Entertainer Ed Sheeran has been found not guilty of infringing on four chords used in both his song and in Marvin Gaye's hit, "Let's Get It On". The same four-chord sequence is used in a lot of songs and at a key point in the trial a musicologist testified that the same four-chord sequence has been used in popular songs many times prior to Gaye's 1973 hit. The trial took place in Manhattan in New York and the jury took only three hours to reach a unanimous decision. The two songs featured at the trial also have very different lyrics and melodies as well as different use of the common four chords. While the decision does not form a legal precedent, it is likely to affect similar cases in the future.
During her closing argument, Farkas said the case never should have been brought and that Sheeran was "unjustly accused" of copying from "Let's Get It On."
"We all benefit from artists being free to create and to build on what came before them," Farkas said, warning the jury that a verdict against Sheeran would mean "creativity will be stifled for fear of being sued."
--ABC
Also
"I am just a guy with a guitar who loves writing music for people to enjoy," he added. "I am not and will never allow myself to be a piggy bank for anyone to shake."
--New York Times
Covered by:
- Digital Music News: Ed Sheeran Found 'Not Guilty' of Copyright Infringement In "Thinking Out Loud" Court Battle — As Sighs of Relief Emanate From Music Industry Corners
- BBC: Ed Sheeran wins Thinking Out Loud copyright case
- NBC: Ed Sheeran not liable in 'Let's Get It On' copyright trial, jury finds
- CNN: Jury finds Ed Sheeran did not infringe on the copyright of 'Let's Get It On'
- ABC: Ed Sheeran wins copyright infringement lawsuit involving 'Thinking Out Loud'
- New York Times: Ed Sheeran Wins Copyright Case Over Marvin Gaye's 'Let's Get It On'
and many others.
Related:
Somebody Wants to Copyright a Rhythm – Get Ready for the Dembow Tax If They Succeed
Appeals Court Rules Led Zeppelin Did Not Steal Stairway to Heaven RiffHappy Birthday Not Copyrighted, Court Rules
M.I.A. - Double Bubble Trouble
« How Music Can Prevent Cognitive Decline | Recent MIT Paper Proposes a New Method to "Grow" 2D Transistors on Top of Wafers »
Related Stories
M.I.A.'s latest music video for the song Double Bubble Trouble incorporates a lot of technology and themes familiar to Soylentils. Drones, 3D-printed guns, pervasive surveillance and anti-facial-recognition clothing. The street finds its own use for things. Moreover, after her label was reluctant to release the video, she posted it online herself only to have it taken down for "copyright infringement." The video was later restored to availability.
Happy Birthday To You! Guess Who Can't Be Sued? The Answer's Me & You. Public Domain: A Judge Rules.
"Happy Birthday" has just been released into the public domain, thanks to a court ruling by a federal judge in LA.
Judge George H. King ruled Tuesday afternoon that a copyright filed by the Summy Co. in 1935 granted only the rights to specific arrangements of the music, not the actual song itself.
"Because Summy Co. never acquired the rights to the Happy Birthday lyrics," wrote King. "Defendants, as Summy Co.'s purported successors-in-interest, do not own a valid copyright in the Happy Birthday lyrics."
"'Happy Birthday' is finally free after 80 years," said Randall Newman, an attorney for the plaintiffs, which included a group of filmmakers who are producing a documentary about the song. "Finally, the charade is over. It's unbelievable."
Of course, the trail of vultures isn't quite over yet. Class-action suites are already lining up to claim a share of the $2 million+ per year that Warner Music was reportedly earning off the song.
From the article, "Mark C. Rifkin, one of Nelson's attorneys, said the plaintiffs will pursue Warner for royalties paid since "at least" 1988, and could also ask the company to repay royalties that have been collected all the way back to 1935. It's not clear how much money that could entail."
"Movies and television shows have been made to look ridiculous all my life by singing "For He's a Jolly Good Fella" at birthdays instead of "Happy Birthday" so they don't have to pay a licensing fee. Today this wrong has been righted!"
Let's celebrate this victory for sane copyright by reproducing some multi-million dollar lyrics: Happy birthday to you / Happy birthday to you / Happy birthday dear $username / Happy birthday to you.
It's nice to get to take back a part of our culture.
Original Submission #1 Original Submission #2 Original Submission #3
Led Zeppelin have triumphed in a long-running copyright dispute after a US appeals court ruled they did not steal the opening riff in Stairway To Heaven.
The British rock legends were accused in 2014 of ripping off a song called Taurus by the US band Spirit.
Taurus was written in 1968, three years before Stairway To Heaven.
Now, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has upheld a 2016 trial verdict that found Led Zeppelin did not copy it.
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-51805905
Somebody wants to copyright a rhythm – get ready for the dembow tax if they succeed:
One of the most pernicious effects of today's copyright maximalism is the idea that every element of a creative work has to be owned by someone, and protected against "unauthorised" – that is, unpaid – use by other artists. That goes against several thousand years of human creativity, which only exists thanks to successive generations of artists using and building on our cultural heritage. The ownership model of art is essentially selfish: it seeks to maximise the financial gains of one creator, at the expense of the entire culture of which they are part. A good example of this clash of interests can be seen in yet another lawsuit in the music industry. This time, somebody is trying to copyright a rhythm:
The [Fish Market song] track featured the first known example of what would come to be known as a "dembow" rhythm – the percussive, slightly syncopated four-to-the-floor beat that travelled from reggae to become the signature beat of reggaeton, today the world-conquering sound of Latin American pop.
Now, more than 30 years after Fish Market was released, Steely & Clevie Productions is suing three of reggaeton's most celebrated hitmakers – El Chombo, Luis Fonsi and Daddy Yankee – for what they characterise as unlawful interpolation of Fish Market's rhythm (or "riddim"), and are seeking the credit – and royalties – they say they deserved from the start.
(Score: 5, Funny) by coolgopher on Sunday May 07, @01:33AM (3 children)
The whole thing reminded me of this skit [youtube.com] by Axis of Awesome.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by RS3 on Sunday May 07, @03:32AM (1 child)
It would've been so awesome if they had shown that video in court.
(Score: 4, Informative) by RamiK on Sunday May 07, @09:31AM
It was a bit more involved than that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kt1DXu7dlo [youtube.com]
compiling...
(Score: 2) by stormreaver on Sunday May 07, @04:11PM
I've seen that skit dozens of times, and it's still as good today as it was when I first saw it.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @02:46AM
The accusers, and prosecutors should be sued. That would have a definite effect on future cases.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Sunday May 07, @04:01AM
I hate to tell them this (OK, no I don't), but there are a very limited number of notes and they only cover so many octaves. Most of the potential combinations sound terrible.
The remainder still provide for a lot of songs, but not if we treat as little as 3 notes in succession as enough to be an infringement.
The only reason I can think of that the music industry hasn't collapsed into a suepocalypse yet is that lawyers and music executives must have lead ears (even a tin ear would hear too many commonalities to possibly take to court in a single decade).
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Ingar on Sunday May 07, @10:46AM (5 children)
"I am just a guy with a guitar who loves writing music for people to enjoy," he added. "I am not and will never allow myself to be a piggy bank for anyone to shake."
-- Ed Sheeran in the New York Times
"Ed Sheeran is an English singer-songwriter who has a net worth of $200 million. He is one of the wealthiest and most successful singers in the world today. In a given year in when he is touring, Ed can easily earn $70 – $100 million. For example he earned $65 million between June 2019 and June 2020 from his various endeavors."
-- celebritynetworth.com
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Sunday May 07, @11:02AM (3 children)
Do you have something against people who enjoy success honestly?
It's not like he's stealing the money from his fans...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Monday May 08, @03:03PM (2 children)
I agree that hating on the successful just for achieving success is mean and jealous. Yet such concentrated wealth is not good for anyone, not even the ones who end up with the wealth. It doesn't speak well of our systems and our excessive reverence for the famous and rich that money so easily concentrates. Seems people are trying to create heroes.
The most charitable take on the hate is to view it as unhappiness that our society does such a bad job at fairly compensating the 99%, to say nothing of putting more of our immense wealth back into sustainability. Taxation is one remedy. Another is pushing back against the ownership paradigm. This case was a battle between 2 powers, Gaye (his estate, of course), and Sheeran. This time, Gaye was the villain, on the ownership side practically standing in Captain Copyright's shadow, and lost. One battle decided in favor of the good.
But the war goes on. There will be more fights over who owns what ideas, musical and otherwise. I believe winning the campaign requires that the very idea of copyright be acknowledged as wrong, incompatible with reality, and superseded with patronage and crowdfunding systems. As to winning the war against ownership of all things that should not be owned, there are many more campaigns to win, such as weakening this idea of rationing health care as severely as is done in the US, and the high charges imposed on students for a college education which saddles them with student loan debt. What is a young college grad or dropout to think of how the world works that they start their careers with a big deficit? That ownership is the way of the world?
(Score: 2) by Ingar on Wednesday May 10, @08:40AM (1 child)
I pasted a quote from Sheeran himself and a piece of information from some random internet site. Any conclusions you draw are your own.
As for my own conclusions: I neither hate nor am I jealous. Although I do ask myself why we as a society should tolerate such minstrels amassing vast amounts of wealth.
I find the whole notion of 'owning a song' rather ridiculous. The modern musical system has 7 notes, mostly uses 6 chords, which are divided into three groups
(tonica, subdominant and dominant). The number of permutations you can make with 3 elements is rather limited.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday May 11, @12:51AM
> why we as a society should tolerate such minstrels amassing vast amounts of wealth.
It's less a matter of tolerance than one of preoccupation with more urgent matters, and laziness. We all have our goto merchants for music, commodities, and services. It's another case of the 80-20 rule: 20% of the vendors get 80% of the business. The top vendors seldom are superior, and often are inferior, as is the case with banks. You get the worst service at the biggest banks. But people still go to them because of their brand recognition and ubiquity. How to level that out, for the sake of more diversity and fairness? One way is to tax the rich. Since the 1980s, the US has been doing a very poor job of that. The rich actually pay less in tax than the poor! It's messed up. The whole idea of "Trickle Down Economics" is a load of bunk, just a feeble excuse for not taxing the rich.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @02:23PM
So...he's automatically in the wrong because he's been successful?
(Score: 4, Funny) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Sunday May 07, @11:00AM
Come on jury! You had ONE job [newser.com]...
(Score: 2) by GloomMower on Sunday May 07, @12:56PM
Really hate "Thinking out loud", would have been great not to hear it in the groceries stores anymore, but I the lawsuit would just change where the money goes, not remove the song :(
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Gaaark on Sunday May 07, @01:59PM (2 children)
who's Ed Scissorhand?
I'm guessing pop music of some kind. I'll pass.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by epitaxial on Sunday May 07, @09:17PM
Cousin of Peppy Roni?
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Monday May 08, @03:33PM
Yes, it's pop, and no, I haven't heard of him either, but THE MUSICAL GENRE IS BESIDES THE POINT. Your amygdala is overriding your cerebral cortex, I suspect.
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 2) by jman on Monday May 08, @01:15PM
Pythagoras wins again.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday May 10, @12:47AM
Those Marvin Gaye songs wouldn't be under copyright any more and this case could never have come to trial had it not been for Sonny Bono and a corrupt judicial system.
The rich pop singer Sony Bono got himself elected to the US Senate and made a lot of friends there before suffering a rich man's death at the hands of a skiing accident most could never afford. So for the poor dead talentless pop singer, they raised the copyright length from 20 years, extendable another twenty with proper paperwork and a twenty dollar fee, to the author's life plus ninety five years, ninety five if done for a corporation, without any copyright paperwork at all unless it gets to court.
Since the constitution allows copyrights and patents for limited times anybody with two functioning brain calls can't possibly believe that a century past the author's lifetime "The Congress shall have Power To...promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" is in any way constitutional. A lifetime plus a century is logically and reasonably unlimited.
I thought the law was passed as a result of bribery, but when folks tell me all congressman are crooked, I say it's almost statistically impossible that 535 people would ALL be corrupt. Then I realized, they don't have to be corrupt. 535 cowards fearful of losing an election are easy prey for the likes of the Music And Film Association of America (MAFIAA). "Nice campaign, be a shame if anything happened to it. You know I'm a good citizen who gives you and your opponent both fifty million buck campaign contribution. Be a shame if he got a hundred million and you got nothing."
But they can't do that to the Supreme Court. They face no election. It's been shown public ally that Clarence Thomas broke every ethical rule the judicial system has, Except the rules don't apply to the Supreme Court! Since the other eight refuse to enact a code of ethics, I must assume all nine are as God damned dirty as Thomas.
That not only explains "Limited means whatever congress says it means" but why Citizens United ruled that a corporation is a person (who can't go to prison or be executed for any crime, only fined).
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience