# Ed sheeran vs. marvin gaye lawsuit: let's compare!



## fiestared (Mar 14, 2019)

By Rick Beato 

In this video, we discuss the $100 million lawsuit faced by singer Ed Sheeran with his song "Thinking Out Loud", which the suit alleges borrowed elements from Marvin Gaye's "Let's Get It On".


----------



## Desire Inspires (Mar 14, 2019)

$100 million dollars? Man, please. 

Marvin Gaye’s whole catalog probably isn’t worth that much. I say toss that suit and make the Marvin Gaye estate donate $1 million to charity.


----------



## dzilizzi (Mar 14, 2019)

That whole blurred lines thing was a very dangerous precedent. At what point do we run out of songs. There are only so many chord progressions and ways to arrange notes into a melody. Some will be similar


----------



## Polkasound (Mar 14, 2019)

The topic of these two songs has kind of been hacked to death already.

My gut says that if ES was intending to rip off MG, he would have changed _something_ in that riff to make it a touch more original and hopefully avoid a potential lawsuit. ES probably heard the MG song at some point and it subconsciously resonated in the back of his head during the writing and recording process, and none of his production team caught it.

It's a common riff, but the tempo, syncopation, and instrumentation are too close to the MG song to be ignored. I think this could have and should have been settled out of court for a fraction of the song's proceeds and future royalties.


----------



## halfwalk (Mar 16, 2019)

How does this work for genres which are defined by certain musical idioms? Couldn't everyone who ever used a straight 4-on-the-floor beat all be suing each other? Or the reggaeton rhythm? Or the trap hihats? Or... gasp... ostinato strings?


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 16, 2019)

Please edit the thread title to avoid those two names in the same sentence.

Thank you.


----------



## fiestared (Mar 16, 2019)

Dave Connor said:


> Please edit the thread title to avoid those two names in the same sentence.
> 
> Thank you.


With pleasure, but I'm not sure to understand ?


----------



## MartinH. (Mar 16, 2019)

Is there some was to automatically find "similar" sections of music in two youtube videos? I've just listened to some music from Skyrim, and now I'm listening to the soundtrack of Supreme Commander, and several times I thought "didn't I just hear that part on the other soundtrack?". They're both from the same composer, and I'm wondering if they just sound familiar because of his style, or if there really are identical sections. However I'm not good enough to find this out by "just listening".


----------



## dflood (Mar 16, 2019)

Polkasound said:


> The topic of these two songs has kind of been hacked to death already.
> 
> My gut says that if ES was intending to rip off MG, he would have changed _something_ in that riff to make it a touch more original and hopefully avoid a potential lawsuit. ES probably heard the MG song at some point and it subconsciously resonated in the back of his head during the writing and recording process, and none of his production team caught it.
> 
> It's a common riff, but the tempo, syncopation, and instrumentation are too close to the MG song to be ignored. I think this could have and should have been settled out of court for a fraction of the song's proceeds and future royalties.



Wow, if all it now takes to sue or be sued is a similar groove, get ready for a shitstorm of lawsuits. Reggae composers in particular take note: lawyers are standing by for your calls.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Mar 16, 2019)

I would sue Ed Sheeran for the disgusting use of autotune all over the place.

And for his stupid back-to-front combed hair.


----------



## R. Soul (Mar 16, 2019)




----------



## MartinH. (Mar 16, 2019)

Can you sue a court for setting harmful precedents? We could crowdfund it...


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 16, 2019)

fiestared said:


> With pleasure, but I'm not sure to understand ?


Oh just kidding. You don’t have to do that. Marvin Gay is one of the premiere voices in all of Pop history and I don’t think Sheeran should be _mentioned in the same sentence _so to speak. But I’m hardly serious and just having a bit of fun.


----------



## Polkasound (Mar 16, 2019)

dflood said:


> Wow, if all it now takes to sue or be sued is a similar groove, get ready for a shitstorm of lawsuits



In this particular case, I would call the two grooves more than similar. They're more than just the same chord progressions. The two grooves are not carbon copies, but they're too close for comfort. In my opinion, there is a financial obligation owed to Townsend and Gaye's estates. It just too bad that it wasn't handled proactively through licensing, but then his could be one of those situations where someone showed Ed Sheeran, _after_ his song was released, how closely it sounds to Marvin Gaye's song, at which time Ed, his producer, his co-writers, and record label executives simultaneously crapped their pants.

Something to consider is that if that's what happened, they can't admit in court. They can't defend themselves by saying it was an accident and risk losing the lawsuit. They'll have to say they knew what they were doing all along, believing that Ed's song is too creatively dissimilar to Gaye's song to infringe on the copyright. So no matter how the lawsuit plays out, a precedent will be set -- one that says either composers need to be more wary of plagiarism, or that it's okay to copy another song's beat + tempo + bass line + drum groove + instrumentation + chord progressions + syncopation + mood as long as the rest of the song is different.

In my opinion, there are so many elements to music, that copyright lawsuits should not be considered until enough of these elements align in such a way that makes a sizable contingent of listeners raise their eyebrows. This is, of course, is a 100% gray area, and that unfortunately means that just about every song that exists, in some way, is fodder for lawsuit-hungry publishers.


----------



## dzilizzi (Mar 16, 2019)

What is really scary is that they are leaving it up to a bunch of jurors who may never have heard of Ed Sheeran and/or Marvin Gaye and know nothing about music. They start talking similar chord progressions and basslines and they won't know it's normal to use the same or similar. Also, it is really annoying to hear that both writers are dead. Really? I'm guessing the original writers would not have filed this lawsuit.


----------



## dflood (Mar 16, 2019)

Polkasound said:


> In my opinion, there are so many elements to music, that copyright lawsuits should not be considered until enough of these elements align in such a way that makes a sizable contingent of listeners raise their eyebrows. This is, of course, is a 100% gray area, and that unfortunately means that just about every song that exists, in some way, is fodder for lawsuit-hungry publishers.


I agree, but I think it’s impossible to establish where the line is, and legal precedents that push beyond melody and words are very problematic for everyone. For example, I just can’t hear this excellent song by Ray Lamontagne without thinking, wow that sure sounds a lot like Old Man by Neil Young! The words and melody are completely different but the groove is eerily similar to me. Still, I would never call this a rip-off.


----------



## dzilizzi (Mar 16, 2019)

dflood said:


> I agree, but I think it’s impossible to establish where the line is, and legal precedents that push beyond melody and words are very problematic for everyone. For example, I just can’t hear this excellent song by Ray Lamontagne without thinking, wow that sure sounds a lot like Old Man by Neil Young! The words and melody are completely different but the groove is eerily similar to me. Still, I would never call this a rip-off.



Sounds like a rip-off to me. 

LOL! I don't like Neil Young because my older sister overplayed him when I was a kid. So boring to me. I'm sure she thought he was cute. That tended to be her criteria. Anything that sound similar is just, well, not good.


----------



## whiskers (Mar 16, 2019)

IANAL but in these cases wouldn't you have to prove intentionality/intent of theft of IP? Probability says that you could have a lot of similar attributes as another track after awhile.

IDK...


----------



## Wolf68 (Mar 16, 2019)

this is really not easy to solve. the Problem is, that the style and the instrumentation is not only similar but _identical_.
BUT: 1) well, it's a verse chord Progression. if it were the Chorus, with a similar melody line, it would be different 2) it's a totally Standard chord Progression, who cares. if it were some really outstanding chord movement, it would be different for me. 3) it smells, it stinks, the seek for Money. so I think it's just a try to get a part of the cake and not really a Dispute between artists.


----------



## C.R. Rivera (Mar 16, 2019)

I know when the suits will stop: When rappers, hip-hop artists all get sued out of business for illegally "borrowing" from copyrighted material for their beats. Can you say James Brown might come back from the dead to testify


----------



## Polkasound (Mar 16, 2019)

whiskers said:


> IANAL but in these cases wouldn't you have to prove intentionality/intent of theft of IP?



I don't think proof of intent would change a verdict, but it certainly could have an effect on the judgement for damages.




dflood said:


> I agree, but I think it’s impossible to establish where the line is, and legal precedents that push beyond melody and words are very problematic for everyone.



I agree that establishing a universal line is impossible, but I think it can be done on a case-by-case basis. Legal precedents that push copyright protection beyond melody and words, in my opinion, are a necessary evil needed to protect songwriters and publishers. The downside is that such precedents could result in mountains of future lawsuits tying up the court system as millionaire artists frivolously sue other millionaire artists, each trying to move that line in their favor.




Wolf68 said:


> this is really not easy to solve.



I would love to be a fly on the wall in the courtroom to hear both sides. They're no doubt going to bring up all the points you made.

In case Ed's defense could use a little ammo, I would urge them to look at the music I play... Slovenian-style polka music. Even though there are many hundreds of polkas in existence being performed and recorded by artists like me, almost every song shares the same beat, tempo, and instrumentation. Many share the same chord progressions and song structure. Their only differences are in the melodies, and even then, some songs have melodies that are so strikingly similar to other songs that any juror pulled off the street would declare them to be the same song. But in polka music, this is the norm.

Unlike Slovenian-style polkas which conform to accepted similarities, Sheeran's and Gaye's songs are both soulful pop ballads. Such ballads should be allowed to share similar-sounding elements, whether they are chord progressions, instrumentation, tempo, syncopation, etc. but in my opinion, since soulful ballads are not a specific subgenre of music, they shouldn't share so many of these elements simultaneously that they literally sound like the same song.

Regarding greed, I think it's possible that the owners of "Let's Get it On" might be in it for the money. Just about every lawsuit of this nature is a money-grab in my opinion. But I do believe legal recourse is warranted in this particular case.


----------



## Zero&One (Mar 16, 2019)

Funny how these cases only pop up when millions are involved. Greed is an awful thing.

But I'm sure the "lawsuit was brought by the estate and heirs of late producer Ed Townsend" have music's best intentions at heart. Bless them


----------



## Reid Rosefelt (Mar 16, 2019)

I think this is kind of the same thing. Different lyrics, different melodies, just a few chords. Totally different songs. And I like Mazzy Starr and obviously Dylan didn't give a shit. But I remember listening to "Fade Into You" and thinking, "man, I would never have the nerve to do that. It always sounded to me like somebody was jamming to a Dylan classic and wrote a really good original song to it.


----------



## Polkasound (Mar 16, 2019)

James H said:


> But I'm sure the "lawsuit was brought by the estate and heirs of late producer Ed Townsend" have music's best intentions at heart.



But we don't know what, if anything, may have transpired prior to the lawsuit. There's always the possibility that Townsend's estate originally approached Sheeran seeking a pittance of the song's proceeds in lieu of a lawsuit, and instead of considering the offer, Sheeran replied with, "F*** you! Sue me!" We simply don't know.




TigerTheFrog said:


> Different lyrics, different melodies, just a few chords. Totally different songs.



If Mazzy Star wrote the song in 4/4 instead of 6/8, changed the 6th chord in the song from a B minor to a D major, and added background oohs and ahs, I think Bob Dylan would have made a phone call.


----------



## dzilizzi (Mar 16, 2019)

whiskers said:


> IANAL but in these cases wouldn't you have to prove intentionality/intent of theft of IP? Probability says that you could have a lot of similar attributes as another track after awhile.
> 
> IDK...


Based on the Stairway to Heaven lawsuit, they just need to show they might have heard it? I don't know that it worked though.


----------



## dflood (Mar 17, 2019)

dzilizzi said:


> Sounds like a rip-off to me.
> 
> LOL! I don't like Neil Young because my older sister overplayed him when I was a kid. So boring to me. I'm sure she thought he was cute. That tended to be her criteria. Anything that sound similar is just, well, not good.


Incidently, that song is named ‘Beg, Steal or Borrow’.


----------



## GtrString (Mar 17, 2019)

I think the Marvin Gaye estate speculate in the fact that there are very few good entertainment lawyers in the world. And if they get to court, layman votes can be tricked into considering similarities in chords, instrumentation and such. But the only copyrightable parts of a song is melody (including signature hooks) and lyrics.


----------



## toomanynotes (Mar 17, 2019)

fiestared said:


> With pleasure, but I'm not sure to understand ?


well it makes me feel constipated.


----------



## robgb (Mar 27, 2019)

It's clear to me that these days all you need is the same or similar chord progression and a musically stunted jury and a lot of idiotic youtubers will call it theft. There is a REASON that the only thing you can copyright is melody. Why lawyers don't pound this into the ground in court and show examples of isolated melodies only is beyond me.


----------



## storyteller (Mar 27, 2019)

As a lover of music, prior to reading about this suit, I never once considered I was hearing any part of Let’s Get It On when Ed Sheeran’s song was playing. However, there are hundreds of other songs that I could say “that sounds like _______.” Funny world.


----------



## halfwalk (Mar 28, 2019)

robgb said:


> It's clear to me that these days all you need is the same or similar chord progression and a musically stunted jury and a lot of idiotic youtubers will call it theft. There is a REASON that the only thing you can copyright is melody. Why lawyers don't pound this into the ground in court and show examples of isolated melodies only is beyond me.



Because that would be boring and nobody would make sensational, uninformed youtube videos about it. Show biz, baby.


----------

