Why the Ed Sheeran lawsuit makes no sense
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 лип 2018
- Ed Sheeran is being sued for the similarity between Thinking Out Loud and Marvin Gaye’s Let’s Get it On. This makes absolutely no sense - yes, Thinking Out Loud uses similar chords, but you can’t own chords, and if you could, that would be making a mockery of how music has been made for centuries.
"Your manuscript is both good and original; but the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good." -- attributed to Mark Twain
THE LAWSUIT www.courthousenews.com/wp-con...
Rick Beato’s Video on the Ed Sheeran lawsuit • ED SHEERAN VS. MARVIN ...
HUGO REIMANN “HARMONY SIMPLIFIED” (lol) ia800207.us.archive.org/5/ite...
Essay on parallelklang pdfs.semanticscholar.org/673f...
Broad vs. thin copyright protection www.law.com/therecorder/2018/...
PALESTRINA - Motettuorum Quinque Vocibus • PALESTRINA, Giovanni P...
(⌐■_■)
⦿ Adam Neely T-shirts! ⦿
teespring.com/stores/adam-nee...
⦿ SUPPORT ME ON PATREON ⦿
/ adamneely
⦿ FOLLOW ME ON THE INTERNETS ⦿
/ adamneely
/ its_adamneely
⦿ Check out some of my music ⦿
sungazermusic.bandcamp.com
insideoutsidemusic.bandcamp.com
adamneelymusic.bandcamp.com
Peace,
Adam
Claiming copyright infringement of a 4 chord progression is like claiming a copyright on primary colors.
Trademark is different from copyright.
also purple is a secondary color
Exactly. This basic ass pop shit is all the same anyway. It’d be different if it was like Yngwie Malmsteen being sued for copying some Bach piece under a different name. But no lol
I OWN THE COLOR RED. LOL
Imma go I iii IV V in 80bpm
There are literally entire music genres based on the same bass line style
I'm waiting for the Bossa catalog to all collectively sue each other
Have you heard Brazilian funk by any chance? Literally the same thing everytime
But some dumbass modern piece of shit trying to make a song ripping off an old song it's a little bit different than being inspired it's just pathetic everybody's making shit music with no originality in this just defines today's music it's all bulshit
Timmy Kenny wow bro that’s crazy but have you heard any music by Black Midi, Swans, Death Grips, Yves Tumor, Mount Eerie, King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard, Weatherday, The Voidz, Superorganism, 100 gecs, SOPHIE, Car Seat Headrest, Machine+, JPEGMAFIA, Open Mike Eagle, Xiu Xiu, Ariel Pink, Candy Claws, Beach House, Tropical F*** Storm, Pure Adult, Frank Ocean, Glass Beach, Lemon Demon, Clipping, Kero Kero Bonito, Fiona Apple, Billie Eilish, or Tyler, The Creator? I mean that’s just the start of it and these are artists of several different genres that all have albums filled with personality and originality that have come out in the past couple years. If you don’t think any modern music is good, you’re clearly not making any effort to seek any out.
@@timmykenny717 shut the fuck up boomer
This is scary stuff. The more lawsuits like these that succeed, the more that massive corporate entities are able to control art and reduce creativity. I hope this trend turns around soon somehow. In the 60s and 70s the fight was against lyrical censorship, now it’s against this.
It won’t. Corporations are heavily lobbying for stricter control and more power over creative mediums. Meanwhile there’s not really anyone fighting them at least not on a similar level. Support against the increasing control is also fragmented with corporations building narratives that they’re doing this to protect art and artists (because they totally aren’t the ones screwing artists over and only care about exploiting their works for sales).
The more of this kind of crap they pull- the less power the corporations and the state will have.
creativity is the very core of human nature, they cannot take it away and the more they try- the more they will lose their power.
Take punk rock for example, it was a direct response to the conformist society where it spawned- a creative outlet for the anger felt by a generation of teenagers who felt their individuality and creativity was being suppressed.
If they actually make creating music illegal, people will simply ignore them. you might as well try to make it illegal to breath.
If their goal was to reduce creativity, they shouldn't be attacking Ed Sheeran of all people.
@@youtubeuserdan4017
You got me with that one lol
The sad thing is that they couldn’t give a rat’s arse about the actual music, they just want to make money
That's why they should lose, and be forced to pay Ed Sheeren a lot of money. Perhaps the amount they were suing for.
What happened at the end? Has a decision been made?
You just described an attorney.
@@davidseverance9282 Imagine if attorneys couldn't base their work on the work of those who came before. That'd be fun "objection, he isn't raising an original argument".
@@corybarnes2341 True. So many lawyers refer to previous supreme court and other rulings. If that wasn't allowed, what would happen then lol?
It's like McDonalds suing you for making a hamburger with lettuce , tomato, onions AND pickles!
No problem then, make your hamburger with lettuce, tomato, pickles AND onions. This changes the functional sequence of the assembly therefore is original...
If that were the case, then Wendy's, Burger King, and all other Fast Food Burger joints, including mom and pop joints, would be gone.
No mc Donald hamburger has tomatoes onn
BUT, McDowell's buns have no seeds
Its like Apple suing you for using a screen on your phone
How to get rich: Step one: Make a generic song. Step two: Wait for someone to eventually make something that sounds sort of similar. Now you're rich!
Emmy Mae Congratulations, your generic song sounds exactly like me own copyright protected generic song. I am now suing you for 2$ and a casio watch!
1. Define generic?
2. Once weve done that how do you even prove that two humans didnt just create something the same (generic or non generic) without any interaction or knowledge of the other persons creation? My point is even when something IS actually identical 99% of people will just automatically assume it was conscious plaguerism instead of the possibility that just by co incidence someone else created something that is the same as something else lol. Even if a song is "famous" there is no guarantee someone has heard it (i know people who havent heard of stevie wonder or michael jackson believe it or not)
nezkeys79 ever heard of a joke
this copyright stuff is kinda wack. copyright claims made on youtube should be sued for ripping off music copyright claimers because they are clearly stealing their thing.
The hilarious part is that this could actually work haha
If we're gonna start claiming chord progressions then imagine how many people would get sued for using the I-V-vi-IV progression
They could sing "Those magic changes" as a closing argument.
Bach
Every time I've seen or read about copyright cases Bach is used as an example of who did it first.
The man really did everything.
If he just lived 250 years longer, he could have made tons of money on copyright lawsuit.
@@JackTheMurderer Thankfully copyright wasn't around then. Bach basically got an church organist/choir director salary. Without the megabucks that modern celebrities think is their due - and he seemed a happy man - with 20 children! He was also modest - said anyone could write his fugues if they put the work in. He also actually quite often borrowed melodies that had been around - and sometimes developed them into fantastic fugues. Both ancient religious and folk tunes and that of his contemporaries. And his contemporaries did the same. And often they did not even attribute these melodies. And it didn't affect the quality of music. (In fact I think it is pretty safe to say music of a higher standard then - I can't imagine Sheeran or Townsend being able (or put in the work) to write anything like a fugue. Intellectual property rights have destroyed music, not improved it. And of course it has made a few people very, very, rich.
Nah - _that_ was _Slonimsky's Thesaurus of Scales and Melodic Patterns._ Every possible thing to do with four notes in the key of C and still took 256 page!
White peoples would say anything. People of color don’t go for the bullshit.
Except he was largely influenced by the Italian school and these progressions go to before Bach.
"Let's ask a dead german" should be the name of this channel
underrated
200
“Why is genocide a good thing, let’s ask a dead a german”
@@kcatthirtysix i wonder how many people have yet to realize that hitler was not german, but born in austria
@@kcatthirtysix I hope that you understand that there are MANY antifascistic germans
The Bach estate is about to make a lot of money
Luckily he has been dead for 268 years.
Anonymous thats why the [estate] is making alot of money.
It's a shame Guido D'Arezzo never patented musical notation
This is the greatest youtube comment of all time. You deserve every one of those 1.1k likes.
Simon Burford not even close
2050: “This song uses the exact same 12 tone equal temperament system as mine. This is clearly a blatant rip-off of my work”
AD 2100: "Not only is this song in 4/4, but it has quarter notes in it. This is clearly an overt rip-off of my work!"
I must have been living under a rock as this video is 4 years old and I just watched it today and found out about this law suit - then as soon as I finished watching it found the jury found he didn't copy the song. While I agreed with everything you said in the video - I'm also glad the jury did in the end as well!
You can't own chords, but you can own scales. And I own C major.
c ya guys in court
But...I like c major ):
Ceems like we're all in major trouble
Noo.... thats cheating
I’ll take b##
I understand that. But that was me with lil peep, I believe everyone is welcome and you can become a fan even after they're dead.
1.) Ed Sheeran hires me as lawyer
2.) Walks into court room wheeling tv on cart
3.) Plays this video
4.) Wins
Sorry, just thinking out loud
I concur.
word :)
Wonderfull idea.
badum *tss*
@Time Traveller nd he writed without thinking?!?
You shouldn't even be able to own a melody. We only have 12 notes. The criteria for infringement should be insanely restricted to situations in which a work deliberately thieves from anothers by means of deception, like taking an artists name, ripping off entire lyrics, or directly taking the song itself and monetizing/distributing it without credit and/or license.
Even using the same melody has the opportunity to be VASTLY transformative in innumerable ways. Even covers and remixes can contain enough alternate elements that I'd argue would make a significant portion of the end result no longer belong to you.
There are other tuning systems tho
Effort is a determined attempt that's typically failure and is uncertain to work? Antonym of fail? Why is it that you can't say attempt & why is attempt associated with fail and crimes and suicide & yet you think it means achieves its desired purpose; succeed?
our song limit is only 3,67,87,32,28,800 songs we can make and that is really sad to me because i love music and song making might come to an end in the future..
@@prabhathneni1352 What makes you say this?
SquishyMuffinz
The thing that always gets me about this sort of stuff is that, statistically speaking, at some point, there's gonna be nothing original to write anymore. There's only so many notes and chords to choose from. At some point were going to run out of "original" music. Like, I just wrote a song recently, and after listening to it a couple times I realized that one of my kinda ambient vocal melodies in the chorus was the exact same as the bridge of "dance monkey" by Tones and I. However, otherwise the song shares zero similarities other than arguably they have a similar swing to them. I feel like this case is a little different cause they're actually in the same slow swing love song kinda style, so there's a little more to cling to, but I really don't think they have a strong case here.
Microtonal music will be the future
@@vibrantdragon3123 I think so too but most of the general public can’t even hear/identify microtones so we’ll have to condition the masses to the sound first somehow lol.
Chess is much simpler than music but even Alpha Zero hasnt “finished” it. It would take longer than the universe to write every possible music.
@@ericoschmitt But most of the possible melodies don't work. I agree with your mindset, but I think we can't be sure about the specific number
Nobody's really trying to write original music or rather, I'm sure people are, but 'commercial' music recycles the same four chords (with incredible streaming results - diverting ML recommendations on Spotify and other platforms away from original writing).
Almost every song from the 50s literally sounded the same but still no lawsuit there wow
1990• yeah but there's just some people in life that make arguments just to get they want even if their case/s don't make any sense
No song from the 50's sounded like that
Chuck Berry and the Beach Boys for one
potato Carrot I mean most of the 50s music sounds the same Even if Its good
@@SlashManEXE
Chuck Berry sued and won. They didn't sound alike, they were the same.
All those people playing the blues should be sued. All of 'em!
Langfocus you're channel is amazing
Langfocus hey paul, could you do a vid talking about Georgian (Kartvli)?
12 bar blues and the minor Pentatonic scale have never changed lol. If you copyright it everyone, and I mean everyone, that has every made a blues song is screwed. So pretty much everyone lmao.
Langfocus Holy cow! I honestly did not expect to see you Paul. Your channel is awesome! 👍😎
Playing the blues?! Better sing those greens!
Holy crap. I remember watching this when it came out. When I heard about the case I was confused because I thought it already happened. I can’t believe it took four years for this to be settled. Jesus.
I was like “4 years ago” what? It only just ended. No wonder he said he would leave his career. 4 years of bs just for him to be in the right the whole time.
Thats how close he came to loosing this.
The "Earth Angel" progression has been so common in mid-20th C music that at our family singalongs we like to sing a medley - Blue Moon (no bridge), Santa Catalina, Silhouettes, Shaboom, whatever - then rather like a round, each person sings a different song simultaneously. It works-Fun! But is there a lawsuit in it?....
This is like Jim Sterling's copyright deadlock tactic except with music.
Saying that I6 is the same as iii is like your waiter saying "is pepsi ok?"
Daniel Hernandez I worked as a waitress. I had coworkers that would get the order of coke, and not even ask. They just gave them pepsi, thinking it was basically the same thing. At the time I was a cocacolic and was horrified!
Bottled coke tastes like ass. Fountain coke is much better, but if they have Dr. Pepper I'll be getting that. And Pepsi tastes good no matter where it comes from.
@@branfrd american?
@@hannahbis420 Yes
@@hannahbis420 Us Americans are conuesuers of sugar-based unhealthy beverages
Whoever came up with the 12 bar blues chord progression must be kicking themselves
Pretty sure he's not around to know better...but his relatives can sue everyone if they want, apparently...
That person is long dead because the 12 bar blues progression goes back to at least the end of the 19th of the century
Yeah man, on my next jam session Imma call out an Ed Sheeran in C
It was me.... pay up guys!
Cortexturizer Nah man lets do a Stockhausen in Eb
*looks at date of video*...
*looks at news of this lawsuit JUST reaching a verdict this week*...
THIS LAWSUIT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR ALMOST FIVE YEARS???
I literally thought that there was an error in the date, lmao
Don't know why the US waste too much time on lawsuits
This. This should be used as court evidence for Sheeran's defense
I’m guessing it will be
We hope so
The people responsible for protecting marvin gaye's works kinda sue a lot of people
Beary Boy its easy money.
Beary Boy Pretty gaye if you ask me
...and they won a case that most legal experts agree they shouldn't have won.
Jason Andrews
Yup, which opened the door to all this bullshit.
Didn't they sue Blurred Lines
this is like suing an artist for using a simlar use of colour and composition as you
Don't give the lawyers any suggestions.
Original Character DO NOT STEAL:
>Insert a bad Sonic recolor
"No one has ever used this color scheme before" (says about red white and blue)
By this logic why dont countries sue each other for having similar flags
No, this is like copying the Mona Lisa and changing her hair or eye color. LISTEN to the two songs and it instantly becomes apparent that Ed's song is a copy of Marvin's. It's not just the chord progression, the songs SOUND the same in just about every aspect. Add to the fact that Ed Sheeran is a Marvin Gaye fan and has heard that song many times and there leaves no room for doubt. The only question is, was it accidental or intentional. For myself, I don't see how it could have been accidental. Either way, it's definitely a copyright issue. There are 12 notes in multiple octaves with different modes and scales, etc., in western music. There are almost 11 billion chord combinations just from 3 note chords, triads, and there are all kinds of different chords besides these basic ones. Factor in all possibilities and it basically becomes limitless, infinite, for all intents and purposes. Saying everything has been done and nothing can be original and we should expect songs to sound like each other etc., is more ridiculous than saying we should expect authors to produce the same novels etc. because there are only so many letters in the alphabet.
Your musicology knowledge is just like, wow! I’m blown away by all this info and the way you present it. What the heck is up with Marvin Gaye’s estate? This is the second “song theft” lawsuit by them I’ve heard about. They’re out of control. If making songs that sound kind of similar is illegal, there goes the whole genre of Reggaeton! 😳
This guy is some kind of. Genius
All genres of music work this way. Rock and roll, blues, disco, it doesn't matter, we're all making music that sounds like the kind of music we like.
As alluded to in the video, most chord progressions are stolen from Bach anyway. I wish I could somehow get legal rights to everything bach wrote just to f*** with copyright trolls
And I don't want to overemphasize Bach too much, he made some very real changes to how harmony works but he also, you know, copied other people's ideas
Also, fantastic job on the EDITING!!! It does wonders for elevating the delivery of the content
Literally the point of music theory is to take elements of existing effective music and put it into a new context. This lawsuit is anti-music
Not only the lawsuit, but also the decision may be due to how the jury swings in this case. I personally wouldn't mind seeing this go to the Supreme Court.
There's a difference between taking elements of music and using them in an original way, and what Ed Sheeran did with his song. The accompaniment part is a blatant rip off from the Marvin Gaye song (you really can't get much closer to that without using sampling). But is it really an original enough part? I think that's the main question, and that's why I'm not 100% sure on my opinion.
This isn't only about the chords or the bassline or any of the elements separately - it's about the combination of those elements, and you rarely have songs that use the same combination of tempo, groove, bassline, drum beat, chord progression and instrumentation. The arguments the lawsuit uses, though, are flawed. I think it's trying too hard to find similarities between the songs, and it's making ridiculous claims like the song is the only song ever to use this chord progression in this tempo or that the melodies are supposedly the same when they really aren't even close.
Have you looked at what's on the Supreme Court lately, and what it's going to look like after Trump’s second pick arrives?
MaggaraMarine I think you're missing the point. The notion of "owning" a musical idea is utterly pants-on-head insane. It's like claiming to own a mathematical equation. Theorists know this already. It's just that people in the "music industry" make a lot of money by pretending that their fever-dream delusions about owning abstract concepts have any merit. It's best to tell those people to go fuck themselves and continue to make music in whichever way you see fit.
Do we know who trump's second pick is? I didn't think he'd announced it yet.
I copyright Dm7b5, henceforth I now own Christmas
I shall replace it with Fm6 Hahahaha (evil laughter)
Well played
Okay okay... I'll write my Christmas song in G major so I can use Am7b5. 😛
Defense99 GOT EM!!
And all Disney songs!
I agree with this video. The people who are doing these frivolous lawsuits are selling us out for short term gain but long term they are screwing over artists with this legal precedent for many years to come and (hopefully not) generations.
Okay, seeing the lick when you were explaining cantus firmus just made my day... Thank you, Adam.
great video and i totally agree w you dude... this lawsuit is so silly. i think it's absurd that cases about music theory are decided by a jury with likely little to no musical knowledge. it basically encourages people to bring ridiculous lawsuits hoping they get lucky with the jury and win a big settlement 😕
Kurt Hugo Schneider why is nobody replying to you
With technical cases of any kind the jury system is flawed - we can see this increasingly in lawsuits around software (for instance) too where juries have to rule on subjects it might take a PhD to truly understand, and the judge isn't any better informed than the jury. The same is true of politicians passing many laws, but sadly it's hard to see a simple solution.
I😉 think it would be fun and prove a point if some composers took some time to write completely different songs with the same chords and rhythm as thinking out loud to end this discussion and prevent musical restriction ;) I did it on my channel, I hope some will follow...
This is why juries, politicians, and judges need access to individuals and resources relating to the cases they're handling. Not everyone is a 'Jack of all trades'. Hearing from industry experts on matters with legal implications for those industries is almost a necessity. Related reading materials, too.
That is odd. Almost like Sheehan's legal team arranged a bunch of up votes without realizing that looks odd without actual replies.
Considering there are only a finite number of chord progression permutations, if this BS keeps up, it will be impossible one day to compose any new music without someone filing an infringement lawsuit.
true.
and they know it, they really want to destroy music and convert it into a very very very primitive one without musical notes.
@Timothy James greedy people i guess
@Timothy James The estate holders of dead musicians.
Actually, there are an infinite number of chord progressions; ever heard of microtones? Just make sure you're .001 Hertz out of tune on the first chord and you're golden! Or maybe go all-out and compose a song using a 13-note scale!
Dude, this is such an informative and yet funny video, well done! I bet it's hard to pull this off!
Bro your videos are so well done. And you’re really smart and I learn a lot, thank you!!
Ed should hire you to present this on court. :D
Ευτύχης Μπλέτσας βλεπω εισαι και εσυ ανθρωπος της μουσικης θεωριας
Ο τελευταίος άνθρωπος που περίμενα να δω εδω
Ευτύχης Μπλέτσας in
Or he could just play the video... I'm just thinking out loud tho
I think he could definitely testify as a professional.
The defense should just play this video at the trial xD
Zebo12345 then they get sued by the owner of this video...
CantBeatMeHaHa why would they be? They wouldnt be taking someone's work and stealing it to pass it off as their own
+CantBeatMeHaHa I mean it's a funny joke, but there would be no legal basis. You an show this video in court without stepping on any legal issues. If the judge permits it, it's permitted. They could show Star Wars in the court legally if it was relevant to the case.
true!
1000000% they should..!
Great and outstanding research!! Congratulations 👍
I learned more about music in this 10 minute video than I did from a one semester course in college. Very well done. I think it should be presented to the jury as evidence.
Ed sheeran's lawyer wants to *know your location*
I'll admit, I didn't understand half of what you said, but it sounded very clever.
Imagine being a selected for jury duty in a case where you don't understand a single word of what's being said... It's like, *SUPER HELL*
Same
Rick, bruh how did you get past the screening process 😂
Rick lol I get kicked off. They ask if I have any prejudices. I say Is there any bikers on the case? Because if your an inconsiderate jerk that drives by on a loud harley my opinion of you is decided instantly. They also don't like when I openly say I'm an atheist so I can swear on god or anything.
Corylus Bluefox doesn’t mean it’s correct. But it probably is lol
I love his presentations!
Very informative and (fairly) easy to understand...
Law Firm: *Tries to sue Ed Sheeran for sounding too similar to another artist*
Rappers with Garage Band, Dreadlocks and "Lil" in their name: *sweating profusely*
These lawsuits are going to kill the music industry
Edit: I find it funny that youtubers like Adam do a better job of defending the art than the actual lawyers
It's not. It's going to kill small independent artists.
Mr WiseGuy I find in interesting that there's a music industry but not an art or visual industry set the same way
Agreed. Defense lawyers should hire him.
That's because Adam is an artist, not a lawyer lol
The music industry is already dead. greedy record companies killed it years ago. and these days the only reason record labels sign new acts is so they can control any real talent that comes along and steal from the real talent to help their auto tuned wannabe's they've signed to make fast money. they use the talent of the real artist to push their fake artists. Right now radio stations and record labels are telling you what to like.
It's like suing a painter because their painting used similar colors to yours
or they painted the same thing but in a different way
Not even close. It's more like someone painted the same background as you and but different subject matter in the front. He's guilty
Kougeru after thinking about your comment, it kinda makes sense..
Kougeru yeah but that background being of a geologically similar mountain rather than the same mountain. You can not copywrite chord progressions otherwise nobody (or very very few) would be able to write decent music. I refer you to the Axis of awesome 4 chord medley for reference. This is a frivolous lawsuit and I hope the plaintiff goes bankrupt for bringing it. It's only for personal gain and not just at the cost to Ed Sheeran but to the entire institution of music as a whole. Next we'll be copywriting guitar tunings ffs.
Garrett Jacobs more like painted the same picture with different colors but good try
My suggestion for the Defendant is to use the Axis of Awesome defense. I, V, vi, IV. show how many different songs run off that one chord progression. How each makes a completely different mood, character, and Message. You cannot copyright a chord progression.
Thanks for the clear and unflustered explication, Adam. I wholeheartedly agree with your placing of this argument within the clear music-history context. Lawyers gone mad! We had a similar famous case here in Australia in which a greedy publisher sued Colin Hay and Ron Strykert for breach of copyright in "Downunder" because the opening flute melody contained an abstracted 'quotation' of a famous Australian children's song. (not even recognised by anyone, including the composer for about 20 years - it was a passage totally recontextualised - a former major melody played in a relative minor, etc! "Quotation" it has been a pillar of western art for millenia.
Dude, this is such a detailed explanation, I wouldn’t be surprised if Ed Sheeran’s law team call you up and bring you in as a witness to explain this.
Thinking the same bro
He just needs to dumb it down for the judge to understand it. :3
Nah, if I can understand that no problems, without a lot of musical background, I don't see why a judge wouldn't
Me (No, not Ashildr, I had the name before Doctor Who, and I'm not changing it!) is pretty easy to understand with the support of images And musical examples in a video versus just speech
its almost impossible to create any pop music without copying chord progressions from past songs.
thats why intellectual property doesn't exist
de facto intellectual property doesn't exist man, you can't prove that ideas and imaterial products are scarce
@Kaptain Kid Just wanna say that we're all impressed at how smart you are bud
exactly - "pop" "popular" "Borrowed"
@@nomnombr should not. in the USA, it's a legal concept. and the courts can bite you. want it not to exist (as a legal concept) go try to change it.
Great breakdown video. Nice to get a historical view of the old and new in terms of composition.
You did a great job on your research here, Adam. I think the video title, “You Can’t Own Chords,” says it all. Otherwise, blues song composers would have been paying royalties through the nose for 12-bar blues progressions over the last 100+ years. On another note (See what I did there?), when did the IV chord become the “predominant”? Back in my music theory days (early 1970s), we called it the “subdominant.”
Adam, this video clearly follows a "introductory explanation, comparison, contrast, analysis, conclusion" format. I think the record will show that I have released videos in this _exact_ fundamental format previously. You can expect to hear from my lawyers. I hope you have $100,000,000.
Adam's video like many I have made in the past uses words utter by mouth. He should expect notice from my lawyer in the near future. Added to which Anderson, you will be hearing from my lawyer for infringing use of punctuation. I have written comments that utilize puncuation that predate yours and set a precedent.
TheCompleteGuitarist, I think you will find that I have made satirical comments in a similar vain addressing two parties in the legal sense such as you have just here long before you posted this one. My attorney will be in contact and a cease and desist will be sent.
TheCompleteGuitarist He breathes while making this video, just like I did in the past.
Expect to get a call from my lawyer soon.
You're writing a informal and a warning influenced comment on a UA-cam channel's comment section, sir the only person you'll get in touch tomorrow is my Lawyer.
Owen, I have previously used words erroneously, and lay claim to your confusion of the words vain/vein. That is actually my error, not yours, and you are not allowed to make it without my permission.
Adam, please make sure the defendant's attorney gets a copy of this video. They may be able to play it in court, depending on the whims of the judge. If not, they can certainly use some of your well-stated points in their arguments. Good job!
Yes
Yes. The lawsuit could CRUMBLE under just this video. If they brought Adam in as 'Expert Testimony', it'd be over in less time that it took to write this.
PLEASE do this
Adam should take part in ALL musical related cases.
This must happen
You demonstrate how UA-cam channels should gain subscribers, through effort and thorough work. You deserve every success.
You put a lot of time and effort into these explanations... marvin gaye's estate should never have won the first law suit that was ruled in their favor... they now seem to be on a path to attempt to own all of music. I appreciate this point of view, and very much agree with the fundamental opinion which summarily
is~~~> 8:22
How the heck would they know if no other song ever created in the history of music uses those same chords? This whole thing is just ridiculous
That should be reason enough to throw out the case because this makes no sense when creating music.
Yeah for real, there are 10,000 new songs uploaded to SoundCloud everyday
Why don't people sue every blues song that has the 12 bar blues progression in it?
So true
Led Zeppelin would be fucked.
It looks like THAT'S exactly where this is all leading. I wonder who wrote the very first D C G song? Now that's a person with a good copyright case!
Leo Du most of them are dead. The rest of them probably don’t have the money for lawyers or even know they have been ripped off.
I thought you can't steal a chord progression cause it's naturally occurring in music...but it's the lick that you can sue for...
The musical skills. The video editing skills. I STAN.
Dude, as a Renaissance music scholar, I love you are bringing up Cantus Firmus!
Copyright the lick, make millions on filing lawsuits against the jazz industry.
Go broke because theres no money in jazz. lol
Azathoth43 Damn, as a jazz musician, that hurts that it's soo so true
Phi6er Gene Simmons actually has the copyright to all notes
You sir are a psychopath
The 2-5-1 progression would be make some lawyers very happy.
Unclear copyright laws make things unnecessarily difficult.
Oh God, can I get claimed for that sentence structure?
The actual laws are very clear - melody and lyrics only - and the concept dates back a long time - because they were the only elements thought to be unique enough to warrant some protection. These court cases (Blurred Lines, That Ed Sheeran Song and Dark Horse), you have uneducated juries being swayed by dodgy "musicologists" who are just out to make a fast buck as a so-called expert witness. For whatever reason the defendants can't seem to get a decent one to rebut (Someone like Rick Beato or Adam Neely for example). This stuff should never have been allowed to proceed in the first place as there was no standing in the law. There is no law protecting "groove" (Blurred Lines), no law protecting chord progressions (Ed Sheeran) and no law protecting Timbre (Dark Horse). The plaintiffs motivations were different in each case as well, which is another topic entirely.
What about software codes? Its even more ridiculous. Copyright as you type? WTF!?!
Cinta Damai You cant copyright specific lines of code, but you can copyright entire software code.
Its quite easily proven that you used most of the code if you used some software as backround.
Fallout Shleter and Westworld had clearly the same code with different textures, so thats why you can go to court with it.
Its even more lenient than if you for example, copy a line (quot) from a book and did not do any changes. Simply called plagiarism.
@@KeyUSeeCZ I agree yes. It should be fir a finished program(subset) or product. Its silly to copyright a mathematical expression such as codes.
I'll see you in court pal.
People really should NOT be copyright laywers if they don't understand the type of music theory you're talking about. Great video.
The lawsuit was just plain ridiculous from the get-go. Ed Sheeran not only deserved the win but also protected musical artists as well.
Great breakdown of the hows an whys of the case 👍👍👍
"It should be noted that the tempos of the two songs are virtually identical: Gaye’s
song clocks in at about 83 beats per minute, while Sheeran’s sets a slightly slower pace of about
79 beats per minute."
From the lawsuit.. Even to bring up tempo is beyond ridiculous. So what? two songs have the same tempo? (which obviously they don't even have in this case).
Madness by nature knows no limits. "virtually the same" there is like imitating an internet meme involving the worst of conspiracy theory.
"Virtually identical" Jesus, could you imagine if it was a murder case (something that is actually worthwhile pursuing) and the fingerprint was "virtually identical"? The judge would throw you out of court until you can prove that it is the exact same set of fingerprints.
Those song are 4 beat apart that in DJ terms that pretty far away
@@UserJWR That is, unless you had enough money. Judges have made worse decision in the past, and legal the system in the US is designed to allow corruption.
Obviously you should've written that song in 87.3927bpm
As a composer, this lawsuit is utter bullshit. The chord progressions sound similar, sure, but not the same. Even if they *were* the same, the plaintiff is literally trying to lay claim to a chord progression - they’re trying to lay claim to a fundamental piece of music itself. I get copyright and stuff like that, because musicians need to make money too. But a chord progression? That’s just insane.
Music is something that should be shared, experienced; not owned.
Macabre Music In 200 years we will have made every musically possible combination of notes that everything gets sued by mass music sueing companies. Great plot for a sci-fi movie.
To quote Adam Neely himself (in his video on elemental arranging), "Nobody is original. Every inspiring piece of music and work of art you have ever experienced has been stolen from people who have done it before. Your job as an artist is not to be original. Rather, it's to take what others have done and mold that into something that you like. The more successful that you are in blending elements stolen from your influences into a unified whole, the more 'original' you are."
Macabre Music u cant copyright chord progression. You can copyright melody and not Thick v gaye has documented that feel can be challenged too
Pradigy Musicman there's even a strong argument to say copyrighting a melody is largely bullshit
I believe copyright law uses lead sheets so it shouldn't be possible to sue based on chords alone
Chord progressions cannot be copyrighted, as spelled out in copyright law. The lawyer trying to bring that up is...I'm not sure what his point is. Presumably, Sheeran has a decent legal team, and they'll get that aspect of the case tossed in pre-trial motions, as it has no basis in the law.
Here a few months after the lawsuit, I learned about it today when I saw video saying that Ed Sheeran won. 😂
Thanks for covering this topic and being so informative!
Just watched a post verdict juror interview.
Her knowledge in all aspects, was Impressive!
Great Job, Well Done 🧙♂️🥳
I copyrighted the C major chord, see you in court suckers!
I never use that chord anyways
Ba-Boom
Chase Dunkley and don't even think about transposing! I think I also used a minor chord once, so it's best to avoid those too
You're right. From now on I'll only use diminished#11 chords.
Chase Dunkley go ahead, that chord is too complicated for my music anyway
Everyone uses that in aural skills to cop out sight singing
Next painters will sue other painters because they used blue, yellow and red.
TV programs will sue other TV programs because they used blue, green and red
I should sue my mum because she has similar DNA as me. Or maybe my mum and dad should sue me because I have their chromosomes.
@@v6790 xd
Well, DA artists already do that. 😂
Not quite that simple. Using yellow blue and red is fine. Using a yellow sky, blue building and red automobile, if another painting used that combination might be considered plagiarism.
@@spareplanet r/wooosh
best vid on the subject. really well done.
Excellent analysis, superior logic, salient points... why do people keep having this argument????
Anyone who does music should be sued. Everyone has hit the same key as someone else before
Including everonye who ever whistled, sneezed more than once on a row, hummed, clapped, snapped their fingers or made sounds. All these filthy criminals belong in prison...
TheKlikluk | Lets Plays apparently you can gey sued for singing the happy birthday song
Not anymore, it's public domain now.
Jay Sea was just about to say
John Smith lmao yep, especially now, all pop music sounds the same...
I now own the letter A and the concept of communication. All y'all getting sued. See you in court.
Jason Darkflame W ht? I need the letter ' ' tho. You know wh t, I own the letter 'b' now then.
I now own the rest of the ‘ lph et. H ve fun with th t.
I own breathing and everything in existence
I can sue you for you trying to sue
You know how ez it is to not use that letter?
I now own " "ll the numbers
Thank you for an interesting video. I am now your fan and subscriber. Best wishes to you.
He won today Adam, the Shape of You case. Absolutely the best news for artists I think. How about you do a summary and commentary? Many thanks Tony
People who sue others over music fundamentally don’t understand what music as an art form is
Nah they just want money
@@Sockem1223 Money for nothing. Scumsuckers.
they said in the video the original composer is dead...so obviously i's someone trying to make money who owns the late composers rights o the song...
Money.
Unless the melody is completely stolen. The comparison between “Amazing” by Matt Cardle and “Photograph” by Sheeran is possibly the only type of lawsuit which has some actual logical basis.
There's something wrong with pop music when people are suing eachother for sounding too similar, nearing the line of stealing.
I thought that the entire point of pop is that it all sounds the same
punch3870 Not necessarily. The whole point of a genre is that songs within it tend to sound the same.
All pop music definitely doesn't sound the same....if you've spent any amount of time listening to it.
One could just as easily say there's something wrong with baroque music, metal music, indie music, and literally any other genre.
What's wrong here is people being greedy for money and trying to find theft where there isn't any; not the genres.
HrhMk pop music is more susceptible to sounding similar because of its simplified chordal and rhythmic structure. The lack of modulation is already a huge hindrance. More complex music like the Baroque style will present more possibilities, producing different sounds and ideas as long as how far conventional theory can take you.
As a genre itself, creating pop only becomes difficult when trying to write something different than pop.
Didn't you just watch the video? He talks about making new music based on old music being one of the pillars of musical tradition....
Fanchen Maybe I just don't have an idea of what resides exclusively under the pop genre, cause I usually think of just whatever plays on top 10 stations but that can't be the case cause while those stations dont play distinct genres like metal or rap, the artists also dont sound the same at all and many probably fall under multiple genres. Now country, country music sounds exactly like what you just described.
Every time I am watching an Adam Neely video, I feel like I am watching a lecture. And I love it! This is the kind of education that I want. 😊
To be honest, I feel inspired to make my own UA-cam channel of educational content...every time I watch his videos.
In the future every song must have a unique tempo, and it gets to the point where every song is only a few seconds long or days long
*plot twist*
Ed Townsend isn’t suing Ed Sheeran for copying the song but for copying his first name
No he is not, because he is dead. Also you can't own your name.
Alex Harshegyi haha relax! Only a joke :)
Daniel Paul Music
he should sue his parents
@@captainalex8003 r/woosh
I was just about to comment on the same First Name Copyright Infringement matter.
Damn, by that logic every metal, punk, and hard rock song have been in violation of copyright for using the same 3 chord patterns.
There goes a few genres
well damn, shots were fired
(but I totally agree)
Certain minimalist styles of metal maybe, but metal as a whole? No.
@Shockheadd45 I'm not saying the vast majority of metal consists of original chord progressions (there being so many bands, of course there are going to be plenty of similar progressions), but metal as a whole is nowhere near the level of simplicity of genres like punk, and is not based on just a couple of familiar chord progressions.
The OP seems to imply metal does only consist of a handful of chord progressions, similar to genres like punk. There has been some evolution since the days that bands like Motörhead, Judas Priest, Mötley Crüe, Black Sabbath, etc. dominated the genre. Not every metal band still bases its song structures mainly on blues, rock'n'roll, etc.
Basically everything you can do with a guitar, has been done by some metal band. The past decade plenty of bands have based their whole sound on dissonance, atonality, microtonality and several other unconventional writing methods (Suffering Hour, Deathspell Omega, Skáphe, Last Sacrament, Malthusian, ...), other bands have used progressions inspired by classical music for decades (not just talking about obvious stuff like neo-classical and symphonic metal) and still come up with fresh sounding stuff (Cor Scorpii, Týr, Mistur, ...), etc.
Oouf, that's gonna upset some people lol.
@@Bock3039 someone's gonna copyright Chugging then you are all fucked.
Excellent analysis. Thanks!!
"Hey There Georgy Girl"...and many, many more. I agree with you 100% and most depressing is your closing statement: The jury won't have a clue what's actually going on.
I swear people in this age sue for the money. It's like a lottery at this point. Also, its usually a ridiculous amount of money too. They do sound similar though but since you exposed the chords not being the same I guess it doesnt make any sense lol
Yep
Tbh thinking out loud is one of ed sheerans most popular songs, it probably made an unimaginably large amount of money. If you knew that number, the amount he's being sued for might make a little more sense
I guarantee you, suing for the money is not a new thing.
YOUR ARGUMENT THAT YOU CAN'T COPYRIGHT TWO BASS NOTES ("Under Pressure" by Queen & Bowie) IS CHILDISH AND IGNORANT.
I once got copyrighted for doing a cover. The people tried to put ads on the video just in case I didn’t do anything about it.
And I did.
This video is so good it makes me not wanna post the one I made... dammit Adam.
LOL
0:59 get rekt, n00bs
Post it in 6 months time and swear you never saw this one.
Sue him.
Do it and ill get my lawyers on you for copyright infringement
Aight cool I’ll make sure when I use this chord progression I’ll make it at 81 bpm
4:30 those two chords that he lets us hear are also in ballad of the cats by c418, in that order (not the exact chords but are functionally similar and sound almost the same). Lawsuits for music, specifically chords, don't make sense because there's only so many combinations and anything you write is bound to sound similar to at least something else out there. The only time lawsuits should happen is if its more of a copy paste situation where they use a significant portion of the same things at the same point in the song, or take an artists name, song/album name, or lyrics.
Lmao I was talking about the I6 iii comparison all that time ago, look at that I-I6-IV its literally Gusty Garden Galaxy my guy
What's next? Everyone using the Canon in D progression suing everyone else using the Canon progression? This is getting out of hand
All the royalties will go to Canon Inc.
There's more in common between these songs than just the chord progression. If it was about the chord progression on its own, yes, you would have a point. But since the accompaniment parts of these two songs sound so similar (it's about the whole arrangement, so the combination of chords, bassline, drum beat, groove, instrumentation), I don't think it's really getting out of hand - I can see a justification for this case. Though, I'm a bit on the fence on this one. I'm not sure if the accompaniment part in the Marvin Gaye song should be considered an original enough idea. Because I think it's definitely more unique and recognizable than a stylistic cliche like the "boogie woogie riff", but it's really not as unique/recognizable as the accompaniment part of a song like "Bohemian Rhapsody" (I mean, when you hear that piano riff, you know instantly that it's "Bohemian Rhapsody", and if some other song used that same accompaniment pattern, it would be a total rip off). It's kind of in between those two.
It’s just crazy it’s literally like suing someone for using letters or sonething
MaggaraMarine
Honestly I want the case to be thrown out primarily because it's a blatant scam. It's not protecting the work of an artist, their legacy, or the livelihood of that artist's family; it's a firm trying to abuse the legal system for profit.
If they win this case this sort of cynical profiteering will only become more common, and that's not good for anyone.
I would also like to point out that "stylistic cliches" differ from cases like this because of how frequently they're imitated. There's no way to objectively define the point where a combination of recognizable elements transcends personal ownership and become public domain.
The "q. e_h q. e_h" pattern is exactly the same in both songs' verses.
Back in music college here in Brazil I used to say that "no one ever composed or written anything entirely unseen after J.S.Bach"
Mathcartney tru dat!
Iannis Xennakis? Pretty far out guy. saudações
Bach = Endgegner 😎
Bach is still the guy with the biggest cock in music aka o que bota o pau na mesa mesmo depois de séculos
Denis Willer this might be the best comment I've ever seen
Thank you Adam for explaining in such simple terms that anyone other than a moron could understand. I think that this increasing incidence of lawsuits over copyright is killing the enjoyment of making music for many people. How anyone can think that they 'own' chords or chord progressions is iniquitous & dangerous. Lets face it, these lawsuits are only about money. I have often wondered how so many people put up music videos on You Tube without seeming to infringe someone else's copyright. Do they all have 'permission' to play cover songs? I doubt it.
I absolutely agree. This is a I- I6- IV- V chord progression. This is probably one of, if not the most common chord progression in western music. You cannot copyright chord progressions. I'm a bit confused about the timing of this video, however. Isn't this a relatively recent lawsuit? This video is 4 years old. Was this lawsuit filed 4 years ago?
Nice work sir, good to see you upping the video-ante again! Praying this suit gets thrown out. The Blurred Lines/Got to give it up lawsuit was already a step too far.
I think it would be fun and prove a point if some composers took some time to write completely different songs with the same chords and rhythm as thinking out loud to end this discussion ;) If I found some motivation I‘d do it as well🤔
That's a really good idea
Did it ;)
That Blurred Lines case was a disgrace to law and music.
You call yourself a composer but want this law suit thrown out? Any musician with ears would know if there ever was a blatant knock off this is just that. Its not only the chord progression, the tempo, placement of the 4 chords on the third beat of each bar, bass line etc. Its like taking the music from the Beatles song 'Hard Days Night' and adding another melody and different lyrics to it. Then saying it was mine. Would that deserve a law suit too? Well yes it would.
That means every producer of house-music should get royalties for almost every pop music currently
Yes, and then they must give them all to early Hip Hop producers who worked out how to use the machines :) The Hip Hop producers can then give all the royalties to the funk/blues musicians and so on until the Caveman/woman that first hit a stone with a stick gets what he/she deserves! Nothing is new!
And every house producer should get royalties for every person that owns a house.
Sir, this video is extremely well researched
Excellent analysis and debunking of the lawsuit. I have used the I I6 IV V progression in my own songs. Guess I better be careful.....
you mean... the same progression in every 50's piece???
Eeeeey! Someone who knows what an axolotl is! Aren't ya a cool kid?
@@void_fimshe ???
A lot of them literally just play the blues proggression in arpeggios for the bassline too.
@@crazycoder2434 my old profile picture was an axolotl
Well... You mean every Doo Wop piece. There were all of TWO chord progressions in the fifties.
You just did the lawyer’s work
mxonlight - but will the judge understand?
Literally just send it to the lawyers and let the case end quickly
Thank you for the explanation. Makes so much sense.
Surely a ‘Jury of Peers’ in this case would need to be musically educated to a reasonable degree, in a perfect world perhaps anyway.
Luckily there will almost assuredly be Expert Witnesses in a case like this
Jared McLaren but will the jury be able to comprehend their evidence?