran is over his 2014 song, “Thinking Out Loud,” which Gaye’s estate has claimed copies the late singer’s “Let’s Get It On.” It was officially filed by the family of the song’s co-writer and composer Ed Townsend."

It's clear that Gaye's estate is involved and, if I'm not mistaken, has spoken out to news media.