‘Criminal’: Ed Sheeran Slams Musicology Expert in ‘Thinking Out Loud’ Copyright Trial
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 тра 2023
- Singer Ed Sheeran returned to the stand and called out the plaintiff’s musicology expert, saying their testimony was “criminal.” Sheeran is being sued for alleged copyright infringement of Marvin Gaye's "Let's Get It On" in his song “Thinking Out Loud.” Law&Crime Daily’s Terri Austin breaks down what happened inside the courtroom.
L&C Daily Hosted By:
Brian Buckmire: / thebuckesq
Terri Austin: / terridaustin
Jesse Weber: / jessecordweber
Producers:
Savannah Williamson
Heather Berzak: / heatherberzaktv
#EdSheeran #ThinkingOutLoud #LawAndCrime
STAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:
Watch Law&Crime Network on UA-camTV: bit.ly/3td2e3y
Where To Watch Law&Crime Network: bit.ly/3akxLK5
Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletter
Read Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: bit.ly/3td2Iqo
LAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:
Instagram: / lawandcrime
Twitter: / lawcrimenetwork
Facebook: / lawandcrime
Twitch: / lawandcrimenetwork
TikTok: / lawandcrime
LAW&CRIME NETWORK PODCASTS: lawandcrime.com/podcasts/
SUBSCRIBE TO ALL OF LAW&CRIME NETWORK UA-cam CHANNELS:
Main Channel: / @lawandcrime
Law&Crime Shorts: / @lawandcrimeshorts
Channel B: / @lawandcrimetrials
Channel C: / @lawandcrimebodycam - Розваги
Copyright was designed to protect ORIGINAL elements of a song. This lawsuit is based on a very common ,elementary, standard UNORIGINAL 4-chord progression and a standard UNORIGINAL rhythm. Neither of these elements were created by Townsend, both of these elements are public domain.
If Sheeran does not win, it means they have achieved Private ownership of the common basic building blocks of music, in effect "stealing" these elements from free public use and demanding royalties from everyone on the planet. This effects EVERY SONGWRITER, and thousands of songs past, present, and future. Sheeran used NOTHING that "belongs" to Townsend, this chord progression and this rhythm belongs to everyone to create with freely. Van Morrison and many others used this sound before Townsend/Gaye.
What makes it common?
100% agree
@@wintersantiago2274the basic building blocks for cord construction are not owned by anybody. There are typical rules that have to be followed. You can have multiples of the same chord progression and and have completely different melodies. There are things that you can do such as passing from one note to another, going in opposite direction then and coming back (neighbors), completely escaping, or staying the same while the rest of the chord is moving (contrary motion), The effect of this trial cannot be understated. Look up pachabels rant.
@@wintersantiago2274 Why are there muscial ganres like "soul"? It's because they share common elements.
well said @M gray
What does Kathy know about music? She’s a nepo baby that should count her blessings that her dad wrote a great song. Disrespecting his memory.
The fact that her father wrote a good song is why she is here.. This is America, blessings don't pay the bills.
@@tallgirlsrock2466my dad always taught me I need to build my own empire instead of riding on the coattails of success he built for himself! Sad that her parents haven’t instilled in her the value of hard work!
I hope Ed wins this case. What a horrible woman.
For a musicologist to claim two vocal melodies are substantially similar when they don't even share one note in common IS criminal.
The VOCAL melodies of Thinking Out Loud and "Let's Get It On" are completely different,
it certainly was wrong for the musicologist to sell his soul to intentionally mislead the jury.
Jeeze this Woman looks like a villain in a Disney movie.
Lol..
This lawsuit is nothing but a cash grab.
That's my feeling as well
They already have money as they have marvin gaye estate worth 9 million so i think its more cus they won the first case against Robin thick
@@prettyboiiartistic lol it’s still nothing but cash grab his family really out there suing EVERYONE! They need to get a job and I hope they have to pay Ed Sheeran s legal fees
@@Catsss1017 with marvin gaye royalties i think they want more money lol they set for life they dont need to work if you making 9 mill a year
That woman is just trying to get rich by all means.
If she holds the copywrite to let's get it on she should have enough money.
She's already rich Kay. Don't hate. Congratulate 😂
@@lobsterblacc9478 She's not rich because of her brains. She's another ignorant person who thinks people owe her. What a loser! What do I have to congratulate her for she did nothing
@@lobsterblacc9478 I don't think that anybody's begrudging her or anyone else of being rich, more power to them, but let's not stop anybody else! This entire copyright thing is starting to be a bit much and yes what about the musical minds coming in the future??💙💙
Copyright is there for a reason
If he loses every artist is in a risk of getting sued any second.
If she wins again she won’t stop
No. True artists, who do not plagiarize are not at risk, obviously.
Give credit where it’s due
@@j.artiste8596 Every songwriter “plagiarises” according to your logic. Every decently-sounding chord progression has been explored in the past, therefore any new song using these progressions could be sued. Which makes no sense; it’s like copyrighting the primary colours.
@@ztcr6 “have some self-respect”… says the person commenting on a subject that they have an obvious lack of knowledge about. You’re still using these chord progressions even if you are the most talented artist in the world: pop music only uses a few progressions, and outside the world of pop music there’s still only a small amount of chord progressions that sound good - those would have been used many times in the past. All of your favourite artists are talentless according to your own logic, since they are all guilty of “plagiarism”
As an amateur singer-songwriter, I am afraid this garbage suit could somehow actually win. That would set a precedence that would choke the life out of future artists, denying them freedom of creativity simply because of common similarities. Ed deserves a counter-suit for defamation and his time wasted.
I totally agree with you 110%
@@mastersplinter483 your spot on
@@mastersplinter483 one thing that will happen it will force music to be original and might actually save music as we know it
@@mastersplinter483 Do you know what a chord progression is? They are repeated in nearly every song ever written. I IV V is the blues. Let's get it on uses a I iii IV V progression and so do 100's of other popular songs in the last century. Every chord progression has been captured in classical music anyways which is nearly all public domain at this point.
This musical expert is a fraud and is using this niche to make money.
just let everyone know about Van Morrison crazy love. For Townsend and Gayes, its just about the money, I think Van Morrison needs to speak up.
Ed doesn’t need to steal anyone’s music! Get a life lady!
And a job
Lots of videos on UA-cam that clearly detail his continued theft. Look it up. He has to pay the ‘no scrubs’ writers, he has settled more than once out of court. Why does this keep happening to him if he ‘doesn’t need to steal’?
@@JamesCM86 he credited no scrubs in that song, along with others, Ed doesn’t need to steal anything your full of it! It’s called tall poppy syndrome, if someone grows to tall people just want to cut them down
You can not copyright a chord tempo
Don't just put words together to try and sound smart, because you'll end up doing the opposite.
Yeah. That’s not what this case is about
Think before you comment,😊😊😂
Ed got his inspiration from let's get it on
Townsend sounds like a money grubber
100%
The money grabber is Ed Sheeran and his continuing theft of peoples song. He has made millions stealing from lesser known artists. How many times has this happened to him? Is is a coincidence?
As an older person and knowing Marvin’s Let’s Get It On very well, I can’t hear it sorry…..Ed Sheerans song is just that, Ed Sheerans song.
Ok expert
@@JamesCM86 I’m sorry, I can’t seem to find in my comment that I professed to be an expert? I believe I said I know both songs and they sound nothing alike. You can use computer technology on any two songs and make them sound the same. Plenty of artists do shuffles combining two or more songs, usually from different eras.
In the end Marvin Gaye’s family gained nothing from all these lawsuits whata sad world of music… power to Ed Sheeran 💯
This music copyrighted bs is getting out of control. There's only so many chords, and so many ways to play those chords together. Smh
“…they’re all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order.” Eric Morecambe.
she’s literally just trying to get a quick check. smfh
Expert looks like gargamel from the smurfs
Music wasn't meant to be scientifically analyzed for lawsuits. Not in my opinion. It is meant to be felt, expressed and appreciated for its uniqueness.
I have been told that I look at this from an emotional viewpoint, rather than a logic & law perspective. That may be so. But music is an emotional thing. This was my best friend's wedding song, and I am sure they aren't the only ones. I don't think it's right. They don't seem to care who they hurt in the process at all. People are saying to artists, “come up with totally brand-new music with no similarities to others”. I say, why is no one telling those provoking this lawsuit to do the same? This doesn't enhance the legacy of music other artists leave behind when they pass on. It destroys it.
Music analysis for copyright and law just destroys music in my opinion. Eventually, it will be so hard to create anything new… nobody will want to.
As they keep inputting more and more songs into their sample's, it will be harder and harder for the human brain to create anything that doesn't somehow resemble another artist's work. Eventually, there will be none. And people will have no one to blame but themselves for greed, a sense of superiority and human dictation of “rightness”.
It's coming. Our technology and computers will cancel all things we do as people. Replacing all kinds of workers in different sectors, and here we see it destroying the ability to create art. We have AI technology writing people's papers for them. I think it's only a matter of time.
We'll see. Personally, I don't like this. They say Ed committed a crime against Marvin. I say they are committing a crime against music.
Great points. But could you explain how you're linking these lawsuits' ability to destroy anyone's venture into musical creativity and your points concerning AI technology? It seems like a non sequitur. Or are you just adding another source that could destroy creativity that is not necessarily linked to your points concerning these lawsuits?
@@lazybugger I mean one could argue that in the example of chat, GPT doing someone’s homework, there is a potential that I could learn how to create a basic score if you gave it the right parameters, sort of like how we learn in theory. Of course, we will have to take it to learn movable and fixed Do. I’m pretty sure we already have melody identification software.
Thing is, this woman should've already taken action in regeards to ed sheeran's song the moment thinking out loud was actually popular. it's literally mainstream, yet they took over 9 YEARS just to file this lawsuit, meaning that they practically waited for the song to be a hit and then the money that song earned may have been the bounty of some sort over this nonsense chord progression lawsuit.
like keep in mind, there are lots of songs that use similar notes or beats. four on the floor beat for example was a beat originally made and popularized by Earl Young, and over decades later, this beat can be heard in thousands of house genre music.
Because he paid off the first accuser, that opened the door for more
The Michael Jackson effect..
Not really, that townsend lady out there looking for songs from big stars to sue cause she knew it could get her some big cash just like what happened to robin thicke's blurred lines. Greedy!
Imagine a painter suing another painter because he used the same colors on a painting 🧐
That is not a good analogy, at all!
@@tallgirlsrock2466 how? Explain
@@buba5710
Because what's in question isn't the paint, but the originality of the painting.
What's being alleged, using the analogy is that Ed's painting looks too similar to Marvin's.
A better analogy would be "Imagine painter A suing painter B because both painted the sun and trees in a painting of trees on a sunny day."
@@dugnice still waiting on her own answer.
They are discussing the chords. Not the lyrics. Thus I used paint and not the content of the image
@@buba5710
The plaintiff alleges more than just chords are the same as let's get it on. The plaintiff alleges the chords, rhythm, melody, tempo are the same, so we're talking what the painting portrays, not what colors were used.
Plaintiff says "his painting of the beach looks just like this painting of the beach that predates his."
My objective opinion is that while Ed's song is different overall, there are parts of it that sound identical to parts of Let's get it on.
Should he have to pay $100 million for that? Probably not, but I think the similarities are strong enough that he should have to pay something, MUCH LESS than $100 million.
Someone should analyze a few Marvin Gaye songs, guarantee they will be similar to songs written and sung years before he came around. Ridiculous!
If the estate wins, I hope that people come out of the woodwork to do the same to them.
@Joo Ki Ah, thank you for the correction! I just assumed due to the previous suit against Robin Thicke and Pharrel Willians for Blurred Lines.
Idk about that buddy he was definitely ahead of his time and a unit style
The two songs aren’t similar at all and the chords in common are common for thousands of songs
exactly!🤣
They have similar chord progression
They are similar, if they weren't this wouldn't be going on for so long.
Also, this is not the first time he has been accused off this.
@@Nozylatten it’s always going to be an issues with simple chords
There are so many songs out there that sound so similar 😂🤣😂
Nothing better than people who had zero to do with a song trying to sue and get money for it. Music copy rights should end with the death of the artist.
Now that's an idea, a great one!!
it should end 10 years after the death of the artist. but if you do a cover, then the artist should always be credited.
Are we going to really believe “musicologist” is a legit job we’re going to call people an expert in 💀
Truth be told I hope Eddy gets the win on this. Let’s not discredit musicology and the studies of composition though, because the ideas of music theory and lay a groundwork for the endless possibilities of passionate song writers. Time signatures, modes, keys, bpm. All really important
Now that he won, I'm curiously as to what that woman has to pay for this crap she put him through. If the songs sound similar to her, she must be deaf😂
So, a "common chord progression" belongs to only one artist? Someone should dig into songs written before "Let's Get It On" or any other song written by or for M... IMO.
YUP!!!
Wasn't it stated in court that these cords had been used many times before even Gaye and Townsend even used them in Get It On Song.They have been used many times after..
So Ed is getting sued for what Gaye and Townsend did many years ago ...
Funny, the song “Bam Bam” actually reminds me of Fonseca’s “Te Mando Flores”. Nobody is suing? Lol.
As an music artist… if Ed quits… I UNDERSTAND HIM!
We are vulnerable individuals as it is. 💯✌🏾😞🎶✨🔥
The fact you can even go to court over musics notes is ridiculous. There’s literally only 6 strings on a guitar and only soo many ways to play it.
I’ll definitely take the more credible musician that writes his own music, plays the instruments, and perform it himself. Than the soo called “expert” that just knows how to put notes to paper.
It wouldn’t be the first time somone would have stole somone help music and ven the nirvana drummer said it he used some
Of the gab band music
There’s 12 notes and basically an infinite combination of them. I’ve been playing guitar since I was a kid
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
@@patstaysuckafreeboss8006 An infinite combination in theory, but only so many that actually sound good, considering how much music is actually out there, you are bound to get similarities between songs overtime.
Honestly, they should be able to prove someone deliberately did plagiarism (nearly impossible) or even better put a realistic time cap on rights.
@@patstaysuckafreeboss8006 7 notes in a diatonic scale. And when it comes to chords, there's only 6 chords in a diatonic excluding diminished, and not counting alterations/extensions.
I want to hear him play what he did on the stand
Normally I'd say this lawsuit is a joke and will never win, but Blurred Lines had even less of a case and it somehow lost, so...
Music has tons of repeat chords, lyrics and tempos. If Ed had identically remade song, then maybe there’s a copyright but that’s not true, case dismissed.
I adore ED SHERRAN
He is brilliant and and amazingly musician
I LOVE myself some Ed Sheeran!!
i still dont understand why cover bands or some djs dont get hit with cease and desists or have to pay royalties.
Greedy and the word you can not say.
,umm, you do mean 'Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious' ?
untrained listeners shouldn't be making any decisions. Lets get it on sounds like crazy love. Why didn't Van Morrison sue Gaye and Townsend, probably because he is an artist and knows theory.
A short chord progression shouldn't be copyrightable, especially something so common. The second chord is even different. The key is different. What is the argument here? They can own a chord progression at any key, and everything that deviates from it by one chord? That will be so broad.
Yeh, there are only so many cords, you will get crossovers it's a numbers game, more than one song can sound similar. I'm no fan at all of Ed's music (not my cup of tea) but this is a nothing burger of a case
So we need Van Morrison to come back and sue the Lets get it on lady
Did Bruno Mars sue Miley Cyrus for her hit song flowers? 💀
Have anyone heard Ava Max being sued for her exact melody song? 💀
Maroon 5 - Won't go home without you's verse is the same as Every Breath You Take.
Lana del Rey - Young and beautiful intro vs Jessie J - Laser Light?
I mean there are lots.
Lori, her husband, and her brother were all nuts!
I want to copyright the note C! anyone who uses it- beware 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I can hear what they were accusing him of but it’s simply not even close to that similar. Good call on the not guilty verdict.
He was found not liable, and this is a COMMON chord progression!
So someone cant have creativity and use a couple of notes that someone else has used? I mean how can someone claim that all the music notes belong to one person? I just don't understand
She is desperate! So sad!
With all due respect when writing titles don't be biased,reporters should present facts not opinions
you can't own a chord progression, putting a different lyrics even makes it a different song already.
Thankfully, there is now precedent which should allow Ed Sheeran to win, or at the very least allow a possible loss by him to be overturned. The win by Led Zeppelin in the lawsuit against them over Stairway to Heaven, means these lawsuits are essentially frivolous and without merit.
Im glad he won the case
If he loses this case, the whole music industry is in trouble.
No, he is because he cannot come up with anything original
@@JamesCM86 *the whole music industry
Chords progressions is very very common. There are only 7 major chords, it’s silly to restrict artists to his own chords mix. It’s just plain silly and nonsense. But then again, there’s money in lawsuits so why not sue a grammy winning song using an uncharted forgotten song
Seems to me as if Townsend is greedy, 2 lawsuits? Seriously?!
Just listened to the song and it sounds Nothing like it.... They're looking for money.. ..💲💲💲💲. 😮
I was whistling in my shower age 8 in 1962. A year later, a band issued a song called She loves you and the bridge was what I was whistling the year before. Can I suddenly sue these artists?
Did you copyright what you were whistling in the shower at age 8? Lol
Yes! If you are an @sshole!! Lol
There's a particular New Orleans brass band "secondline" group "Rebirth brass band which has a very popular musical song called," Do watcha wanna" which has a certain chord and line in it similar to the '70's funk group, "Con Funk Shun" with their song, "Ffun", I wonder if they (Rebirth) can be sued in the same way?
A good artist steals a bad artist copys
I’ve never seen a human with more husky-like eyes 😳
Very charming comment😳
Now that you said it.....
Judith Fennell, right?
I'm with you, like, whoa 😳
I've actually been told that about my own eyes. 😮
If the estate of Ed townsend win then the estate of the penguins should sue Ed townsend for, "for your love" sounding sexacly the same as "earth angel". When you try and mimic the style of a certain music genre, of course some elements are going to sound the same.
if ed stole this song from Townsend, then Townsend stole "for your love" from "earth angel" by the penguins...I really hope the jury has some common sense as almost every single genre of music follows a very similar chord structure, rhythm and melody section.
Ed Sheeran won, and this is a great thing.
They did the same thing to Pharrell and now Ed Sheeran over stealing Gayes songs. It seems crazy. Good for Ed
Thousands of songs sound the same🙄 just ridiculous
I am not a singer, but the songs are different! It sounds different. No similarity is totally different.
The music is the same
@@wintersantiago2274some of the chord progressions are the same but those same chord progressions have been used for over 100 years.
A songwriter who uses these common chord progressions is obviously less creative than a songwriter who comes up with something uncommon. Both Marvin Gaye and Ed Sheehan use pretty much the same common chord progression with the same number of beats per chord and similar tempo. These chord progressions form the basis of both songs. The drum beat and basslines are also very similar. So these elements are the pre-made canvas upon which to create you own melody and lyrics. Songwriters who do this are actually writing less (being less creating and doing less creating) than songwriters who choose more unique chord progressions. Take the Mona Lisa, change her hair color and fingernail color change a couple things in the background and there you go. No copyright infringement. Steal without "stealing." Thank you Leonardo for doing the heavy lifting so I can profit.
Looks like she ran out of daddys money
Just like some of the other "family members" before her..... Apparently it's a great way to obtain money that you never ever did anything to earn, straight greed off of the backs of real musicians/ writers etc.....
What she's saying about only comparing the lead sheets is complete nonsense. The lawsuit for blurred lines ruled that they copied Marvin gay's "groove"
With all due respect when writing titles don't be biased,reporters should present facts bot opinions
At what point in time will musicians run out of unique chord progressions and start continually recycling tunes that sound similar?
Just because she says it doesnt mean its true
The gaye estate is staining marvin Gaye's music legacy
Can’t believe it even went to court the most generic chord progression and drum beat was used, millions of songs use them.
Why does this KEEP happening to Ed Sheeran? He has settled more than once out of court for other songs….seems to be a pattern
Ffs you can’t reinvent the wheel there’s only so many chords
If the lead sheets are identical… ouch blurred lines all over again.
Justice for Sheeran
I Believe this is just a cash grab.
He is right.There are only a few cords that every song uses in different order. A lot of songs will sound the same.
I think Ed Sheeran's music is really not my cup of tea. But, I don't see the similarities,,,
Frivolous lawsuit. Counter sue.
O k I heard two songs right now and I don't understand
This musicologist acts like theres a right way to look at music. What education did you get? Four years of learning notes and being able to write them down wow. Majority of people dont know that and cant keep up. wow. ))))
Tarantino admits to stealing from so many movies and it’s evident in his work. It enhances his work. Imagine if he were sued for it. Not that there is any similarity to these songs. So happy Ed won.
Ed guest starring in the new Archie comic! Cool 🤙
As an extremely untrained ear, they sound very much alike once I listen. But I don’t know the difference between chord progressions, rhythm, and all that other stuff y’all are saying in the comments. Hopefully the people in the jury know more than me
No less a music expert than Rick Beato says the songs are "pretty identical". He says this in his latest video on this matter. He is comparing the 2 bar, 4 chord sequence in question, in the recordings of both songs. He demonstrates this clearly. Why are all the comments below saying they are not the same ? Are they all deaf ? Listen to his latest post on this matter.
First, this case is based ONLY on the sheet music. The plaintiffs don't own the recording. Sony does.
Just because certain elements sound the same doesn't make it infringement.
When Beato compares the sheet music of the two songs he shows the songs have nothing in common.
When he does say the progressions are the "same", he does point out the second chord in the progression IS different, but then brushes That fact off as insignificant which it is not. He transposes the key (TOL is D Major, LGIO is E Flat Major), equalizes the tempo (TOL is 78 bpm, LGIO is 83bpm), and "washes out" the distinctive warbling funky guitar riffing a melody with the progression in "Let's.." when comparing the bass line melody to make them seem more the same.
He fails to mention that this is one of the most common elementary progressions used in hundreds of songs and that the rhythm is also standard. He also fails to point out other artists like Van Morrison used this combination prior to "Let's Get It On" He gives the false impression that because the chord progression/ rhythm sound similar, it means infringement.
It certainly does NOT. Townsend did not create 1 3 4 5 or this standard rhythm, they are public domain.
The big picture is if Sheeran does not win this case, they will have established private ownership of basic building blocks, requiring EVERYONE on the planet, not just Sheeran, to pay THE TOWNSENDS ROYALTIES to use the 1 3 4 5 and to use this standard rhythm neither of which were created by Townsend , both of which have always been FREE to use by ALL songwriters. Get the big picture now?
@@mgray7927 Yes, I know all that. It has been said a million times on various utube postings. The big problem is your 4th paragraph where you say the rhythm is standard. A Forensic Musicologist called Joe Bennett does the best analysis of what you are saying for British Channel 4 news. He then demonstrates 5 or 6 rhythms that he says have the same rhythm.This includes the Van Morrison one. He is wrong. They do not have the same rhythm. To him, the same or similar makes no difference. In music it makes a massive difference. I cannot explain anymore. You must know that there are examples of music that sound great and examples of music that are very similar that sound average. If you do not know this I cannot help you.
@@mgray7927 Something else I should add, is that the musician who plays the bass on LGIO is one of the most celebrated musicians of his generation. The reason he has reached this status is because he doesn't do building block music. I can imagine you calling Charlie Parker or Jimi Hendrix, building block.
@@TranquiloTrev That is the reason the bass line of the two songs is DIFFERENT. Sheeran's bass is playing a predictable straightforward 1 3 4 5. The "let's Get It On" bass is a lot more ornamented. It is not the same.
@@TranquiloTrev You are defining the RHYTHM as THE WAY in which the basic chords 1 3 4 5 are played. The second and fourth chords anticipated creates this rhythm. Any way you slice it, you still can NOT copyright a chord progression OR more importantly THE WAY THAT BASIC CHORD PROGRESSION IS PLAYED. Imagine EVERYONE that has used 1 3 4 5 in their song demanding ownership of THEIR particular variation of 1 3 4 5. It would create chaos and cripple everyone's ability to create, not knowing who owned what slight variation of rhythm in which 1 3 4 5 is played.
Playing a progression with chord anticipation is a musical device. "Let's" wasn't the first to use this idea.
The IDEA is FREE for all to create with.
If AMY Wadge liked the chord anticipation she heard in a Van Morrison song and decided to use this IDEA on the second and fourth chords of HER progression IN D MAJOR . She had every right to. She didn't have to scour the planet to see if someone else may have done something similar because basic chord progressions AND the way they are played are FREE PUBLIC DOMAIN.
I mean, it does sound like it a little bit, but there are a lot of songs out there that I can say, have the same beat as others.
Is it just me or does that woman look like she'd sue someone for eating a Big Mac because its been done before?
And he can’t be with his family when his nan has passed because of this it disgusts me people keep doing this!!! Love ya Ed x
The first time I heard “Thinking Out Loud”, I thought wow.. they took the riff & groove from “Let’s Get It On” and created new verses. It’s not just the similarity of notes ,but the groove / rhythmic feel. But whether the plaintiff has a legal case (?), I have no idea 😷
Many people have heard the same riff and groove in older songs, so no their argument is not valid. They are trying to attain ownership and royalties for a riff/groove that was already public domain years before "Let's Get It On"
Yep, she ran out of daddy's money again. She ran out of blurred lines money. Now she is coming after this legend Ed Sherran!
Whoa. That facelift..
I personally attended this court hearing...Ed has another song that describes himself as committing 'hidden' plagiarism...WHY... He admitted in court he has no extensive music training and...the musicologist is a professional musician and has a PhD in musicology...Ed has numerous accusations of stealing from others....hummmmm...Kathryn is only 1/3 of the suit....2/3 of the suit was Ed Townsend's sister and wife's estate...Kathryn is NOT the only plaintiff although she would like to think she is....🤣
They didn't let him explain what those lyrics that he wrote in a 2010 rap song REALLY mean. He was saying HE didn't want someone plagiarizing HIM. Rippin out the writtens means literally tearing pages out of his notebook as he created a song.
Using lyrics to a song written when he was 18, open to interpretation, is not viable evidence of anything. It is disturbing that you were impressed by that, hope the jury wasn't.
I don't care how many degrees a musicologist has there IS a difference between the major chord Sheeran plays in the song and the Minor chord in "let's Get It On" Sheeran knows what he is playing, the musicologist only interprets blindly from what he believes is on the sheet music, or what he thinks he hears. Regardless, it is STILL one of the most common progressions on the planet. Townsend didn't invent it. Sheeran shouldn't have to prove anything.
I recommend you look up your favorite popular artist, you'll find if they have money making music they too will have numerous accusations. If they settle, which most do, it never gets to the media. Sheeran is fighting this for all songwriters, no one should privately own basic building blocks of music that should remain free for everyone on to use without fear. THAT is what this is about. PROTECTING PUBLIC DOMAIN ELEMENTS OF MUSIC FOR EVERYONE ON THE PLANET TO USE FREELY.
The Musicologist sold his soul by claiming the vocal melodies were "the same" when they don't even have one note in common. This was a transparent attempt to mislead the jury.
The similarities lie only in the chord progression, rhythm, both public domain.
The question is why does this KEEP happening to Ed?
from the thumbnail i thought this was a joke vid
So glad Ed won. What a shameful suit.
they sound nothing alike to me